Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/09pdf/08-1371.pdf
Page Number: 26

20 

CHRISTIAN LEGAL SOC. CHAPTER OF UNIV. OF CAL., 
HASTINGS COLLEGE OF LAW v. MARTINEZ 
Opinion of the Court 

responsibility  to  delineate  and  protect  fundamental  liber­
ties.”).  Cognizant  that  judges  lack  the  on-the-ground
expertise  and  experience  of  school  administrators,  how­
ever,  we  have  cautioned  courts  in  various  contexts  to 
resist  “substitut[ing]  their  own  notions  of  sound  educa­
tional policy for those of the school authorities which they 
review.”  Board of Ed. of Hendrick Hudson Central School 
Dist.,  Westchester  Cty.  v.  Rowley,  458  U. S.  176,  206 
(1982).  See  also,  e.g.,  Hazelwood  School  Dist.  v.  Kuhl-
meier, 484 U. S. 260, 273 (1988) (noting our “oft-expressed 
view that the education of the Nation’s youth is primarily 
the responsibility of parents, teachers, and state and local 
school  officials,  and  not  of  federal  judges”);  Healy,  408 
U. S.,  at  180  (“[T]his  Court  has  long  recognized  ‘the  need
for  affirming  the  comprehensive  authority  of  the  States
and of school officials, consistent with fundamental consti­
tutional  safeguards,  to  prescribe  and  control  conduct  in
the  schools.’ ”  (quoting  Tinker  v.  Des  Moines  Independent 
Community School Dist., 393 U. S. 503, 507 (1969))).

A  college’s  commission—and  its  concomitant  license  to 
choose  among  pedagogical  approaches—is  not  confined  to 
the  classroom,  for  extracurricular  programs  are,  today, 
essential  parts  of  the  educational  process.    See  Board  of 
Ed.  of  Independent  School  Dist.  No.  92  of  Pottawatomie 
Cty. v. Earls, 536 U. S. 822, 831, n. 4 (2002) (involvement 
in  student  groups  is  “a  significant  contributor  to  the 
breadth and quality of the educational experience” (inter­
nal  quotation  marks  omitted)).  Schools,  we  have  empha­
sized,  enjoy  “a  significant  measure  of  authority  over  the 
type  of  officially  recognized  activities  in  which  their  stu­
dents  participate.”  Board  of  Ed.  of  Westside  Community 
Schools  (Dist.  66)  v.  Mergens,  496  U. S.  226,  240  (1990). 
We  therefore  “approach  our  task  with  special  caution,” 
Healy, 408 U. S., at 171, mindful that Hastings’ decisions
about  the  character  of  its  student-group  program  are  due