The purpose of forming a group around an idea is to consistently share that idea — and leaders who don’t support the message will defeat that purpose.
Whether Christian, Muslim, conservative, or liberal, student groups are, and should be, free to require their leaders to adhere to their beliefs.
I magine if National Review’s editor-in-chief were Rachel Maddow. Your immediate thought (after perhaps picking yourself up off the floor) is the obvious: The content would communicate a vastly different message. This is because “personnel is policy.”
This is no less true at America’s public universities, which these days often attempt to dictate personnel decisions, especially the people that student organizations must elect as their leaders. Most recently, the University of Houston–Clear Lake refused to recognize a Christian apologetics group, Ratio Christi, because, although membership is open to anyone, the group requires its leadership to demonstrate commitment to the Christian faith.
Of course, if the College Democrats don’t elect the local MAGA-hatter as president, or the College Republicans don’t elect the local Bernie bro, no one would blink an eye. That’s because we know that the whole purpose of forming a group around an idea is to consistently share that idea — and leaders who oppose, or just don’t support, the message will defeat the whole purpose of the organization.
Indeed, on the UHCL campus, other student organizations are allowed to determine their own leadership requirements. For example, the environmental club screens leadership for adherence to its ideology, the Vietnamese Student Association limits leadership to “Vietnamese students,” and the International Student Advisory Board limits leadership to “international students.”
And they should.
Origins of the controversy
Since the origin of universities, students supportive of an ideological, cultural, political, or religious cause have sought out others with that common interest and joined with them to amplify their voices. In recent decades, universities have created a system to formally “recognize” and regulate these student organizations. Recognition typically allows students to reserve meeting space, access “student activity fees,” to which each of them contributes, and advertise their events. Without this recognized status, it is almost impossible to sustain an organization or effectively communicate on campus.
Of course, with recognition comes regulation. Universities began implementing what they call “nondiscrimination” policies: conditioning campus access on agreement by the students not to “discriminate” in membership or leadership. While this may sound nice in theory, it’s nonsensical when it comes to associations formed around a purpose — whether ideological or not. After all, what is a chess club if no one knows how, or has a desire to learn, to play chess? What is a Black Student Association if its members are all white? What is a Jewish Student Association if its members are all Muslim, or vice versa?
The Supreme Court muddies the waters
For many years, despite the implementation of these policies, a live-and-let-live mentality of enforcement was prevalent. In the early 2000s, that began to change.
Christian organizations began facing backlash for basic membership or leadership requirements. At the University of California’s Hastings College of the Law, the Christian Legal Society was kicked off campus. Why? Because the society required its officers and voting members to adhere to the CLS Statement of Faith. The university claimed that this requirement violated its “nondiscrimination” policies, and that every student group was required to allow every student to be a member or leader — no matter the group’s purpose or beliefs. This has become known as an “all-comers” policy.
Taking this as true, the Supreme Court ultimately ruled that there was no constitutional violation. Specifically, it held that an all-comers policy is viewpoint-neutral because it treats all student organizations the same. CLS was ostracized from campus.
Of course, the premise that student groups don’t discriminate isn’t true in practice. The chess club doesn’t send anyone to a tournament, only the best chess players. The College Democrats may not have an explicit policy limiting leadership based on political belief, but of course they would never vote a Republican into office. The Supreme Court’s decision was based on a fiction.
It also is very limited because few universities even claim to actually have true all-comers policies. Most universities allow student organizations to limit leadership or membership on any number of bases — just not those specifically listed in their nondiscrimination statements. These are generally called “laundry list” policies. For example, there are likely no restrictions on having a redheads-only club, because university policies don’t address discrimination based on hair color. But there are ostensibly restrictions on having an Asians-only club, since those same policies include prohibitions against discrimination based on race, ethnicity, or national origin.
While an all-comers policy may sound nice in theory, when it’s applied to ethnic, political, or religious organizations, it doesn’t make sense. The point of prohibiting “religious discrimination” shouldn’t be to make the Chabad on Campus organization elect a Shia Muslim as its leader. Nor should prohibiting race or political discrimination require that a white supremacist be allowed to stand for election as student president of the Black Lives Matter chapter. It’s really just common sense.
Post-CLS discrimination against religious groups
Ultimately, many universities read the CLS case as a carte blanche to impose membership and leadership restrictions on religious organizations. Often, enforcement is targeted at religious organizations. For example, in the University of Houston–Clear Lake matter, other organizations were allowed to have leadership requirements — just not the Christian group. After Alliance Defending Freedom represented Ratio Christi in a federal lawsuit, the university agreed to change its policy so that all student groups may have leadership requirements.
Such a commonsense policy shouldn’t require a lawsuit. For the same reason that National Review’s message would be different if Rachel Maddow were at the helm, student organizations’ messages are fundamentally altered when the government dictates who their leaders must be. The First Amendment protects the right to associate around shared beliefs. If universities refuse to respect that right, then courts will have to step up and reaffirm that universities do not have unilateral power to dictate how student organizations select their leaders.
Whether Christian, Muslim, conservative, or liberal, student groups are, and should be, free to require their leaders to adhere to their beliefs.