Officials at Virginia Tech recently gave the “okay” for a long-overdue change to its policies governing funding for student organizations in response to a letter from ADF warning the university that its policies violated the First Amendment.

Virginia Tech had a policy allowing student clubs and organizations to apply for funding from the university for events and activities hosted by student groups. The money for this fund was collected from a mandatory student fee that the university charged to all students. While a near limitless variety of activities and events could receive funding, the policy discriminated against religious student clubs, stating that “[o]rganizations will not be provided funding for religious worship or religious proselytizing.”

What does this mean in practice? A Greek club could get funding to host a concert featuring a popular rap artist, but a Christian club would be denied access to those same funds for a concert for a Christian worship artist. Or as the rapper might say: “Throw ya hands in the air like ya just don’t care (as long as ya ain’t doing it for Jesus).”

Fortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that a public university must distribute student fees in a viewpoint-neutral manner. After ADF sent a letter to Virginia Tech explaining that its discriminatory policy against religious worship and religious proselytizing violated the First Amendment, Virginia Tech notified ADF that “[e]ffective immediately, the Administration will direct that the Student Budget Board delete the restriction from its policies.”

It is encouraging to see one of our nation’s premier universities showing a healthy respect for religious expression on campus. If your school has a similar restriction on funding for religious organizations or activities, contact ADF. Your courage to speak up may be all it takes for your university to change its policies.

I’m always impressed by the courage of high school students who choose to stand-up for their faith in schools, especially in today’s culture, where Lady Gaga and Katy Perry now serve as “role models” for teenagers. Even more impressive are those students who form Christian clubs at school. These students should be applauded for their leadership, their organizational abilities, their passion, and their involvement. The Christian clubs they form are often heavily involved in campus life—sponsoring activities, performing community service, and serving as true role models for students, rather than counterfeit ones like Lady Gaga.

So it is troubling when a school district imposes barriers and restrictions on such clubs rather than encouraging these students in their pursuits.

That is exactly what happened just a few weeks ago at Newington High School when a group of students sought to form a Christian club. In their meeting with the principal, they were told that they could form a “theology club” that discusses all religious beliefs equally, but not a Christian club. They were told the club had to be more “open” to other religious faiths—even though the students had emphasized to the principal that any student of any faith was welcome to attend the Christian club meetings. And the school wasn’t afraid to enforce such “openness” as it had done several years prior when a previous Christian club was forced to merge with a group of Muslim students to become an “Interfaith Club”—thus being stripped of its Christian identity and ultimately resulting in the demise of the club.

But this mandatory watering down of students’ faith in the name of “openness” is not only political correctness run amok, it is illegal. Under the Equal Access Act, a federal law that requires schools to give the same recognition and treatment to religious student clubs that it gives to other non-curriculum student clubs, schools may not “influence the form or content of any prayer or other religious activity.” That means school officials can’t tell a club that it must discuss all faiths equally at its meetings.

So ADF contacted the school, warning it that the students “cannot be forced to alter the nature, identity, or beliefs of their Christian club by the school district or its employees.” And I’m happy to report that the school district responded appropriately, informing the students that their Christian club—not some watered-down theology club—would be approved.

The moral of the story: student clubs have the right to define their own beliefs and identity without interference from school officials. If you or someone you know is experiencing such interference, don’t be afraid to stand up. Because ADF will stand with you to ensure that you are never forced to water-down your faith.

The United States Supreme Court decided not to hear a case today.  Alpha Delta Chi (ADX) v Reed.  But that’s not really news considering that they decide not to hear about 99% of the cases brought to them.  What is news though is that the issue in the case of whether religious groups can chose leaders who share their religious beliefs remains hotly contested on the national level.

If you keep up with the news, you know that universities across the country are singling out religious groups and claiming that it is “discriminatory” for them to choose leaders that share the same religious beliefs.  Like in this case where a Christian sorority and fraternity wanted to be lead by Christians.  I know, you are probably thinking—you are kidding me, right?  Isn’t it just common sense that every church, synagogue and other religious group has the right to be lead by pastors, rabbis, etc. of the same religious persuasion?  I mean, wouldn’t we all be shocked if we went to church on Sunday only to find an avowed atheist in the pulpit?  Therein lies the rub.  This is law, not logic.

What’s even more disturbing, and indicative of the hostility that many public universities display toward religion, is that there is no requirement in the law that they prohibit religious groups from choosing like-minded leaders, only that they may—under certain circumstances—prohibit them.   And those circumstances are being fudged.  What do I mean by that?  Last year the Supreme Court held in CLS v. Martinez, based on a stipulation that all groups were required to accept anyone, that no group could then “discriminate” against anyone.  Sound fair?  Not if you dig a bit deeper.

By way of example, let’s examine that issue in this case, ADX.  The university is claiming that they too–like Martinez–have a so-called “all-comers” policy.  But they exempt all fraternities and sororities from the prohibition on gender discrimination, thus not requiring them to accept all-comers, and that is half of all clubs.  And this doesn’t even take into consideration that in real life student groups choose whomever they want, thereby excluding whomever they don’t want.  So it is really a “some-comers,” or more accurately, an “anyone-we-want-comers” policy.  And last time I checked, religious speech and exercise are protected not once, but twice in the First Amendment.   One would think that would weigh heavily in the discussion.

So the Supreme Court’s decision not to hear this case just ensures that the battle continues.  Universities will continue claiming that they have legal cover to discriminate against religious groups, and religious groups will continue to fight to remain, well, religious.  And it is more important than ever for religious groups to continue fighting for this God-given right to be religious.  As the battle rages on, it becomes more and more likely that the Supreme Court will have to weigh in on the issue at some point.

__________________________________________

ADF will continue the fight for the rights of private student organizations to define their membership and select their leaders without interference or retaliation by state university officials.  Please contact ADF if you are encountering similar problems at your state university.

The Supreme Court let stand the lower court decision upholding San Diego State’s discriminatory exclusion of a Christian fraternity and a Christian sorority from access to the channels of communication with students on campus. In a one sentence order with no comment, the Supreme Court declined to hear the case.  San Diego State prohibited campus Christian organizations from requiring their members and leaders to agree with the organization’s statement of faith, but allowed other student organizations to require members and leaders to agree with the viewpoints the groups advocate.  The Ninth Circuit upheld the San Diego’s State’s requirement as constitutional, and ADF appealed to the Supreme Court.

ADF attorney David Cortman issued the following statement in response to the Supreme Court’s actions:

“Public universities should encourage, not censor, the free exchange of ideas. But for now, the supposed marketplace of ideas at San Diego State University will remain a stronghold for censorship. We wish the Supreme Court would have used this opportunity to make clear that the First Amendment protects the right of student groups to employ belief-based criteria in selecting their members and leaders.”

“Throughout the years of defending its policy, the university did not tell the Democratic club it must be led by a Republican, or the vegetarian club that it must be led by a meat-eater, but it did tell Christian groups that they must allow themselves to be led by atheists. Even its purported, 11th-hour policy change made at the doorstep of the Supreme Court continues to treat religious groups less favorably than many other student groups. When political conformity is placed ahead of the constitutionally protected rights of students, all students–including students of faith–suffer.”

ADF will continue the fight for the rights of private student organizations to define their membership and select their leaders without interference or retaliation by state university officials.  Please contact ADF if you are encountering similar problems at your state university.

The U.S. Supreme Court should announce Monday whether it will hear the ADX v. Reed case from San Diego State.   We have discussed this case before and it involves a bad decision by the Ninth Circuit upholding the decision of San Diego State officials to force a Christian fraternity and sorority on campus to allow non-Christians to join, even though SDSU allows secular student groups to exclude from membership and leadership students who disagree with the groups’ viewpoints.  So that means the student vegetarian club can exclude those who advocate for meat eating and animal hunting, but Christian groups cannot exclude those advocating atheism or Buddhism, etc.

This case is a follow up to the Supreme Court’s disappointing decision in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez in June 2010, in which it upheld an “all comers” policy at UC-Hastings Law School in San Francisco, a policy that forced all student groups to allow all students to join their club.   Late last year, San Diego State tried to subvert our appeal to the Supreme Court by abruptly adopting an all comers policy, even though it has defended its religion-specific policy for years in court.  The Supreme Court should realize its orders list at 10:00 am Eastern Time.  Stay tuned.