More University Church/State Controversies

Here's yet another case of a university refusing to recognize a Christian student group because they require that officers of the group be Christians, this time the University of Wisconsin. This is the same school that absurdly ruled that RAs could not hold bible studies in their rooms, even during their off hours, because it made them less "approachable". As I've written before, there are several such cases going around the country, but Wisconsin is in the same 7th judicial district. The controlling precedent there was just laid down by the court of appeals in CLS v Southern Illinois, which ruled that such a policy violates the group's right to expressive association (and rightly so). I can't imagine the UW counsel isn't telling the administration they better change their policy unless and until the Supreme Court overturns that ruling.

More like this

Christopher Patti, an attorney with the University of California, emailed me to correct my brief post on yesterday's ruling in CLS v Southern Illinois. Here I am, the guy who always tells people not to rely on media reports about court rulings because they so often get them wrong, and what do I do…
In another case of a university refusing to recognize a Christian student group, CLS v Southern Illinois University, an appeals court has ruled that in favor of the Christian Legal Society. This is similar to the North Carolina case and several others around the country. This reverses a lower court…
In discussing a legal case involving the University of North Carolina and their refusal to fund a Christian fraternity (the university later reversed themselves) the other day, Reed Cartwright asked a reasonable question: I don't see how this is any different than the city of Berekely refusing to…
I mentioned a few weeks ago the situation at the University of Wisconsin where the university told dorm RAs that they could no longer host bible studies in their dorm rooms because they were afraid that would make them less "approachable" to other students. This was a ludicrous argument then and it…

I agree, but you should write it like this: "[...], which ruled (and rightly so) that such a policy violates the group's right to expressive association." Then we would only have to read the sentence once. I'm sure your ninth grade English teacher would agree. (And rightly so.)

Mmm, Dave M, I think you should have written, "Then we would have to read the sentence only once."