Magazine | August 16, 2010, Issue

Solomonic Wisdom

Congress should defend religious freedom on campus as it defended military recruiting

On June 28, the Senate Judiciary Committee began hearings on Elena Kagan’s Supreme Court nomination. On the same day, the Court announced its decision in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez. The coincidence was appropriate, because there was a striking complementarity between that ruling and a major controversy in Kagan’s career.

In Martinez, a 5–4 majority upheld the decision of UC–Hastings College of the Law, in San Francisco, to marginalize a group of Christian law students. As it happens, several years ago Kagan led a failed effort to marginalize the American military on the campus of Harvard Law School. The fact that Harvard failed where Hastings succeeded may point the way toward a rectification of the wrong that was committed in the Martinez case.

In the early 2000s, several elite law schools — including Harvard — denied the U.S. military permission to recruit on their campuses, in protest of the congressional prohibition on military service by open homosexuals. Congress responded by strengthening and clarifying the Solomon Amendment, which since 1996 had required access to campus for military recruiters as a condition of the receipt of federal funds.

Some of the affected law schools sued the federal government, claiming that the Solomon Amendment infringed their rights of “expressive association,” and lost 8–0 in Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights (2006). The Supreme Court held that there had been no imposition of an “unconstitutional condition” on the grant of federal funds. The Solomon Amendment worked indirectly, with the “carrot” of federal funding, but the Court noted that Congress could even use the “stick” of directly requiring institutions, public or private, to be open to military recruiting, under its Article I power to raise and support military forces.

Yet this June, the UC–Hastings College of the Law was permitted to deny the campus’s Christian Legal Society (CLS) recognition as a registered student organization, which would have afforded it access to facilities and other resources. The group’s offense? Requiring members and officers to sign a “statement of faith” and abide by traditional Christian morality, which permits sexual relations only between husband and wife.

In explaining their refusal to recognize CLS, the only group ever denied such recognition, Hastings administrators at first claimed they were following university policies that prohibit discrimination based on religion or sexual orientation. But other student groups were permitted to base membership on shared ideas, and under existing precedents, CLS’s right to associate freely was likely to outweigh the school’s nondiscrimination policy. In short, the school was vulnerable to a charge that it was discriminating on “viewpoint” grounds — denying free-association rights only to these Christian students — so the administration scrambled to redefine its policy and its argument.

The school then claimed that it had an “accept all comers” policy (of which no one had previously heard), which allowed no student group to forbid membership to anyone. On this absurd basis — which would force a group of student Republicans to admit Democrats, or allow the Christian group known as “Jews for Jesus” to take over the campus Jewish group — the Supreme Court sanctioned the law school’s “diversity”-friendly hostility to the Christian Legal Society.

Justice Samuel Alito, in a powerful dissent, noted that the law school’s true policy was “accept-some-comers,” for  registered groups were allowed to employ “conduct requirements” rather than “belief” to police their membership. The school had shed no light on what conduct standards could be used — although given its transparent effort to freeze out CLS, Alito said, “presumably requirements regarding sexual conduct” would be forbidden.

#page#Yet the real calamity of the Martinez ruling, as Alito also noted, is not the prospect of hostile takeovers of small and politically incorrect groups. It is that students who are serious about their faith will, for the sake of their own integrity, simply not attempt to organize as a recognized group: “There are religious groups that cannot in good conscience agree in their bylaws that they will admit persons who do not share their faith, and for these groups, the consequence of an accept-all-comers policy is marginalization.”

The Supreme Court’s decision did not settle the matter completely: The Christian Legal Society may still prevail at Hastings if it can show on remand in the lower courts that the law school’s policy is selectively enforced and not really viewpoint-neutral. But Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s opinion for the majority in Martinez shows the way for institutions of higher education to squeeze conservative religious student groups until they either drop their organizational efforts or dilute their devotion to the tenets of their faith. Colleges and universities need only declare a free-for-all in the world of student organizations, allowing any student to join and participate in any group, and count on the most fashionable views — or the emptiest and most innocuous ones — to prevail. Not just Christian groups, but Jewish, Muslim, and other religious student groups are put at risk by the Martinez ruling.

Now look at Elena Kagan and Rumsfeld v. FAIR. Dean Kagan and her allies lost, where Hastings won, because a statute specifically required them to give access to military recruiters or lose funding. A similar approach could effectively right the wrong of Martinez: Republicans and Democrats who respect religious freedom could pass a law that denies federal funding to universities that require student religious groups to compromise their commitment to their faith for the sake of official recognition.

Certainly in the case of public universities, this indirect policy would impose no “unconstitutional condition,” since Congress may even act directly to protect religious freedom against infringement by public-sector institutions. And a good case could be made for applying a similar policy to nonsectarian private-sector institutions, which enjoy nonprofit status under federal law and ample largesse from the federal treasury.

Justice Alito called Martinez “a serious setback for freedom of expression.” He might have said more pointedly that freedom of religious expression and association, a subject of special solicitude in the Constitution, was dealt a savage blow. But the rights the Court refused to protect — to organize based on faith and morals and to inhabit the public square alongside other groups in fidelity to one’s beliefs — can and should be protected by Congress. Will congressional leaders — and the White House — deny such protection to believers and cling to a “diversity” agenda that is increasingly being exposed as the imposition of ideological uniformity? Let’s find out.

– Mr. George is McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and director of the James Madison Program at Princeton University. Mr. Franck is director of the Simon Center on Religion and the Constitution at the Witherspoon Institute in Princeton.

In This Issue


Politics & Policy

Sheriff McCain

As his fellow incumbents drown in a tea-party wave, Sen. John McCain somehow remains afloat. On August 24, McCain squares off against J. D. Hayworth, a former congressman, in Arizona’s ...


Politics & Policy

A Clash of Opposites

Not long ago, two friends were talking about the current election season. Both of them are conservative, but one especially dislikes the McCain-Feingold law (which restricted campaign finance and political ...
Politics & Policy

Ban the Burqa

Istanbul – I moved here five years ago. In the beginning, I was sympathetic to the argument that Turkey’s ban on headscarves in universities and public institutions was grossly discriminatory. I spoke ...

Books, Arts & Manners

The Straggler

On Thy Silver Wheels

The recent political ructions over the extension of unemployment benefits brought Norman Tebbit to my mind. Tebbit was Margaret Thatcher’s secretary of state for employment in the early 1980s. There ...
Politics & Policy

The Drive to Create

In a castle in Newcastle, complete with reflecting pool, dappled woods nooked with marble sculptures, and pastures lowing with cattle, Matt Ridley, dean of British science writers and author of ...


Politics & Policy


Acceptable Risk? In his article “Preferred Risk” (July 5), Iain Murray states that “the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), which encourages building in high-risk areas, [exposes] taxpayers to huge liabilities.” I ...
Politics & Policy

The Week

‐ Congress has an 11 percent job-approval rating. Who knew there were so many trial lawyers? ‐ Midterm elections are generally referenda on the party in power, and that is especially ...
The Long View

Therapist’s Notes

Patient: Andrew Breitbart First Session: Therapist greets patient, who arrives with three BlackBerrys. Patient is pleasant and good-humored, seems aware of his surroundings, is able to carry on simple transactional conversations. Patient, ...
Politics & Policy


ADVERTISEMENT FOR “LET’S PRAY” Choreographed by Thandumzi Moyakhe, performed by Nqaba Mafilika and Bathembu Myira, Johannesburg, South Africa They dance there with outrageous zest, Kneeling and swaying without rest, White crosses painted on their chests. Hour after ...

Captain Post-America

You can imagine the fist-pumping and broad grins that went around Hollywood when it was announced they were making a movie about Captain America — and the subsequent dismay when ...

Most Popular

Film & TV

A Sad Finale

Spoilers Ahead. Look, I share David’s love of Game of Thrones. But I thought the finale was largely a bust, for failings David mostly acknowledges in passing (but does not allow to dampen his ardor). The problems with the finale were largely the problems of this entire season. Characters that had been ... Read More
Politics & Policy

The Great Misdirection

The House Democrats are frustrated, very frustrated. They’ve gotten themselves entangled in procedural disputes with the Trump administration that no one particularly cares about and that might be litigated for a very long time. A Washington Post report over the weekend spelled out how stymied Democrats ... Read More

Australia’s Voters Reject Leftist Ideas

Hell hath no fury greater than left-wingers who lose an election in a surprise upset. Think Brexit in 2016. Think Trump’s victory the same year. Now add Australia. Conservative prime minister Scott Morrison shocked pollsters and pundits alike with his victory on Saturday, and the reaction has been brutal ... Read More
NR Webathon

We’ve Had Bill Barr’s Back

One of the more dismaying features of the national political debate lately is how casually and cynically Attorney General Bill Barr has been smeared. He is routinely compared to Roy Cohn on a cable-TV program that prides itself on assembling the most thoughtful and plugged-in political analysts and ... Read More