Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/09pdf/08-1371.pdf
Page Number: 23

Cite as:  561 U. S. ____ (2010) 

17 

Opinion of the Court 

instant  dispute,  therefore,  with  the  limited-public-forum 
decisions as our guide. 

B 
As  earlier  pointed  out,  supra,  at  1,  12–13,  we  do  not 

write on a blank slate; we have three times before consid­
ered  clashes  between  public  universities  and  student 
groups  seeking  official  recognition  or  its  attendant  bene­
fits.  First,  in  Healy,  a  state  college  denied  school  affilia­
tion to a student group that wished to form a local chapter 
of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS).  408 U. S., at 
170.  Characterizing SDS’s mission as violent and disrup­
tive, and finding the organization’s philosophy repugnant, 
the college completely banned the SDS chapter from cam­
pus;  in  its  effort  to  sever  all  channels  of  communication
between students and the group,  university  officials went 
so far as to disband a meeting of SDS members in a cam­
pus  coffee  shop.    Id.,  at  174–176.    The  college,  we  noted,
could  require  “that  a  group  seeking  official  recognition
affirm  in  advance  its  willingness  to  adhere  to  reasonable 
campus  law,”  including  “reasonable  standards  respecting 
conduct.”  Id., at 193.  But a public educational institution
exceeds constitutional bounds, we held, when it “restrict[s]
speech  or  association  simply  because  it  finds  the  views
expressed by [a] group to be abhorrent.”  Id., at 187–188.15 

—————— 

15 The  dissent  relies  heavily  on  Healy,  post,  at  13–17,  but  its  other­
wise exhaustive account of the case elides the very fact the Healy Court 
identified  as  dispositive:  The  president  of  the  college  explicitly  denied 
the student group official recognition because of the group’s viewpoint. 
See 408 U. S, at 187 (“The mere disagreement of the President with the 
group’s  philosophy  affords  no  reason  to  deny  it  recognition.”).    In  this 
case,  in  contrast,  Hastings  denied  CLS  recognition  not  because  the 
school  wanted  to  silence  the  “viewpoint  that  CLS  sought  to  express 
through  its  membership  requirements,”  post,  at  17,  n. 2,  but  because 
CLS,  insisting  on  preferential  treatment,  declined  to  comply  with  the
open-access  policy  applicable  to  all  RSOs,  see  R. A. V.  v.  St.  Paul,  505 
U. S. 377, 390 (1992) (“Where the [State] does not target conduct on the