Discriminating Against Discrimination

by Gary J. Isbell 

The Federal Supreme Court has ruled on a case brought by the Christian Legal Society [CLS] at Hastings College that appealed an “accept-all-comers” policy, which mandates all campus organizations to accept anyone as a member and even allow them to run for office - no matter what they believe. Or so it seems.

To put this in simple terms, the accept-all-comers policy is the dictatorship of political correctness that prohibits any freedom of expression that might offend the current PC standards in our institutions of higher education. So far this policy has only been enforced with a Christian organization that requires its members to uphold traditional Christian doctrine about pre-marital sex and homosexual activity.

The essential flaw with this ruling is that it implies that discrimination is inherently evil. This could not be further from the truth. To discriminate is to differentiate, and this is exactly what must be done in order to make a choice. If one has made a choice, discrimination has taken place. Everyone who has chosen a spouse has implicitly discriminated against every other possible spouse. When we choose one product over another, we discriminate against all others. How can this not be applied when choosing an ideology or faith? The proponents of “free choice” are taking away the very essence of choosing by discriminating against discrimination.

Now, judicial activism is endangering the identity of civic organizations by doing away with their right to impose requirements of loyalty upon their members regarding beliefs and behavior. With this ruling, we can see the application of the French Revolutionary cry of equality applied in the name of discrimination. Freedom of speech seems to apply only to liberals and liberal causes.

In Justice Alito’s dissent, he offers this analysis. “Only religious groups were required to admit students who did not share their views. An environmentalist group was not required to admit students who rejected global warming. An animal rights group was not obligated to accept students who supported the use of animals to test cosmetics. But CLS was required to admit avowed atheists. This was patent viewpoint discrimination. … It is no wonder that the Court makes no attempt to defend the constitutionality of the Nondiscrimination Policy^[1].”

Carol Swain, a professor of political law at Vanderbilt says, “If this policy is allowed to stand, it will be difficult for any group to be able to move forward, but there will be grand opportunities for aggressive evangelism^[2].” While Swain is correct in stating there are equal opportunities for both sides, she fails to address the inherent problem of the destruction of identity, and definition of an organization. This ruling will only produce a quagmire of ideas and behavior in every organization that is forced to accept it.

On another note, we can only imagine what would happen if the military and police were forced to accept all comers. Both institutions have strict intellectual and physical requirements that must be met to join. To do away with these requirements would endanger the identity and effectiveness of these institutions. The final result can only be chaos.