Analysis Of The Editorial ' A Case Of Discrimination '

The editorial “A Case of Discrimination” published in the New York Times claims the Supreme Court should rule in favor of Hastings College of Law over the student group Christian Legal Society. The authors state the college has always had a non-discrimination policy that applied to all student groups and required them not to discriminate to receive official recognition from the college. They argue that Christian Legal Society had previously adhered to this policy and then in 2004 began to ask members to sign a statement of faith. Due to this, Hastings College of Law derecognized the student group and they sued claiming a denial of their First Amendment rights. Hastings College of Law wrote their policy to conform to California state law, which makes it illegal for state funded post-secondary educational institutions to discriminate based on religion or sexual orientation. Therefore, Hastings College of Law decided it was illegal for their student groups to discriminate as well. The Ninth Circuit decided in favor of Hastings College of Law declaring their rules viewpoint neutral and reasonable (1). Although the claim appears logical, actual evidence in support of their argument is difficult to find. Thus, their conclusion is probably false, because a decision in favor of Hastings College of Law denies their student groups their First Amendment rights and ignores years of legal precedent.

The first leg of the editorial 's argument rests on Hastings non-discrimination policy covering all student groups equally, thereby achieving viewpoint neutrality. According to Hastings, their policy “permits political, social, and cultural student organizations to select officers and members who are dedicated to a particular set of ideals or bel...

... middle of paper ...

...istian groups (17??). French concurs with his opinion and describes it as a war for the right to have Christian leadership in Christian groups. The earliest case he cited describes an openly gay woman who sought to lead Tufts Christian Fellowship whose beliefs conflicted with hers. Other Christian groups on campus were more open, but she sought to lead and change the one group, which chose to exclude her based on beliefs. She did not win her fight because student groups have the right to choose with whom they associate. While colleges accept that environmentalists should lead environmental groups and Libertarians should lead Libertarians, religion appears to derail the rational thought process. A study done by the Institute for Jewish and Community Research in 2007 found most faculty admitted to strong negative outlooks towards evangelical Christians (17??). Therefor