Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/09pdf/08-1371.pdf
Page Number: 5.0

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

5 

Syllabus 

dize  conduct  disapproved  by  the  State.    So  long  as  a  public  school
does not contravene constitutional limits, its choice to advance state-
law goals stands on firm footing.  Pp. 21–24.  

(3) Hastings’ policy is all the more creditworthy in light of the 
“substantial alternative channels that remain open for [CLS-student] 
communication to take place.”  Perry Ed. Assn. v. Perry Local Educa-
tors’  Assn.,  460  U. S.  37,  53.    Hastings  offered  CLS  access  to  school
facilities to conduct meetings and the use of chalkboards and certain 
bulletin boards to advertise events.  Although CLS could not take ad-
vantage  of  RSO-specific  methods  of  communication,  the  advent  of
electronic  media  and  social-networking  sites  lessens  the  importance
of those channels.  Private groups, such as fraternities and sororities,
commonly maintain a presence at universities without official school 
affiliation.  CLS was similarly situated: It hosted a variety of activi-
ties the year after Hastings denied it recognition, and the number of
students attending those meetings and events doubled.  “The variety
and type of alternative modes of access present here,” in short, “com-
pare favorably with those in other [limited public] forum cases where 
[the Court has] upheld restrictions.”  Id., at 53–54.  Pp. 24–25.

(4) CLS’s  arguments  that  the  all-comers  policy  is  not  reason-
able are unavailing.  CLS contends that there can be no diversity of
viewpoints in a forum when groups are not permitted to form around
viewpoints,  but  this  argument  confuses  CLS’s  preferred  policy  with 
constitutional  limitation—the  advisability  of  Hastings’  policy  does
not control its permissibility.  A State’s restriction on access to a lim-
ited public forum, moreover, “need not be the most reasonable or the 
only reasonable limitation.”  Cornelius, 473 U. S., at 808.  CLS’s con-
tention that Hastings’ policy will facilitate hostile takeovers of RSOs
by  student  saboteurs  bent  on  subverting  a  group’s  mission  is  more
hypothetical  than  real;  there  is  no  history  or  prospect  of  RSO-
hijackings  at  Hastings.    Cf.  National  Endowment  for  Arts  v.  Finley, 
524 U. S. 569, 584.  Finally, CLS’s assertion that Hastings lacks any 
legitimate  interest  in  urging  religious  groups  not  to  favor  co-
religionists erroneously focuses on the benefits the group must forgo, 
while ignoring the interests of those it seeks to fence out.  Hastings,
caught  in  the  crossfire  between  a  group’s  desire  to  exclude  and  stu-
dents’  demand  for  equal  access,  may  reasonably  draw  a  line  in  the 
sand  permitting  all  organizations  to  express  what  they  wish  but  no 
group to discriminate in membership.  Pp. 25–28. 

(d) Hastings’ all-comers policy is viewpoint neutral.  Pp. 28–31.  

(1) The  policy  draws  no  distinction  between  groups  based  on 
their message or perspective; its requirement that all student groups 
accept all comers is textbook viewpoint neutral.  Pp. 28–29. 

(2) Conceding that the policy is nominally neutral, CLS asserts