Although Boy Scouts of America v. Dale stated that the "forced inclusion of an unwanted person infringes the group's freedom of expressive association if the presence of that person affects in a significant way the group's ability to advocate public or private viewpoints," Barnes-Wallace v. Boy Scouts of America is currently on appeal to the Ninth Circuit and adds to the total picture. In the lower court, U.S. District Judge Napoleon Jones Jr. said the Boy Scouts are a religious organization because the Boy Scouts require members to profess a belief in God , and therefore the City of San Diego’s below market lease ($1 a year) of 18 acres in Balboa Park to the Boy Scouts of America-Desert Pacific Council violates the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution (as well as the No Aid and No Preference Clauses of the California Constitution).

The question in Barnes-Wallace v. Boy Scouts of America (BSA) seems not to be whether it’s legal for the BSA to require a test of religious faith or discriminate ageist minorities if finds “unclean” and not “morally straight” — but the question seems to be whether the BSA can maintain those convictions and still keep control City of San Diego public parklands — public assets — subsidized by all city taxpayers. This situation at the face appears be to the detriment of taxpayers who don’t share the BSA’s theology.

Is there a difference between government support in the form of financial endorsement of free speech and free speech that the government merely allows? Most would say their is. And with the Establishment Clause in place, free speech of organizations making use of public assets would seem to have a burden of showing why these funds should be expended to financially support religious free speech to the detriment of those with different religious beliefs.

I know I’d worry about whether a group’s free speech and conduct — that would be considered acceptable for an unsubsidized private organization — would be considered just as acceptable when subsidized and then viewed in the light of school anti-discrimination policies. Do religious organizations’ receipt of student funds pass the “smell test” when becoming entwined with state university or state college sponsored policies? Would the religious group’s actions appear to be impregnated with government character? At what point does a religious group’s free speech turn into conduct in violation of school anti-discrimination policy and the Establishment Clause?

I personally believe that on receipt of quasi-governmental student funds these groups become subject to the constitutional limits and other legal limits placed on state action in the Establishment Clause, Titles Seven and Nine, and the state and school anti-discrimination laws and policies. It will be interesting to see how this will all play out.

Darryn- solid writing as usual.

The segregated fee system at this university has always reeked of constitutional problems. Contrary to what many student government “leaders” on campus may try to say, the Supreme Court did not uphold the system as it was in Southworth. A set of criteria were established (some of it later struck by courts as being unconstitutional) and “viewpoint neutrality” became the operating principle.

The problem is the enforcement of “viewpoint neutrality” is and always has been a complete farce. The left on this campus has used Student Judiciary (just like they use real courts outside of campus) to advance their agenda. If “student of color” groups on this campus violate numerous regulations and appropriately lose their eligibility, it’s a viewpoint neutrality violation. If SSFC inconsistently applies a strict interpretation of the criteria to a Catholic organization, that’s upholding the Bylaws.

For those of you in UWRCF, I would encourage you to keep pressing this, including going to real court. This could be the case that finally brings this unconstitutional and immoral system down.

So you are saying is the university should support James Dobson’s ilk in their views? HFS man. Here’s an example to show how ludicrous this logic is. Most rationale people hold that the KKK was a pretty crappy organization on basically on par with the Nazis. However, in the south there is a KKK museum which states that the KKK was merely a protection body to help out the south. Anyone with a brain (presumably anyone who was admitted into say, graduate school) would probably find this view not only historically bogus but reprehensible. Dobson, the family research council, focus on family, etc represent a serious flaw in logic akin to the KKK and the NAZI regime. By stating that they should get an equal time and support in their views is tantamount to supporting indoctrinated hatred. This paragraph alone dismantles your whole argument due to the fact that you are, well, insane.

Seriously, are you on some sort of make-me-incoherent drug? Your complete lack of adherence to logic and coherence is truly astounding.

You write: “Last year, the organization's budget request was cut in half — a percentage larger than any other group receiving funding. SSFC members were also concerned UWRCF would use some of the funding for ‘religious’ activities.”

So, you are angry and offended that SSFC would suggest that UWRCF might use some public funds for religious purposes (which, as you surely know, is indeed unconstitutional). So far, so good.

You write: “…the mission of Christian organizations such as UWRCF is ‘to proclaim the Gospel in word and deed’…”

Daaaaaaah. These are your words! Mere seconds later!

But then it gets even more bizarre.

You write: “Even though UWRCF has never excluded non-Catholics from participating in its events, the organization's denial of funding begs an important question. Why must groups on campus be forced to accept members who disagree with their principles?”

So, first of all, we’ve completely switched issues here. Great, I’m with you, even though it is apparently NOT AN ISSUE, since the organization doesn’t exclude non-Catholics from participation.

You write: “The Supreme Court provided an answer to this question in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale when it stated that the ‘forced inclusion of an unwanted person infringes the group's freedom of expressive association if the presence of that person affects in a significant way the group's ability to advocate public or private viewpoints.’ SSFC must not have received the message.”

God, where to begin?? So, you ask the (irrelevant) question of why groups on campus must be forced to accept members who disagree with their values, and, apparently, support this question by saying that, in fact, they don’t? Seriously, take Logic 101. But ok. So, the Supreme Court says that they actually DON’T have to accept such members, because doing so would AFFECT THEIR ABILITY TO ADVOCATE THEIR VIEWPOINTS. Which, you know, is what you just said they weren’t doing. GOD.

You write: “Legal principles aside, denying funding to UWRCF because it is deemed to be ‘exclusionary’ demonstrates one of the most glaring logical fallacies in the student fee distribution process on this campus.”

Do you even know what a logical fallacy is? And do you even notice the complete irrelevance of your Boy Scouts example? Do we fund the Boy Scouts with public money? No. Why? Because they discriminate based on religion. And you’ve just said that the UWRCF SHOULD be able to discriminate based on religion, AND that they should still get funding. (Note to the editors: Is there no policy against blatant idiocy at this paper? Frankly, I’m pretty sure the Badger Herald should stop receiving seg funds).

Finally, you get in your obligatory pot-shot at the gays: “The LGBT Campus Center, an organization funded through segregated fees, seeks to eliminate ‘heterosexism, homophobia, and gender identity oppression.’ Those holding the same viewpoints on homosexuality as James Dobson and the Family Research Council would not be welcomed by the center. And the university tolerates this exclusion.”

Ah, Darryn. Way to go. Next time James Dobson asks to join the LGBT Center, you let us know. But asking to blow it up doesn’t count.

Listen kid, you’re obviously not an attorney, so maybe you should stop talking before you embarrass yourself further.

You’re half-right, Darryn, which is a first. SSFC seems to be riding the UWRCF pretty hard, although it’s not because they’re Catholic. Rather, it’s because SSFC is confused about what viewpoint-neutral means. The concept of viewpoint-neutral applies to SSFC, not to the organizations that it funds.

However, that doesn’t mean that expressing a viewpoint gives an organization license to actively discriminate against other students. It’s university policy that any student organization that receives student fees must be open to all students. In practice, students won’t get involved with organizations that espouse a viewpoint they disagree with, but that’s for the students to figure out, not the organization.

Questions that should have been addressed by a well written article:

1) What were the bylaws in question that resulted in the denial of funding?

2)What changes in the bylaws are your referring to?

3) What does the UWRCF do?

4) What did the supreme court say in it’s decsion on seg fees, and how does that relate to your assertion?

5) How is “protecting individuals from discrmination” and “defending minority viewpoints” contradictory?

6) What is god’s name are you talking about?

“The Fourteenth Amendment protects individuals against discrimination while the First Amendment simultaneously defends minority viewpoints.”

In the issue at hand, these amendments don’t contradict each other, creating, as you call it, “tension”. Rather, they both serve to undermine your very argument. It is not the duty of SSFC, if they are to follow the rulings of Southworth, to bend over backwards for the sake of the organization because they don’t like peoples of other viewpoints joining their ranks. The 14th protects the dissenter from being booted out of the group due to discrimination against their viewpoint. This is REINFORCED by the 1st amendment’s protection of their viewpoint. For the UWRCF to get what they want is doubly UNconstitutional.

You also give no evidence of the paperwork-based technicality being a cover for viewpoint discrimination by SSFC, nor do you offer substantial, documented cases of non-LGBT supporters being made unwelcome by the group. You don’t have to be Lesbian, Gay, etc. to be in LGBT. However, by your very argument, it is out of the question for a religious group to accept a member of a different religion. By your own words, it is exclusionary.

In short, your article is nothing more than contradictory arguments and sourgrapes.

Boy Scouts v. Dale is hardly controlling in UWRCF’s case. The Boy Scouts is a private organization, period. UWRCF is a group that is part of and organized under the auspices of a public university. Note the “UW” in “UWRCF”.

Question: “Why must groups on campus be forced to accept members who disagree with their principles?”

Answer: Because UW v. Southworth requires it. Southworth allows universities to force their students to financially support student groups with which they do not agree. If those students must pay for those groups, it’s only fair to allow them to join those groups.

Finally, the LGBT Campus Center’s mission may be to eliminate heterosexism, homophobia, and gender identity oppression. But that doesn’t necessarily mean its by-laws exclude people who support heterosexism, etc. If the bylaws did exclude those people, I assume you would have said so in the article. The problem with UWRCF is that its bylaws did exclude people. See the distinction?

For once, Darryn and I agree. That being said, it would be nice if someone from the SSFC would comment for the article or write an Op-Ed piece to justify their actions.

Normally, I would side with you on this issue, Darryn. But considering the Catholic Church’s long history of oppression of non-Christians, especially Jews, I think it’s only fair that Catholics start taking what they have dished out for so long.

Something SSFC never seemed to consider: even if UWRCF membership is limited to Catholics, which it can be under freedom of association, it can still receive funds so long as all programming being funded is open to all. Nobody on the committee ever proved that this was not the case.

Anonymous:

Something SSFC never seemed to consider: even if UWRCF membership is limited to Catholics, which it can be under freedom of association, it can still receive funds so long as all programming being funded is open to all. Nobody on the committee ever proved that this was not the case.

Uh, no. This would pointedly fail the Lemon test.

You ask: Why must groups on campus be forced to accept members who disagree with their principles?

Groups on campus are not forced to accept members who disagree with their principles… except if they want their money. Why should students who are not welcome in such groups pay for their funding? Let groups that wish to outcast others get their money through member dues and fundraisers as opposed to from those very students they do not welcome.

Kristen M Jones ([email protected])