CLS v. Martinez Debate - ADF Attorney Greg Baylor, Professor Maureen Armour , Professor Linda Eads

Earlier this week, I participated in a debate regarding Christian Legal Society v. Martinez at Southern Methodist University’s Dedman School of Law in Dallas.  I argued that the U.S. Supreme Court should rule that Hastings College of the Law violated the Constitution when it refused to recognize its CLS chapter because the chapter draws its officers and voting members from among those who share its religious commitments.  SMU law professor Linda Eads energetically but graciously advocated a contrary result.

In my prepared remarks, I shared my belief that Hastings’ disagreement with CLS’s counter-cultural positions on religious doctrine and sexual morality was at least in part behind the school’s treatment of the CLS chapter.  Professor Eads essentially agreed with me, but then said something that truly surprised me – that Hastings should have the power to punish a counter-cultural group like CLS in order to promote “the culture it wants to foster.”

As I see it, a private educational institution, such a religious one, does have (and should have) the power to foster a certain kind of culture, free from the restraints the Constitution imposes upon government educational institutions.  But the First Amendment forbids the government from using its power to restrain the expressive activity of a group whose views contradict the government’s simply because of that disagreement.

My experience has been that many public university administrators fail to adequately grasp that the Constitution limits their power – something their  private school counterparts do not experience.  A greater understanding of this reality by America’s public colleges and universities would go a long way towards restoring freedom of speech on those campuses.

“As more and more campuses enforce discriminatory ‘nondiscrimination policies’, campus faith communities like Chi Alpha are forced to make an unjust choice:  either compromise our mission, values, and identity or lose the ability to meaningfully engage in campus life. This Supreme Court case will have lasting repercussions on students’ Constitutional rights.  Generations of university students will be impacted.”

Joe Gavin- Chi Alpha Vermont

Chi Alpha National Ministries has been a force for the Gospel on universities throughout the United States and around the world since 1953. Its members are college-age men and women earnestly following Jesus. The name “Chi Alpha” is inspired by II Corinthians 5:20. “We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making His appeal through us. We implore you on Christ’s behalf, be reconciled to God.” Inspired by this verse, the ministry chose the designation “christou apostoloi,” meaning “Christ’s sent ones,” to represent its membership. The Greek letters Chi (X) and Alpha (A) are the initials of this phrase which should remind us that we should live to accomplish the commission Jesus gave us.

Chi Alpha campus leaders aspire to embody the mission of the organization.  Because of their uncompromising faith, they have dealt with the non-discrimination statement issue on campuses across America over and over again. Most recently at the University of Vermont.

The Vermont Chi Alpha chapter was denied recognition by the Student Government Association (SGA) for the second time last year. The student chairperson denied Chi Alpha recognition because its constitution requires student leaders to be Christians and live according to Biblical ethics. The committee decided that the group was therefore “discriminating” on the basis of religion, a violation of the school’s nondiscrimination policy.

Failure to obtain official recognition constitutes a heavy penalty for this student campus group. Without recognition, the student members are unable to reserve space on campus for their weekly worship gatherings, information tables, or outreach events. They are also denied access to the student activities funds they themselves contribute to each semester.

While Chi Alpha Vermont continues to work toward recognition, it has its eye on the Court.

If your Christian campus group has faced this kind of injustice on campus, tell us about it.

You likely have heard by now that the U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether the law school at U.C. Hastings is permitted to deny funding to the student Christian Legal Society on the basis that it requires a pledge to Christian beliefs and practices to become a member of the group. However, you may not have heard how U.C. Hastings characterized the issue to the Los Angeles Times:

Ethan P. Schulman, a San Francisco lawyer who represents the law school, said the Christian students are entirely free to meet informally on campus. “The real question is whether a law school is obliged to subsidize a group with student fees that is committed to discriminating against some students. If their position is accepted by the court, it could force universities across the country to subsidize discriminatory organizations, including possibly hate groups or extremist groups.”

A comparison of conservative Christian groups with “hate groups or extremist groups” is nothing new on university campuses. Some forego the “comparison” altogether and simply label Christian groups as outright extremists. And we Americans hate nothing more than extremism. However, in honor of the coming Martin Luther King Day, we might do well to remind our university leaders of the following words of Dr. King:

But though I was initially disappointed at being categorized as an extremist, as I continued to think about the matter I gradually gained a measure of satisfaction from the label. Was not Jesus an extremist for love: “Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.” Was not Amos an extremist for justice: “Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an ever flowing stream.” Was not Paul an extremist for the Christian gospel: “I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus.” Was not Martin Luther an extremist: “Here I stand; I cannot do otherwise, so help me God.” And John Bunyan: “I will stay in jail to the end of my days before I make a butchery of my conscience.” And Abraham Lincoln: “This nation cannot survive half slave and half free.” And Thomas Jefferson: “We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal . . .” So the question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be. Will we be extremists for hate or for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice? In that dramatic scene on Calvary’s hill three men were crucified. We must never forget that all three were crucified for the same crime–the crime of extremism. Two were extremists for immorality, and thus fell below their environment. The other, Jesus Christ, was an extremist for love, truth and goodness, and thereby rose above his environment. Perhaps the South, the nation and the world are in dire need of creative extremists.

Likewise, campus “Christian extremists” should take heart and not be silenced by the name-calling. If your campus is having any round-table discussions regarding Dr. King’s legacy (as my law school did), I would encourage you to attend and remind all present of the danger of silencing the extremists. Dr. King’s legacy might not exist at all.