Depending on Ohio State Legal Affairs’ interpretation of a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling, the Council on Student Affairs could alter OSU’s registration guidelines for student organizations.
The court ruled on June 28 in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez that the University of California’s Hastings College of the Law was within its constitutional rights as a public institution to enforce a non-discrimination policy that restricted student organizations from denying membership to students based on their religion and sexual orientation, among other stipulations.
The Christian Legal Society brought suit against UC Hastings, arguing that its “accept-all-comers policy impairs its First Amendment rights to free speech, expressive association, and free exercise of religion by prompting it, on pain of relinquishing the advantages of recognition, to accept members who do not share the organization’s core beliefs about religion and sexual orientation,” according to the Supreme Court’s opinion.
However, the court rejected the society’s argument, saying: “In accord with the District Court and the Court of Appeals, we reject CLS’s First Amendment challenge. Compliance with Hastings’ all-comers policy, we conclude, is a reasonable, viewpoint-neutral condition on access to the student-organization forum. In requiring CLS — in common with all other student organizations — to choose between welcoming all students and forgoing the benefits of official recognition, we hold, Hastings did not transgress constitutional limitations.” Further, the court continued, the Christian Legal Society was not seeking the equal treatment that other officially recognized student groups received, but rather a “preferential exemption from Hastings’ policy.”
In 2004, CLS brought a similar lawsuit against OSU. However OSU conceded, amending its policy to exempt religious groups from a portion of its non-discrimination policy.
Before 2004, every student group at OSU had to draft a constitution that included, among other tenets, a “statement of non-discrimination prohibiting discrimination on the basis of age, color, disability, gender identity or expression, national origin, race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, or veteran status,” according to the registration guidelines. The Christian Legal Society wanted to be a fully recognized student organization at OSU but refused to draft a non-discrimination policy that included religion or sexual orientation, according to an OSU press release from Oct. 1, 2004.
In response, OSU inserted a short yet potent statement, which says, “A student organization formed to foster or affirm the sincerely held religious beliefs of its members may adopt a non-discrimination statement that is consistent with those beliefs.”
“That’s the statement that a religiously affiliated organization could adopt if they so chose,” said Jeffrey Pelletier, assistant director of the Ohio Union. However, that rule might change because of the recent Supreme Court decision.
Pelletier said OSU Legal Affairs is working to determine if and how the Supreme Court decision will affect OSU’s policy, as amended in 2004. The Council on Student Affairs will review and possibly update OSU’s policy, under the advisement of OSU Legal Affairs.
“How a group can establish its membership may depend on OSU Legal Affairs’ legal interpretation of the Supreme Court decision,” Pelletier said. “It came out over the summer, so essentially the impact that the decision has on OSU registration policy is something that we will receive guidance on from OSU Legal Affairs.”
Caitlyn Nestleroth, president of CLS at the OSU Moritz College of Law, said she was aware of the Supreme Court’s decision but did not know it could possibly change OSU’s policy.
“I do not think that OSU should have to make any changes to its policy. The Hastings all-comers policy is distinguishable from the general non-discrimination policy adopted by most universities, and which Ohio State currently has,” Nestleroth said. “CLS v. Martinez is a very narrow decision that only addresses Hastings’ all-comers policy.”
Nestleroth said it is obvious that the society’s constitution addresses religious beliefs, as it is a religious group. She compared the group’s emphasis on religion to other groups’ emphases on their core missions.
“UC Hastings would require the College Democrats to allow Republicans to serve as president and vice president, or allow someone who wears fur to be a candidate for office in an animal-rights activist group,” Nestleroth said. “We don’t think that someone who doesn’t subscribe to our beliefs should be able to lead our organization, the same way that many other organizations probably believe that, too.”
The Office of Legal Affairs declined to comment, but Jim Lynch, director of media relations, said in an e-mail on behalf of the office, “We are carefully reviewing the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision and will take whatever further action we determine to be necessary and appropriate in light of this important decision.”
This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:
Correction: Jan. 19, 2011
An earlier version of this story stated that the Christian Legal Society would review and possibly update OSU’s non-discrimination policy. It is the Council on Student Affairs, not the Christian Legal Society.
