The Chronicle of Higher Education
By Kevin Carey
June 29, 2010, 12:00 PM ET
It was good timing, having Senate hearings on Elena Kagan's nomination to the Supreme Court begin on the same day as the Court's 5-4 ruling that the University of California's Hastings College of Law acted reasonably in refusing to recognize a Christian group that denies membership to homosexual students. The Senate hearings are premised on the idea that Court nominees should be chosen and interrogated based entirely on their "judicial philosophy" and ideas about the law. So nominees dutifully say things about modesty and justices as umpires and so forth, even as we all understand that the Hastings decision had nothing to with the law and everything to do with the justices' personal convictions about homosexuality.
Some people believe that sexual orientation is a fundamental element of personhood. From there, it logically follows that a college's obligations to nondiscrimination overwhelm any reasonable deference to freedom of association and religious conviction. If the Church of I Hate Black People had been denied recognition as a student group, it never would have made it to the Supreme Court.
Full Story: http://chronicle.com/blogPost/HastingsSupreme-Court/25183/?sid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en
Showing posts with label Hastings College of Law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hastings College of Law. Show all posts
Saturday, July 3, 2010
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Hastings defends anti-bias policy at high court
San Francisco Chronicle
Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
(04-19) 18:24 PDT WASHINGTON -- UC Hastings College of the Law and a Christian club that excludes gays and lesbians battled before the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday over whether the school must recognize and fund the group, a clash between a public university's anti-discrimination policies and a religious organization's right to set its own standards.
The Christian Legal Society, backed by numerous religious and conservative groups, argued that the San Francisco law school was trying to force organizations to surrender their principles in exchange for access to meeting rooms and bulletin boards.
"If Hastings is correct, a student who does not even believe in the Bible is entitled to demand to lead a Christian Bible study," the group's lawyer, Stanford law Professor Michael McConnell, told the justices in Washington. A campus NAACP chapter, he said, "would have to allow a racist skinhead to sit in on its planning meetings."
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/04/20/BAN41D13V0.DTL#ixzz0ldp39rPn
Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
(04-19) 18:24 PDT WASHINGTON -- UC Hastings College of the Law and a Christian club that excludes gays and lesbians battled before the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday over whether the school must recognize and fund the group, a clash between a public university's anti-discrimination policies and a religious organization's right to set its own standards.
The Christian Legal Society, backed by numerous religious and conservative groups, argued that the San Francisco law school was trying to force organizations to surrender their principles in exchange for access to meeting rooms and bulletin boards.
"If Hastings is correct, a student who does not even believe in the Bible is entitled to demand to lead a Christian Bible study," the group's lawyer, Stanford law Professor Michael McConnell, told the justices in Washington. A campus NAACP chapter, he said, "would have to allow a racist skinhead to sit in on its planning meetings."
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/04/20/BAN41D13V0.DTL#ixzz0ldp39rPn
Monday, April 19, 2010
A Case of Discrimination
The New York Times
Published: April 18, 2010
Hastings College of the Law, part of the University of California, rightly prohibits student organizations from discriminating. A Christian group that bars non-Christian and gay students sued the school for denying it funding and access to its facilities. The Supreme Court hears arguments Monday in the case. It should rule in favor of Hastings.
To qualify for official recognition, and receive money from a publicly financed university, groups at Hastings are required to adhere to the school’s nondiscrimination policy, which says that official student groups cannot refuse membership on the basis of race, religion, national origin, sexual orientation or other prohibited factors.
For years, the Christian Legal Society chapter at Hastings adhered to this policy. In 2004, it changed course and required members to sign a “statement of faith” that denied membership to students who did not share all of the society’s religious beliefs, as well as gay students. Hastings told the society that it could not remain a recognized group and receive money from the school unless it stopped discriminating.
Full Editorial:http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/19/opinion/19mon2.html
Published: April 18, 2010
Hastings College of the Law, part of the University of California, rightly prohibits student organizations from discriminating. A Christian group that bars non-Christian and gay students sued the school for denying it funding and access to its facilities. The Supreme Court hears arguments Monday in the case. It should rule in favor of Hastings.
To qualify for official recognition, and receive money from a publicly financed university, groups at Hastings are required to adhere to the school’s nondiscrimination policy, which says that official student groups cannot refuse membership on the basis of race, religion, national origin, sexual orientation or other prohibited factors.
For years, the Christian Legal Society chapter at Hastings adhered to this policy. In 2004, it changed course and required members to sign a “statement of faith” that denied membership to students who did not share all of the society’s religious beliefs, as well as gay students. Hastings told the society that it could not remain a recognized group and receive money from the school unless it stopped discriminating.
Full Editorial:http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/19/opinion/19mon2.html
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Win for Anti-Bias Rules
Inside Higher Ed
March 18, 2009
A federal appeals court on Tuesday gave a major win to public universities and advocates for gay rights who have wanted to preserve in full the institutional anti-bias policies that bar discrimination based on sexual orientation.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled -- in a two-sentence decision -- that the Hastings College of Law of the University of California was within its rights to deny recognition to a branch of the Christian Legal Society. Hastings said that the student group's ban on members who engage in "unrepentant homosexual conduct" violated the law school's anti-bias policies. In turn, the Christian Legal Society argued that its First Amendment rights were being violated by the law school in that it was forcing the law students in the society to abandon their religious beliefs in return for recognition.
The appeals court's decision said simply this: "The parties stipulate that Hastings imposes an open membership rule on all student groups — all groups must accept all comers as voting members even if those individuals disagree with the mission of the group. The conditions on recognition are therefore viewpoint neutral and reasonable."
The court cited a ruling it issued last year upholding the right of a public school district in Washington State to deny recognition to a Bible study group whose members were required to hold certain beliefs. The student group sued, charging a denial of its religious rights. But the appeals court found that because the school district had blanket rules about discrimination -- and was not applying them in any different way to the Bible group -- the regulations were legitimate.
The Ninth Circuit's rulings -- in the Hastings case and the public school case -- may set the stage for the U.S. Supreme Court to consider the issues of public universities' right to bar discrimination and religious students' right to practice their beliefs. Advocates for gay rights have had high hopes for the Hastings case -- especially since they won the first round with a federal judge's ruling in 2006 in favor of the law school. Other courts have ruled in favor of the Christian groups on other campuses. In a case that is cited by supporters of the Christian Legal Society, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in 2005 ordered Southern Illinois University to recognize a chapter of the Christian Legal Society.
Full Story: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/03/18/hastings
March 18, 2009
A federal appeals court on Tuesday gave a major win to public universities and advocates for gay rights who have wanted to preserve in full the institutional anti-bias policies that bar discrimination based on sexual orientation.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled -- in a two-sentence decision -- that the Hastings College of Law of the University of California was within its rights to deny recognition to a branch of the Christian Legal Society. Hastings said that the student group's ban on members who engage in "unrepentant homosexual conduct" violated the law school's anti-bias policies. In turn, the Christian Legal Society argued that its First Amendment rights were being violated by the law school in that it was forcing the law students in the society to abandon their religious beliefs in return for recognition.
The appeals court's decision said simply this: "The parties stipulate that Hastings imposes an open membership rule on all student groups — all groups must accept all comers as voting members even if those individuals disagree with the mission of the group. The conditions on recognition are therefore viewpoint neutral and reasonable."
The court cited a ruling it issued last year upholding the right of a public school district in Washington State to deny recognition to a Bible study group whose members were required to hold certain beliefs. The student group sued, charging a denial of its religious rights. But the appeals court found that because the school district had blanket rules about discrimination -- and was not applying them in any different way to the Bible group -- the regulations were legitimate.
The Ninth Circuit's rulings -- in the Hastings case and the public school case -- may set the stage for the U.S. Supreme Court to consider the issues of public universities' right to bar discrimination and religious students' right to practice their beliefs. Advocates for gay rights have had high hopes for the Hastings case -- especially since they won the first round with a federal judge's ruling in 2006 in favor of the law school. Other courts have ruled in favor of the Christian groups on other campuses. In a case that is cited by supporters of the Christian Legal Society, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in 2005 ordered Southern Illinois University to recognize a chapter of the Christian Legal Society.
Full Story: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/03/18/hastings
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)