Politically correct, legally wrong; Why a law school's nondiscrimination policy runs afoul of the Constitution - By: Anonymous(Editorial)

http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=2012619381&sid=6&Fmt=3&clientId=9417&RQT=309&VName=PQD

(Please make sure you are logged into FCC's National Newspapers first before clicking on the link above.)


The University of California, Hastings College of Law has a strict policy where it's student groups must adhere to the school's nondiscrimination policy. There is 60 "recognized school organizations" that all are equally held to this policy. In this policy each group must accept students who want to become members or even leaders in that group, even if the student disagrees with everything that is central to what the group stands for. "A law association for African American students being told that it must let white supremacists run for leadership posts." This school policy is outraging many in these groups because if the group does not comply with the school's policy, then the organization will not have access to campus meeting rooms, school e-mail lists, and will not be invited to the annual student organization fair, and even be denied the right to apply for grants funded by student fundraisers. This outrage has spawned a San Francisco-based law school group called the Christian Law Society (CLS) to file a lawsuit with the Supreme Court against the school. The CLS is standing against the college by limiting their members to only those who agree with their scripturally based laws.

I feel that this article was well written by one of the editors of the Washington Post. It logically and effectively supports groups like the CLS, by showing the reader how though the school is trying to be nondiscriminatory toward it's students, it "only exacerbates the harm." The argument is persuasive by showing how those of a completely opposite belief can join a group is absurd and throws the meaning of association out the window. This article doesn't state much of the author's personal opinion on the topic. However, because the article is rich in facts, the editor doesn't need to say much more than a few well placed words. This article will be read by those who are in the District of Columbia who decide the laws of our nation. I believe the author also reaches his intended audience by publishing this paper in a nationally known newspaper (The Washington Post).

This article about the rights of groups in our universities hits home for me. I am a college student and I plan to join a ethical hacker school organization at a future college in West Virginia. This group attempts to build up it's members ability to protect network systems against hackers who wish to compromise the data of a individual or business. If one of these bad hackers were allowed to join the organization of ethical hackers at the school, it would be detrimental toward what the rest of the group is trying to establish. I think the opinion of the author of this article is right on in his stance of the issue. Thought the school is trying to make everyone happy by forcing equal rights on everyone, the whole point of a group is to have only those who share the groups core beliefs involved in it.