Opinion ID: 2350429
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Endorsement Distinguished from the Tangible Benefits

Text: The distinction between the endorsement and the other benefits contained in Georgetown's scheme of University Recognition is fundamental. It is so from both a statutory and a constitutional perspective. In this case, the separateness of the benefits at issue is obscured by the fact that they are bundled together into a single package known as University Recognition. Because the endorsement and the tangible benefits contained in that package are fundamentally distinct, we must sever the artificial connection between them in order to analyze the true issues. The endorsement contained in University Recognition is an intangible. To a student group, it is no more than an expression of official approval or neutrality, a statement of Georgetown's tolerance towards organizations that pose no fundamental challenge to the moral norms. The endorsement is a symbolic gesture, a form of speech by a private, religiously affiliated educational institution, an entity free to adopt partisan public positions on moral and ethical issues. [15] In speaking out on human sexuality, Georgetown is guided by a religious mission undertaken along with secular educational functions. The endorsement contained in University Recognition assists the student group only by giving it Georgetown's imprimatur or, at least, nihil obstat. Quite different are the tangible benefits associated with University Recognition. Unlike the endorsement, the tangible benefits are facilities and services, D.C. Code § 1-2520 (1987), and not an abstract expression of the University's moral philosophy. Their distinct characteristics are disguised only because both the endorsement and the additional tangible benefits are included in one package known as University Recognition. As amicus The Governor's Council on Lesbian and Gay Issues of the State of Wisconsin points out, such a structure unnecessarily ties the University's religious beliefs to extension of benefits. Brief at 5-6. We agree. While the endorsement and the tangible benefits may be one for Georgetown's administrative purposes, they are not so in the eyes of the Human Rights Act, nor are they so in the eyes of the First Amendment. The constitutionality of the statute, as the District of Columbia remarks, cannot depend on the [U]niversity's internal linkages. Reply Brief at 3. We open up the package of University Recognition and examine its contents separately. [16]