Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/09pdf/08-1371.pdf
Page Number: 63.0

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

15 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

which new students enter on a regular basis, it must
possess  the  means  of  communicating  with  these  stu-
dents.  Moreover, the organization’s ability to partici-
pate  in  the  intellectual  give  and  take  of  campus  de-
bate,  and  to  pursue  its  stated  purposes,  is  limited  by 
denial of access to the customary media for communi-
cating with the administration, faculty members, and 
other  students.  Such  impediments  cannot  be  viewed
as insubstantial.”  Id., at 181–182. 

It  is  striking  that  all  of  these  same  burdens  are  now 
borne by CLS.  CLS is prevented from using campus facili-
ties—unless  at  some  future  time  Hastings  chooses  to 
provide a timely response to a CLS request and allow the
group,  as  a  favor  or  perhaps  in  exchange  for  a  fee,  to  set 
up a table on the patio or to use a room that would other-
wise be unoccupied.  And CLS, like the SDS in Healy, has 
been cut off from “the customary media for communicating
with  the  administration,  faculty  members,  and  other
students.”  Id., at 181–182. 

It  is  also  telling  that  the  Healy  Court,  unlike  today’s
majority,  refused  to  defer  to  the  college  president’s  judg-
ment  regarding  the  compatibility  of  “sound  educational
policy”  and  free  speech  rights.    The  same  deference  argu-
ments that the majority now accepts were made in defense
of  the  college  president’s  decision  to  deny  recognition  in 
Healy.  Respondents  in  that  case  emphasized  that  the
college president, not the courts, had the responsibility of 
administering  the  institution  and  that  the  courts  should 
allow  him  “ ‘wide  discretion  . . .  in  determining  what  ac-
tions are most compatible with its educational objectives.’ ”  
Brief  for  Respondents  in  Healy  v.  James,  O.  T.  1971,  No. 
71–452,  pp.  7–8.  A  supporting  amicus  contended  that 
college officials “must be allowed a very broad discretion in 
formulating and implementing policies.”  Brief for Board of 
Trustees,  California  State  Colleges  6.  Another  argued