You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘supreme court and campus ministry’ tag.
The several links at the bottom are the main purpose of this post. I’d encourage you to have at least a working knowledge of this case, since nobody’s really sure how it might show up on YOUR campus this fall or in the future.
Because of the holiday, I’ll see you next on Tuesday – so take some time with this one if you can!
The Supreme Court’s decision this week against the claims made by the Christian Legal Society at Hastings College of the Law was a very important decision for a field, in no small part because Collegiate Ministry has very few cases of settled law to point to.
In case you haven’t been keeping up:
- Hastings (a public law school) has established a policy requiring all officially recognized student organizations allow any and all students to participate at any position.
- The Christian Legal Society has official members (unlike most college ministry groups), and it requires these members to abide by certain practices and hold certain beliefs.
- Therefore, Hastings would not allow CLS to become an official student organization (though it did allow it access to the campus, etc.).
For now, it’s also important to note that…
The complete case hasn’t, in fact, been settled. The litigation is going back to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in order to test the claim that Hastings inconsistently applied its rule (that kept CLS from being allowed as a recognized student org). As the case proceeds, the importance for the rest of us seems to be how definitively Hastings will be required to follow its own rule (called in many of this week’s articles an “all-comers policy”). If in the weeks or months to come it becomes abundantly clear that
- this “all-comers” rule must apply equally to all groups on the campus (i.e., that all groups must allow all students access to all positions, even if those students are hostile to the purposes of the group),
- that many groups are thereby threatened by a potential “takeover” or simply interference from hostile students,
- and/or that the policy at Hastings is indeed very unique among public colleges and universities,
then the rest of us may not be much affected. In fact, it seems the more clarity on this, the better; my largest concern is not that campuses will faithfully apply this ruling, but that they’ll incorrectly apply this ruling in an overreaching way.
Again, it’s important to recognize that the ruling was narrow, directly testing whether a college ministry was, in fact, running afoul of a very specific, unusual policy. The dissenters (it was, after all, a narrow 5-4 vote) went after the rule itself as absurd.
So for more, some of the items you might find most helpful:
Still perhaps the best for a solid, easy-to-read analysis: Christianity Today’s extensive, balanced, and very helpful synopsis, which I linked the other day.
InterVarsity’s press release on the decision (with links to more) – IV seems to have dealt with more such cases in recent years than anybody, so it’s especially helpful to hear their take
Vikram Amar’s academic look at why and how the Supremes reached their decision – really helps understand the workings of the court, regardless of whether you agree with the author’s thoughts on the decision
Adam Goldstein at the Huffington Post likewise examines the Supreme Court’s process here, but unlike Amar above believes the decision “sucker punches the First Amendment”
David Opderbeck wrote about the case at the Jesus Creed blog awhile back; now he and others have several careful reflections at their Law, Religion, and Ethics blog (and regularly dialogue with each other in the comments), starting with Robert Vischer’s original reflection here.
This week at Jesus Creed, lawyer “T” shared thoughts on the decision; as often happens at the Jesus Creed blog, many comments ensued too!
Christian Legal Society obviously has some things to say; info and plenty of links can be found here; their interesting “FAQ” is here.
Hastings College of the Law’s own (brief) statement is here; also see PBS’s Religion & Ethics Newsweekly’s interview (from April) with the Dean and Acting Chancellor of Hastings, a fascinating look at how Hastings claims the policy can and should be applied
Alliance Defense Fund on what the ruling did and didn’t do, and where things go from here
—————————————————————————————
[Click to ask questions, comment, or see any comments on this post!]
As you may have heard, the Supreme Court decided against the Christian Legal Society at California’s Hastings College of Law. But the decision actually seems to have been quite narrow, because the rule in question was in fact quite specific.
Hastings has a rule on its books mandating that no campus organization can limit its membership or leadership, even around its statement of beliefs. The Supreme Court yesterday upheld this rule, which keeps the Christian Legal Society from becoming a recognized student organization because of its ban on homosexual members.
As Christianity Today’s excellent summary noted,
The majority opinion, issued by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, said that Hastings College of the Law’s “all comers” policy, which required all groups to open all positions to all students, “is a reasonable, viewpoint-neutral condition on access to the student-organization forum.” The Christian Legal Society (CLS) chapter at the University of California school, Ginsburg wrote, “seeks not parity with other organizations, but a preferential exemption from Hastings’ policy.”
However, some commentators are pointing out the very important fact that the rule at Hastings is specific to Hastings. And if, in fact, it turns out that Hastings allows some groups to “discriminate” in membership but not others (as CLS has argued), then all this could be moot anyway. The case now travels back to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to address that very issue.
Further, perhaps Hastings would even be persuaded to amend its own rule, if various other organizations realize how problematic this ruling could actually be. If any organization must allow any member to take place in any conceivable way, then it seems that all groups could lose their “groupness.”
As for the rest of us, there’s room for both hope and concern. On the one hand,
“It’s unlikely [that other universities will adopt the rule Hastings has], because an all-comers policy by and large defeats the purpose for which state universities allow student organizations to be created and recognized by the educational institution,” [Carl Esbeck, University of Missouri constitutional law professor] told CT. “Namely, that like-minded people can band together in an association or organization and thereby have not only common reinforcement among themselves but also have a greater voice because they’re speaking as a united group.”
But on the other hand, things like this can embolden both schools and students who are already inclined to make things more difficult for Christian campus ministries. So even if rules are created or actions are taken that actually run afoul of the Justices’ narrow decision here, it could take years for everything to get sorted out. That’s the way these things can pan out “on the ground,” as organizations and people are liable to overcorrect. (Of course, that could easily have happened in the other direction if the decision had gone the other way. I’m just noting the concern.)
I encourage you to take a look at the Christianity Today article, as well as Inside Higher Ed’s, which has several additional links. Inside Higher Ed has also promised complete coverage today, so that would be very worth looking at.
In case you’re wondering, the scale up there is at Xavier University!
—————————————————————————————
[Click to ask questions, comment, or see any comments on this post!]
Recent Comments