Clubs and organizations abound on University campuses. From the chess club to the young democrats to the drama club, these groups are a great way for people with similar interests to come together and share their passions.
That being said, there has always been an element of controversy surrounding those clubs that advocate unpopular positions or specifically exclude members. The root of the problem is that the clubs are sponsored by the University funds (or at least partly), conduct their meetings in school classrooms, and are visible elements of the campus.
The latest case to get national attention and to be heard by the Supreme Court is the case of UC Hastings School of Law and a Christian club. The problem: the club actively excludes homosexuals and non-Christians from membership in the group.
There are about 165 law schools that have a similar Christian group that advocates this type of exclusion in order to better promote more “orthodox” beliefs. The issue before the court will be whether public universities can be required to subsidize openly discriminatory groups or require these types of groups to accept everyone. By following the policy of exclusion, the Christian group loses out on: activity funding, school recognition, the ability to publish in the school newspaper, and use of campus facilities. Obviously, the club claims that there is a freedom of association and freedom of religion violation taking place here.
In a recent LegalMatch study, there is a strong interest in many aspects of religious discrimination; and schools and places of employment are the most cited places where individuals feel that there has been some form of discrimination taking place. That makes sense as those are, for the most parts, public spheres where the tension is most likely to surface. When a person is not working or at school they are usually at their home or church and able to practice (or not practice) in any manner he or she chooses.
In my opinion, I think a private organization has the right to discriminate but when a club or organization is taking public funds (as is the case here) then they need to accept anyone who wants to join. why someone would want to join a club that so openly discriminates against them, is their own issue. my point is that I think this is a case where the option should be available.
Comments