Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/09pdf/08-1371.pdf
Page Number: 42

4 

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

HASTINGS COLLEGE OF LAW v. MARTINEZ 

STEVENS, J., concurring

has  thus  given  no  reason  to  be  skeptical  of  the  basic
design,  function,  or  rationale  of  the  Nondiscrimination
Policy.

What  the  policy  does  reflect  is  a  judgment  that  dis-
crimination  by  school  officials  or  organizations  on  the 
basis  of  certain  factors,  such  as  race  and  religion,  is  less 
tolerable than discrimination on the basis of other factors. 
This approach may or may not be the wisest choice in the 
context  of  a  Registered  Student  Organization  (RSO)  pro-
gram.  But  it  is  at  least  a  reasonable  choice.    Academic 
administrators  routinely  employ  antidiscrimination  rules 
to  promote  tolerance,  understanding,  and  respect,  and  to
safeguard students from invidious forms of discrimination,
including  sexual  orientation  discrimination.3   Applied  to
the  RSO  context,  these  values  can,  in  turn,  advance  nu-
merous  pedagogical  objectives. 
See  post,  at  3–4 
(KENNEDY, J., concurring). 

It  is  critical,  in  evaluating  CLS’s  challenge  to  the  Non-
discrimination  Policy,  to  keep  in  mind  that  an  RSO  pro-
gram is a limited forum—the boundaries of which may be 
delimited by the proprietor.  When a religious association,
or  a  secular  association,  operates  in  a  wholly  public  set-
ting, it must be allowed broad freedom to control its mem-
bership and its message, even if its decisions cause offense
to  outsiders.  Profound  constitutional  problems  would
arise  if  the  State  of  California  tried  to  “demand  that  all 
Christian  groups  admit  members  who  believe  that  Jesus 
—————— 

3 In a case about an antidiscrimination policy that, even if ill-advised, 
is explicitly directed at preventing religious discrimination, it is rather 
hard to swallow the dissent’s ominous closing remarks.  See post, at 37 
(suggesting that today’s decision “point[s] a judicial dagger at the heart
of”  religious  groups  in  the  United  States  (internal  quotation  marks
omitted)).  Although  the  dissent  is  willing  to  see  pernicious  antireligi-
ous  motives  and  implications  where  there  are  none,  it  does  not  seem 
troubled by the fact that religious sects, unfortunately, are not the only 
social  groups  who  have  been  persecuted  throughout  history  simply  for 
being who they are.