{"id":2693,"date":"2010-06-30T22:03:02","date_gmt":"2010-07-01T06:03:02","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/glenandpaula.com\/wordpress\/?p=2693"},"modified":"2010-06-30T22:03:50","modified_gmt":"2010-07-01T06:03:50","slug":"freedom-of-association-at-public-universities","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/glenandpaula.com\/wordpress\/archives\/2010\/06\/30\/freedom-of-association-at-public-universities","title":{"rendered":"Freedom of Association at Public Universities"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"Golden<\/a>Stan\u00adford law pro\u00adfes\u00adsor Michael McConnell<\/a> recent\u00adly rep\u00adre\u00adsent\u00aded the Chris\u00adt\u00adian Legal Soci\u00adety (CLS) in their case against San Fran\u00adcis\u00adco\u2019s UC Hast\u00adings Col\u00adlege of The Law before the U. S. Supreme Court. The CLS lost that case on a 5\u20134 vote (read the rul\u00ading<\/a>). I\u2019ve asked Pro\u00adfes\u00adsor McConnell to answer a few ques\u00adtions about the rul\u00ading, and he has gra\u00adcious\u00adly agreed to do so and to allow me to pub\u00adlish his answers online. <\/p>\n

\nQ: The court ruled 5\u20134 in favor of UC Hast\u00adings \u201call-com\u00aders\u201d pol\u00adi\u00adcy. Was this a broad rul\u00ading affect\u00ading Chris\u00adt\u00adian groups at pub\u00adlic uni\u00adver\u00adsi\u00adties gen\u00ader\u00adal\u00adly or a rel\u00ada\u00adtive\u00adly nar\u00adrow rul\u00ading?
\n
\nA: It was the most nar\u00adrow rul\u00ading pos\u00adsi\u00adble. The all-com\u00aders pol\u00adi\u00adcy on which the Court ruled is exceed\u00ading\u00adly unusu\u00adal. The Court declined to rule on the more typ\u00adi\u00adcal sit\u00adu\u00ada\u00adtion, where the school applies reli\u00adgious nondis\u00adcrim\u00adi\u00adna\u00adtion rules to reli\u00adgious orga\u00adni\u00adza\u00adtions, thus deny\u00ading to reli\u00adgious groups the free\u00addom enjoyed by most expres\u00adsive orga\u00adni\u00adza\u00adtions of choos\u00ading their own lead\u00aders. The Court did not even rule on the all-com\u00aders pol\u00adi\u00adcy as actu\u00adal\u00adly applied at Hast\u00adings, but only on an abstract and hypo\u00adthet\u00adi\u00adcal ver\u00adsion that applies across the board to all orga\u00adni\u00adza\u00adtions.
\n
\nQ: So let\u2019s say I\u2019m a Chi Alpha or an Inter\u00advar\u00adsi\u00adty direc\u00adtor at some pub\u00adlic uni\u00adver\u00adsi\u00adty. Should I be dis\u00adcour\u00adaged or alarmed?
\n
\nA: You should be con\u00adcerned, and try to work with your uni\u00adver\u00adsi\u00adty to pre\u00advent infringe\u00adments on your rights, because the Court\u2019s deci\u00adsion pro\u00advides no help to you.
\n
\nQ: Did any parts of the rul\u00ading sur\u00adprise you?
\n
\nA: In the course of reject\u00ading CLS\u2019s argu\u00adment, the Court gave a sur\u00adpris\u00ading\u00adly nar\u00adrow inter\u00adpre\u00adta\u00adtion to free speech (pub\u00adlic forum) prece\u00addents that I thought were firm\u00adly estab\u00adlished law.
\n
\nQ: You have no doubt read many blog posts, op-eds and news arti\u00adcles sum\u00adma\u00adriz\u00ading both the case and the court\u2019s deci\u00adsion. Are there any mis\u00adun\u00adder\u00adstand\u00adings you would like to cor\u00adrect?
\n
\nA: Too many to list.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

In case you\u2019re won\u00adder\u00ading, this case only affects pub\u00adlic uni\u00adver\u00adsi\u00adties. Our min\u00adistry at Stan\u00adford won\u2019t be direct\u00adly affect\u00aded.<\/p>\n

You can read lots of sum\u00admaries of the ver\u00addict. A few of the more inter\u00adest\u00ading ones:<\/p>\n