The inverse of Groucho

[madbaker]

Obligatory disclaimer: this is not a group whose views I support. But it doesn't matter.

The US Supreme Court ruled that UC Hastings can prohibit the Christian Legal Society from using campus facilities because they violate state discrimination codes. The group requires that prospective members endorse a "statement of faith" and bar "unrepentant homosexual conduct".

My reaction, if I were attending Hastings today, would be to immediately apply to the Armenian Law Students Association, the Black Law Students Association, the Hastings Catholic Law Students Association, the Hastings Democrats, the Hastings Vietnamese American Law Society, the La Raza Law Students Association... because if one group cannot choose who they admit and receive recognition and school subsidies, neither can any of the others.

Comments

[lifeofglamour.livejournal.com]

So, um, does this mean that you can join their little christian club if you enjoy rampant homosexual conduct in the evenings but always feel really, really badly about it the next morning?

[cathyn.livejournal.com]

When I was attending UNM a couple decades ago, a friend of mine attempted to pledge the two black fraternities on campus each semester, hoping to point out their hypocrisy. Seemed they fought for years to make sure there were no "whites only" fraternities, but saw no problem with a "black only" one. Needless to say, he was never admitted.

[dame-cordelia.livejournal.com]

Hey, you want a job on the US Supreme Court? I hear they have an opening right now.

[madbaker.livejournal.com]

Leaving aside the trifling matter of lack of qualifications, hell no.

[666-bookwyrm.livejournal.com]

The rule is that you can't bar membership or activities in a protected category. Student group members are not protected or prohibited from any of the more insideous covert forms of discrimination. Most of the ethnic/religious/political groups are careful (ie hypocritical) about how they discriminate.

[hrj.livejournal.com]

Evidently the Armenian Law Students, the Black Law Students, the Catholic Law Students, etc. etc. didn't have a problem with the concept of "if we subsidize your group, we get to make some rules about how it operates". The Christian Legal Society wanted the subsidy with no strings attached.

I rather liked one of the items in the opinion that was something along the lines of, "Yes, sure, this means that law students could join all sorts of student groups they aren't interested in supporting solely for the purpose of being annoying jerks, but it's perfectly reasonable for the law school to set up its regulations with the presumption that their students are more mature than that."

[madbaker.livejournal.com]

My understanding is that the CLS wanted the same access to university rooms and bulletin boards that the other groups had. Hastings disallowed the group's use of campus facilities, citing discrimination.

So why does the Catholic Law Students group get access if they only allow Catholic law students? That's more my point.

[hrj.livejournal.com]

I guess my question was "does the Catholic Law Students group only allow Catholics?" (and so forth)

[madbaker.livejournal.com]

That's the crux of the matter. UC Hastings should not be applying its standards unevenly just because they don't like the group's views.
If the Catholic Law Students allow anyone and everyone to join, as do the Black Law Students, etc, then there's no problem. If, as I suspect, they filter -- then my post stands.