Advancement Project

July 8, 2010

Equal Access vs. Religious Freedom

A chapter of the Christian League Society at the University of California’s Hastings College of Law was denied campus recognition after the Supreme Court ruled its policies were discriminatory. The Christian group, which allows anyone to attend its meetings, restricts voting and executive positions to those that sign a statement of faith devoting their lives to Jesus Christ. The statement includes the belief that ‘Christians should not engage in sexual conduct outside of marriage between a man and a woman.

According to the school, the Christian group’s restriction is in direct contrast to the school’s policy which prohibits recognized groups from discriminating in membership. “Groups given official endorsement by the University of California can receive school funding, office space and the freedom to recruit on campus, but may not reject anyone because of sexual orientation, religious beliefs, or other criteria protected under federal and state law”.

The case sets anti-discrimination principles against religious freedom and equal access. Lawyers representing the Christian League Society say the law school recognizes other organizations that limit membership to those of shared beliefs, allowing individuals with like minds to become leaders of the school groups. The school argues that the restriction would particularly single out gays and lesbians. As a result, the federal appeals court ruled against the student group. However, the group is allowed to remain active on campus; identified as an “unrecognized” organization.

This particular case is an illustration of the fine line that straddles equal access and religious freedom. Although both are protected under the constitution when the two rights conflict one must take precedence over the other. The controversy lies in defining them both without encroaching upon either. According to CNN a similar lawsuit against Southern Illinois University occurred two years ago in which the Christian Legal Society received official recognition. Clearly there is no formula or way of determining which decision is “more lawful”. The outcome of the debate is left to the court’s discretion. What do you think is the right decision?

David Eubanks is a communications intern at Advancement Project, a national civil rights organization that advocates for racial justice.