Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/09pdf/08-1371.pdf
Page Number: 44

6 

CHRISTIAN LEGAL SOC. CHAPTER OF UNIV. OF CAL., 

HASTINGS COLLEGE OF LAW v. MARTINEZ 

STEVENS, J., concurring

the  rules,  the  RSO  sponsor  need  not  admit  that  group  at
the  cost  of  undermining  the  program  and  the  values  re-
flected therein.  On many levels, a university administra-
tor has a “greater interest in the content of student activi-
ties  than  the  police  chief  has  in  the  content  of  a  soapbox 
oration.”  Widmar  v.  Vincent,  454  U. S.  263,  280  (1981) 
(STEVENS, J., concurring in judgment). 

In  this  case,  petitioner  excludes  students  who  will  not 
sign its Statement of Faith or who engage in “unrepentant 
homosexual  conduct,”  App.  226.    The  expressive  associa-
tion  argument  it  presses,  however,  is  hardly  limited  to
these  facts.  Other  groups  may  exclude  or  mistreat  Jews,
blacks,  and  women—or  those  who  do  not share  their  con-
tempt  for  Jews,  blacks,  and  women.  A  free  society  must 
tolerate  such  groups.    It  need  not  subsidize  them,  give 
them its official imprimatur, or grant them equal access to
law school facilities.