Discrimination by Student Organizations

Yesterday I participated in a day-long seminar on the topic of religious student organizations and denial of recognition and/or funding by the college or university for refusal to agree to institutional non-discrimination policies. I have been involved with many controversial legal issues over the years, but none that seem to have held the deep personal impact that this issue holds on individuals. The lines of this controversy are unpredictably drawn and not predictable based on religious beliefs, race, sexual identity or gender.


I provided the introductory presentation that set forth the legal issues and the court decisions handed down over the past few years. The panel discussions that followed my presentation provided an eye opening experience of passion, anger and perspective that was like peeling back the layers of an onion. From a legal perspective the issue revolves around First Amendment rights. Those rights encompass freedom of expression, freedom of religion and freedom of association. Generally a Constitutional issue requires a “compelling governmental interest” to limit or regulate. However, the courts have carved out circumstances, based on a forum analysis, that allows a lower standard for regulation of expression in certain circumstances. The higher requirement of strict scrutiny applies in all circumstances regulating religion or association, however. Thus, across the country courts, from district courts to courts of appeals, are rendering opposing opinions on identical sets of circumstances using standards based on expression versus religion or association. The coming years will provide an interesting opportunity to watch judicial bodies address this issue and the legal arguments put forth.


BUT...what I observed throughout the rest of the day was not just a scholarly legal debate of the issue, but was even more interesting, and perhaps more significant from a social justice perspective—and that was the passion and anger and outrage expressed by individuals involved with the actual controversy. Throughout the day participants challenged one another about equality and belief systems and recognition and affirmation. The discussions were loud, emotional and personal.

Clearly this issue cuts far deeper than just a scholarly legal analysis.

Have a great weekend,

Saunie Schuster