Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/09pdf/08-1371.pdf
Page Number: 43.0

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

5 

STEVENS, J., concurring 

was  merely  human.”  Post,  at  27  (ALITO,  J.,  dissenting).
But  the  CLS  chapter  that  brought  this  lawsuit  does  not 
want to be just a Christian group; it aspires to be a recog-
nized student organization.  The Hastings College of Law 
is not a legislature.  And no state actor has demanded that 
anyone  do  anything  outside  the  confines  of  a  discrete, 
voluntary academic program.  Although it may be the case
that  to  some  “university  students,  the  campus  is  their
world,”  post,  at  13  (internal  quotation  marks  omitted),  it 
does not follow that the campus ought to be equated with 
the public square.

The  campus  is,  in  fact,  a  world  apart  from  the  public
square in numerous respects, and religious organizations,
as  well  as  all  other  organizations,  must  abide  by  certain
norms  of  conduct  when  they  enter  an  academic  commu-
nity.  Public universities serve a distinctive role in a mod-
ern  democratic  society.  Like  all  specialized  government 
entities, they must make countless decisions about how to 
allocate  resources  in  pursuit  of  their  role.    Some  of  those 
decisions will be controversial; many will have differential
effects  across  populations;  virtually  all  will  entail  value
judgments  of  some  kind.    As  a  general  matter,  courts
should respect universities’ judgments and let them man-
age their own affairs.

The  RSO  forum  is  no  different.  It  is  not  an  open  com-
mons  that  Hastings  happens  to  maintain.    It  is  a  mecha-
nism through which Hastings confers certain benefits and 
pursues certain aspects of its educational mission.  Having
exercised  its  discretion  to  establish  an  RSO  program,  a
university  must treat  all participants evenhandedly.  But 
the  university  need  not  remain  neutral—indeed  it  could
not  remain  neutral—in  determining  which  goals  the  pro-
gram  will  serve  and  which  rules  are  best  suited  to  facili-
tate those goals.  These are not legal questions but policy 
questions; they are not for the Court but for the university 
to  make.  When  any  given  group  refuses  to  comply  with