Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/09pdf/08-1371.pdf
Page Number: 27

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

21 

decent respect.16 

Opinion of the Court 

2 

With  appropriate  regard  for  school  administrators’ 
judgment,  we  review  the  justifications  Hastings  offers  in 
defense  of  its  all-comers  requirement.17   First,  the  open­
access  policy  “ensures  that  the  leadership,  educational, 
and  social  opportunities  afforded  by  [RSOs]  are  available 

—————— 

16 The dissent mischaracterizes the nature of the respect we accord to
Hastings.  See  post,  at  1,  15–16,  27.    As  noted  supra,  at  19–20,  this 
Court,  exercising  its  independent  judgment,  must  “interpre[t]  and
appl[y] . . . the right to free speech.”  Post, at 16.  But determinations of 
what  constitutes  sound  educational  policy  or  what  goals  a  student­
organization  forum  ought  to  serve  fall  within  the  discretion  of  school 
administrators  and  educators.    See,  e.g.,  Board  of  Ed.  of  Hendrick 
Hudson Central School Dist., Westchester Cty. v. Rowley, 458 U. S. 176, 
206 (1982). 

17 Although the dissent maintains it is “content to address the consti­
tutionality  of  Hastings’  actions  under  our  limited  public  forum  cases,” 
post,  at  17,  it  resists  the  import  of  those  cases  at  every  turn.    For 
example,  although  the  dissent  acknowledges  that  a  university  has  the 
authority to set the boundaries of a limited public forum, post, at 17, 24, 
the dissent refuses to credit Hastings’ all-comers policy as one of those
boundaries.  See ibid. (insisting that “Hastings’ regulations . . . impose
only  two  substantive  limitations:  A  group  . . .  must  have  student 
members  and  must  be  non-commercial.”).   In  short,  “the  design  of  the 
RSO forum,” post, at 26, which the dissent discusses at length, post, at 
24–31, is of its own tailoring. 

Another  example:  The  dissent  pointedly  observes  that  “[w]hile  there 

can be no question that the State of California could not impose [an all­
comers] restrictio[n] on all religious groups in the State, the Court now 
holds  that  Hastings,  a  state  institution,  may  impose  these  very  same 
requirements  on  students  who  wish  to  participate  in  a  forum  that  is
designed to foster the expression of diverse viewpoints.”  Post, at 27.  As 
noted  supra,  at  12–13,  and  n. 11,  this  difference  reflects  the  lesser 
standard  of  scrutiny  applicable  to  limited  public  forums  compared  to
other forums.  The dissent fights the distinction between state prohibi-
tion  and  state  support,  but  its  real  quarrel  is  with  our  limited  public
forum doctrine, which recognizes that distinction.  CLS, it bears repeti­
tion, remains free to express whatever it will, but it cannot insist on an
exemption from Hastings’ embracive all-comers policy.