University-Funded Discrimination: Unresolved Issues After the Supreme Court?s 'Resolution' of the Circuit Split on University Funding for Discriminatory Organizations

• Author: Jennifer J. Hennessy
• Position: J.D., The University of Iowa College of Law, 2011; B.S., The University of Iowa, 2007.
• Pages: 1767-1789

1767

University-Funded Discrimination:

Unresolved Issues After the Supreme

Court’s “Resolution” of the Circuit Split

on University Funding for Discriminatory

Organizations

Jennifer J. Hennessy

ABSTRACT: Prior to June 2010, the circuits were split as to whether

universities may refuse to fund student groups that discriminate against

certain classes of individuals in violation of the universities’

nondiscrimination policies. In June 2010, the Supreme Court purported to

resolve this circuit split in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, holding

that a university policy requiring student groups to admit all students (an

“all-comers policy”) to receive university funding is constitutional. The

Court, however, declined to resolve the larger issue—whether it is

constitutional for a university to refuse to fund a student group that

discriminates against a specific class of individuals who are protected by the

university’s written nondiscrimination policy. This Note argues that the

Supreme Court should follow the Ninth Circuit and hold that a university’s

refusal to fund a group that discriminates against a class of individuals

protected by the university’s nondiscrimination policy does not violate the

group’s First Amendment rights.

I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 1769

II. NONDISCRIMINATION POLICIES ........................................................... 1771

III. THE CIRCUIT SPLIT .............................................................................. 1773

A. THE SEVENTH AND SECOND CIRCUITS .............................................. 1773

B. THE NINTH CIRCUIT CREATES A CIRCUIT SPLIT ............................... 1775

 J.D., The University of Iowa College of Law, 2011; B.S., The University of Iowa, 2007.

A special thanks to the members of Volumes 95 and 96 of the Iowa Law Review for their work on

this Note.

1768 IOWA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 96:1767

IV. CHRISTIAN LEGAL SOCIETY V. MARTINEZ: THE SUPREME COURT

PURPORTS TO RESOLVE THE CIRCUIT SPLIT ........................................ 1777

A. OTHER RELEVANT SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT ............................. 1779

B. MARTINEZ RATIONALES FOR FINDING THE UNIVERSITY’S “ALL-

COMERS POLICY” REASONABLE IN LIGHT OF UNIVERSITY’S LIMITED

PUBLIC FORUM ............................................................................... 1780

1. Status Versus Belief .............................................................. 1780

2. Decline to Subsidize Conduct of Which Taxpayers

Disapprove ............................................................................ 1783

3. Policy Promotes Diversity ..................................................... 1784

4. Analogy to a General Classroom Setting ............................ 1785

C. NONDISCRIMINATION POLICIES MUST BE VIEWPOINT NEUTRAL ........ 1785

V. CONCLUSION ....................................................................................... 1789