Opinion ID: 2686
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The State's Interest

Text: CSI's interests in applying its non-discrimination policy are substantial. As the district court acknowledged, [t]here is undoubtedly a compelling interest in eradicating discrimination based on gender. See Bd. of Dirs. of Rotary Int'l v. Rotary Club of Duarte, 481 U.S. 537, 549, 107 S.Ct. 1940, 95 L.Ed.2d 474 (1987) ([P]ublic accommodations laws `plainly serv[e] compelling state interests of the highest order.' (quoting Roberts, 468 U.S. at 624, 104 S.Ct. 3244) (second alteration in original)). The school's mission statement declares that [e]fforts to promote diversity and to combat bigotry . . . are an inextricable part of the educational mission of the University. CSI encourages students to form clubs in order to support the school's goals. To gain recognition, a club must exhibit a clear relationship with the educational mission of CSI. By denying recognition to student groups that reject members based on gender, CSI's anti-discrimination policy directly promotes the significant, consistent commitment the school has made to oppose discrimination. Though recognizing the importance of eradicating discrimination, the district court minimized the state interest in doing so in the present context. The court noted that fraternities and sororities have long existed as single-sex institutions, and that federal anti-discrimination laws specifically exempt fraternities and sororities from their reach. It attached considerable importance to the fact that there is no law deeming single-sex organizations per se unconstitutional or against national policy. The district court concluded that while eliminating sex discrimination in general is a compelling state interest, preventing fraternities from discriminating is not. The fact that a practice is lawful does not mean that a state may not have a substantial interest in opposing it. An interest need not be protected by federal statutes before it can be considered compelling. In Roberts, for instance, the Supreme Court found that Minnesota's public accommodations law served a compelling interest  eradicating discrimination in private clubs  even though the law went further than federal anti-discrimination laws. 468 U.S. at 623, 104 S.Ct. 3244; see also Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306, 327-33, 123 S.Ct. 2325, 156 L.Ed.2d 304 (2003) (recognizing that states have a compelling interest in promoting a diverse student body at public universities, even though no federal law requires affirmative action in education). The state's interest in prohibiting sex discrimination is no less compelling because federal anti-discrimination statutes exempt fraternities. Moreover, CSI has a substantial interest in making sure that its resources are available to all its students. When a student group is officially recognized by CSI, it becomes entitled to a range of benefits, including use of CSI facilities and services, eligibility for insurance through the school, the right to use the CSI name in conjunction with the group, and the opportunity to apply for funding from the student government. These benefits are funded in part by tuition paid by CSI's students; CSI's non-discrimination policy ensures that all its students have access to the organizations that enjoy these benefits. See Roberts, 468 U.S. at 624, 104 S.Ct. 3244 (state has a compelling interest in assuring its citizens equal access to publicly available goods and services).