New SCOTUS Freedom of Association case may backfire on the Left
The 'tolerant' left, like those who burned this car at the G20 summit, may not like the new SCOTUS opinion
The Supremes ruled today in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez (NRO write-up here and opinion here), that a college Christian group had to admit a gay student despite the fact that it violated basic tenets of the religion. The rule at Hastings was that campus groups had to open their doors to all-comers. As Allah notes, it’s not the case that the Christian group specifically excluded gays per se, it was that they had to take the gay guy, and anybody else that wanted in. It is stupid a rule for religious groups not just because it requires Christian groups to accept gays, but because it will also require them to accept atheists, Muslims, Jews, etc., irrespective of the intent of the new non-Christian members.”
The good thing about the case is that it is probably very narrow in scope as there are few, if any, colleges that have a requirement to accept all-comers.
In other words, student groups could not exclude students from membership or leadership for any reason. This kind of policy is exceedingly rare: At the time of the oral argument, we were aware of no other university with an “all comers” policy.
Despite what you might read in the mainstream media, the court did not rule that the “classic” nondiscrimination policy (which is in force in hundreds of universities) trumped the student group’s right to freedom of association. That issue was left unresolved. Instead, the Court ruled that the all-comers policy (which is in force virtually nowhere) was constitutional — but only if it had been applied equally to all groups on campus.
So with that rather large caveat, why might this cut against lefties more than righties? Because despite the all-you-can-eat diversity buffet we have been force-fed lo these many years, a core belief of lefties is that we are not all Americans first, it is that we are all members of our designated sub-groups, whether that be minorities, gays, feminists, poor, elites, anti-war, environmentalists, homeless, middle-class, union, corporate, whatever. And those sub-groups have to fight each other for rights and government goodies to be won at the expense of the other groups. And I would wager that there are far more college campus groups along the lines of Clean Lesbians Against Dirty Water and Commies for Code Pink than there are conservative groups. We are talking, after all, about college campuses here.
So are the intolerant groups who want to Alinsky their opponents more likely to feel the brunt of the ruling? Aren’t those liberal groups the ones who violently push back against their ideological opponents? After all, it ain’t a bunch of white-shoe conservatives who bash in bank windows and burn cars at the G-20 summit.
There are some good suggestions over in the comments at Allah’s post. If one wanted to cause mischief, there are plenty of opportunities.
Ooh, or how about a Muslim group that a Jewish student wants to join? Surely the group will have funding pulled unless it accepts the Jewish student, right?
Ameripundit has it right. If this is the way the ruling goes, then it’s time to start testing that. Flood the pro-Hamas, Pro-Hezbollah, pro-whatever groups with people that oppose these groups and then either weaken them or get them denied use of school facilities & funding for rejecting Pro-Israeli, etc. students
. . .
Some college guys in here needs to start a “Gay Messianic Jews Who Love Muslim Men” Group at their colleges. Watch the fur fly…
. . .
I think that all Christian groups need to start joining Muslim groups and demand they be elected representatives of the group.
And then hang up pictures of Jesus – the Jew from Nazareth.
. . .
What happens when the local Fraternity has it’s pledges join the Campus Women’s Organization as part of Pledge week?
. . .
So what happens if a white supremacist wants to join a black student group to harass them?
. . .
What about Muslim student groups that bar gays?
What about Muslim student groups that bar woman, or have them segregated, or make them hide themselves?
What about Muslim student groups that bar Jews?
The overriding cure for this, of course is to stop federal funding of the groups altogether. Why do we even do that? What ever happened to fundraising? Hell, every sport my kids play has a fundraising requirement. We either get the team some money selling Entertainment books or give them some money. Any college group that happened to get funding from say a non-federal source, like maybe a church, a political party, etc, could admit or exclude whomever they wanted. Let the kids get the money from like-minded grownups who play on the varsity team.
Isn’t a ruling like this more apt, at the margins, to make people who kinda just want to hang with people who agree with them reject the federal strings that are attached to everything these days? After all, the banks couldn’t wait to give back the bailout money just to get Barack Obama off their backs. Students who want to exercise their freedom of association might want to exclude Uncle Sam from the group.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
After all, it ain’t a bunch of white-shoe conservatives who bash in bank windows and burn cars at the G-20 summit.
Well, of course not. White-shoe conservatives have Tea Parties for that.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Bill_Dupray, clint hunting. clint hunting said: RT @Bill_Dupray: New SCOTUS Freedom of Association case may backfire on the Left: The Supremes ruled today in Christian Legal … http://bit.ly/cZvuDj #tcot [...]
Interesting that the reflex response is to figure out how to maximally offend Muslims when the underlying case has nothing to do with Islam.
There are plenty of Jews included in on-campus pro-Palestinian groups. There are groups in that promote dialog between different ethnic groups. Men are routinely members of womens’ groups and straight people routinely join gay groups.
On your white supremacist point, “Jews for Jesus” sorts of groups exist at many colleges; conservative groups routinely hold “affirmative action bakesales” that offend many students I think you’re somewhat underestimating the capacity of college students to laugh at someone’s weak attempt at racebaiting. And you’re overestimating the willingness of campus Christians to spend their time sabotaging/trolling other religious groups.
All of the examples you cite would plainly be allowed under the Court’s ruling, and I’m quite certain that folks who spent the time to form and get funding for their groups would outlast any attempts at prank membership.
Did you actually read the opinion you linked to? This has nothing to do with Federal funding. It’s a public college and thus an arm of the state government subject to the 14th amendment. You don’t even have to read far; it’s right there in the syllabus. If it’s like every college I’m aware of, funding for student groups comes from a fee attached to tuition (that’s often optional) and not from the state.
And, yes, the students were free to form their own group excluding gays absent funding from their college. The students instead claim that they’re entitled to school funding no matter whom they exclude.
Lastly, if you’d read further into the opinion (or at all), you’d find that the school’s rules state that “[m]embership may cease . . . if the member is found to be involved in gross misconduct,” and the oh so hilarious scheme to join groups to harass them would be (perfectly constitutional) grounds for disbarment.
Regarding your out-of-nowhere invocation of the bailout, would you have preferred that TARP funds be distributed with no strings attached? Aren’t mechanisms that result in banks refunded the Fed ASAP a good thing?
In response to another comment. See in context »Beautifully put–thanks.
In response to another comment. See in context »Mr. Dupray,
You have completely missed the point of the lawsuit and the ruling. The University of California allows student groups and provides funding for officially recognized group. The caveat is that those groups cannot exclude any student who wishes to join. Christians at Hastings Hall are free to meet with whomever they wish and exclude whomever they wish, groups that do so simply will not receive official support, it is just that simple.
The example offered up facetiously of a Muslim group having to accept a Jewish member is exactly what the University of California requires of any officially recognized Muslim group. Now an group of Muslim student who do not want to meet with the official blessings of the University of California and not be allow non-Muslims or use UC facilities are free to do so – off-campus.
I do not see that that harms “lefties” or, in fact “righties” or anyone. It is the rule of law, one rule for everyone.
The detail that nauseates me the most about your post is your obvious approval of the group’s behavior. “Christian” groups which carry on like this are almost enough to push this believer over to the Dawkins/Harris side. Not quite, but damned close.
Don’t you feel sick after typing something like this? No? Didn’t think so.
Oh, and regarding your vile (and amazingly literate) gem, “It is stupid a rule for religious groups not just because it requires Christian groups to accept gays…” are you unaware that there are Christians who accept gays and whose acceptance is an ASPECT of their Christianity?
Those with diseased values always assume they speak for the whole community. Why is that?