A Victory for Religious Expression on Campus

Yesterday, the Supreme Court declined to hear the University of Wisconsin’s appeal of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that the university must dispense student fees regardless of the religious content of a student group’s program or message. The Seventh Circuit’s ruling was hardly groundbreaking. After all, the Supreme Court has ruled since 1981 that universities had to provide religious student groups viewpoint-neutral access to campus facilities and since 1995 that universities had to provide religious organizations viewpoint-neutral access to student-fee funding (it’s often forgotten that the Supreme Court’s 1995 decision in Rosenberger involved funding a magazine that explicitly proselytized). These rulings make common sense. After all, religious speech is, well, speech, and religious students pay the same student-activity fees that all other students pay.

Unfortunately, however, liberal academics tend to despise religious speech — especially Christian speech — and for years have been waging a rear-guard action against these decisions. In fact, as I outlined last month, the American Council on Education and other academic organizations joined an amicus brief asking the Supreme Court to reverse the Seventh Circuit and permit universities to explicitly discriminate against religious students and organizations seeking fees from the very system they fund.

The ACE told Insider Higher Ed that it was “disappointed” in the Supreme Court’s decision to decline to hear the University of Wisconsin’s appeal and emphasized that the Wisconsin ruling “is not binding in areas other than the Seventh Circuit.” This is a curious statement, considering that the Seventh Circuit’s decision represented a straightforward application of Supreme Court precedent. It is also a defiant statement. So defiant, in fact, that the ACE went out of its way to identify specific schools that do not comply with Supreme Court precedent and by policy discriminate against religious expression, including William and Mary Law School, Virginia Tech, the University of Michigan-Flint, Penn State, and Old Dominion.

I’m sure the taxpayers of Virginia, Michigan, and Pennsylvania appreciate that their flagship institutions of higher education are flouting the law and essentially provoking costly litigation. It’s sad that universities prefer lawsuits to the simple solution — protecting all speech, religious and secular, from discrimination and exclusion.

David French — David French is a senior writer for National Review, a senior fellow at the National Review Institute, and a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Most Popular

Law & the Courts

Obstruction Confusions

In his Lawfare critique of one of my several columns about the purported obstruction case against President Trump, Gabriel Schoenfeld loses me — as I suspect he will lose others — when he says of himself, “I do not think I am Trump-deranged.” Gabe graciously expresses fondness for me, and the feeling is ... Read More
Politics & Policy

Students’ Anti-Gun Views

Are children innocents or are they leaders? Are teenagers fully autonomous decision-makers, or are they lumps of mental clay, still being molded by unfolding brain development? The Left seems to have a particularly hard time deciding these days. Take, for example, the high-school students from Parkland, ... Read More
PC Culture

Kill Chic

We live in a society in which gratuitous violence is the trademark of video games, movies, and popular music. Kill this, shoot that in repugnant detail becomes a race to the visual and spoken bottom. We have gone from Sam Peckinpah’s realistic portrayal of violent death to a gory ritual of metal ripping ... Read More
Elections

Romney Is a Misfit for America

Mitt’s back. The former governor of Massachusetts and occasional native son of Michigan has a new persona: Mr. Utah. He’s going to bring Utah conservatism to the whole Republican party and to the country at large. Wholesome, efficient, industrious, faithful. “Utah has a lot to teach the politicians in ... Read More
Law & the Courts

What the Second Amendment Means Today

The horrifying school massacre in Parkland, Fla., has prompted another national debate about guns. Unfortunately, it seems that these conversations are never terribly constructive — they are too often dominated by screeching extremists on both sides of the aisle and armchair pundits who offer sweeping opinions ... Read More
U.S.

Fire the FBI Chief

American government is supposed to look and sound like George Washington. What it actually looks and sounds like is Henry Hill from Goodfellas: bad suit, hand out, intoning the eternal mantra: “F*** you, pay me.” American government mostly works by interposition, standing between us, the free people at ... Read More
Film & TV

Black Panther’s Circle of Hype

The Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) first infantilizes its audience, then banalizes it, and, finally, controls it through marketing. This commercial strategy, geared toward adolescents of all ages, resembles the Democratic party’s political manipulation of black Americans, targeting that audience through its ... Read More