Last year, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education defended the Advocates of Conservative Thought, a would-be student group at the University of Miami, after the group was denied recognition by the Committee on Student Organizations. The university took the position that one conservative student group was enough, and that since there was already a College Republicans chapter on campus, and since there was already a political forum on campus (the Council for Democracy), there was no need for this new group to form. FIRE successfully defended the group's associative rights, demonstrating not only that the mission of the group differed substantially from those of the College Republicans and Council for Democracy, but pointing out, far more fundamentally, that UM had no business making viewpoint a criterion for assessing the viability of prospective student groups. FIRE additionally noted that there are numerous liberal student groups on campus and urged UM not to impose a politically-oriented double standard on student groups. UM president Donna Shalala agreed, and ordered ACT to be recognized.

Now an intriguingly analogous case has arisen at Catholic University of America, where a group of students proposing to open a campus chapter of the NAACP has had their request denied. The university says that the proposed NAACP chapter would be redundant, as there are already two black student groups on campus. The university also says that the NAACP's recent support of a pro-choice rally reflects views that are not consistent with those of the school, and that therefore a campus chapter is out of the question. The NAACP does not have a formal position on abortion, and the students who sought to open the chapter say they wanted to do so in order to promote voter registration, not reproductive rights; they even pledged not to use the group as a forum for advocating choice. No go.

Catholic University of America, as a private institution, does have the right to engage in viewpoint discrimination when it comes to deciding what student groups it will and will not allow. At the same time, its reasoning in this case seems more than a little shameful, and more than a little spurious. It is as insulting to black students as it is to conservative students to tell them that all their associative interests and needs can be served by one or two groups (for the record, there are no other civil rights groups on campus--so the NAACP would hardly be redundant). It is also disappointing to see the university refuse to recognize an active, interested, engaged group of students simply because the organization with which they wish to affiliate themselves has supported the rights of others to express views the school does not like (picture a school refusing to recognize a campus chapter of the ACLU because the ACLU has been known to support the KKK's rights to free speech).

Worth noting: Georgetown, which is also Catholic, has an NAACP chapter.

The NAACP is threatening to sue.

Hat tip: intrepid reader and commenter Stolypin

An Excellent Move by Catholic University !

I'd point out that the University of Miami is also a private school, so it seems as if you're arguing this both ways. What exactly distinguishes the two?

No contradiction at all. Both are private schools, and as such both have the right to discriminate on the basis of viewpoint if they want to. The difference is that Miami does not want to be seen as a school that does this, while Catholic University openly proclaims that student expression must conform to the school's religious mission. MU was thus quite vulnerable to the moral pressure FIRE placed on it last year; CU is less so--but I'd still like to see a group like FIRE take CU on.

I don't understand the comparison of the NAACP to the ACLU in this context. I don't agree with either organization but that's neither here nor there. You're comparing the support of abortion with the support of free speach. That comparison holds no water whatsoever. Just because the people choosing to speak freely are the KKK doesn't mean the right to freedom of speech is wrong. There is nothing in the Catholic doctrine saying that freedom of speech is wrong. The KKK won't be admitted as a student group becuase of this issues they choose to support, not because they speak freely. So when an organization does something or supports some activity that is against a school's doctrine, why not disallow them from being a part of the school. According to the Catholic church, abortion is a SIN. Why should they support such???

Uh, Tex, the NAACP does not (to my knowledge) actually perform abortions. They have taken an offical position on the subject, therefore they are, like the conservative group at UM, engaging in advocacy. Hence, the free speech issue is pretty much identical.

Erin's point, however, is well-taken: UM, while private, is not a sectarian institution but holds itself out as being a bastion of academic freedom, etc., etc. CUA does not: it is first and foremost a Catholic school (unlike, for example, Georgetown, despite the latter also being established and still funded and operated in part by the Church). As private entities, both have the legal right to discriminate, but whether their choice to do so is just, reasonable or appropriate is another question.

"School administrators also raised concern about the group's support of the April 25 'March for Women's Lives,' an abortion rights rally."

I'm a little confused as to which group they are talking about here.

This is purest speculation on my part. I think sometimes a local NAACP group, or local anything group really, can get local publicity supporting or protesting something that the national group doesn't take a stance on. Is it possible that the local NAACP group wherever Catholic University of America is has come out strongly for abortion rights? If so, and if that's the group that supported "March for Women's Lives", then they may have a point.

The unstated point here is that rarely - if ever - have any of these institutions defined a priori when enough of a particular kind of organization is enough. If colleges and universities were truly concerned about repetitiveness, they'd work these policies out just like they work out their student fund account policies.

My suspicion is that this "denial of recognition for duplication" is a shaggy, deliberately nebulous excuse used to hide an institution's real reason for denying the group's application in the first place - usually viewpoint based discrimination, like what Miami got caught on.

Private schools should not, in my opinion, be given blanket exemptions on this point. If they're going to advertise themselves as bastions of tolerance, openess, diversity, acceptance, and yadda yadda yadda, then they should deliver the goods they promise. If they want to be gulags, so be it, but advertise as such. I would also point out that almost every "private" college and university in this country receives millions of dollars and state and federal funds. That may not make them public schools, but it ought to obligate them to show some respect for the constitutions of the taxpayers at whose trough they so greedily feed.

Stu Gittelman writes:

"I would also point out that almost every "private" college and university in this country receives millions of dollars and state and federal funds. That may not make them public schools, but it ought to obligate them to show some respect for the constitutions of the taxpayers at whose trough they so greedily feed."

Perhaps so, but while Congress and the state legislatures can condition the receipt of public funds, and have done so to prohibit race and sex discrimination, doing so to prohibit "viewpoint" discrimination itself runs up againt the First Amendment (and its analogues in the 50 state constitutions).

Oh, and Laura, FYI: CUA is in Washington, DC.

Dave J. wrote: "doing so to prohibit "viewpoint" discrimination itself runs up againt the First Amendment"

Not at all...the law could be written very neutrally, something to the effect of "no institution receiving funds under this act shall make or enforce any rule subjecting any student to disciplinary sanction, or deny privileges or services otherwise available to other students, solely on the basis of conduct that is speech or other communication that, when engaged in outside a campus of those institutions, is protected from governmental restriction by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution [and state constitution section here]..."

That text comes slightly modified from California's "Leonard Law."

Stu Gittleman wrote:

My suspicion is that this "denial of recognition for duplication" is a shaggy, deliberately nebulous excuse used to hide an institution's real reason for denying the group's application in the first place - usually viewpoint based discrimination, like what Miami got caught on.

This is absolutly discrimination. It is discrimination against a group that supports the evil of abortion.

Parent have the right to oversee the moral upbringing of their children. Institutions like CUA were founded because secular colleges generally do not provide the necessary, solid moral foundation.

In opposing abortion, CUA is doing what it was founded to do: draw and teach strong moral distictions. This is why parents send their children to a Catholic college.

Some of those with more academic tastes than mine might want to check out the letters:

Faith & Reason (http://www.vatican.va/edocs/ENG0216/_INDEX.HTM)

and

From the Heart of the Church (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_jp-ii_apc_15081990_ex-corde-ecclesiae_en.html)

Dave J. wrties: "Institutions like CUA were founded because secular colleges generally do not provide the necessary, solid moral foundation."

If a college like CUA, for bona fide religious reasons or the Naval Academy, for bona fide military reasons, wants to engage in certain viewpoint-based discrimination, that's one thing. But your argument begs the question - why isn't CUA simply citing "support of abortion" as the reason for denial of the NAACP's recogniation? Does it even have a policy on this issue? Would a review of extant organizations on the CUA campus turn up any groups that have the same kind of tangential ties to the abortion issue that the NAACP does?

And Miami - which has no such religious mission on which to hang its hat - was busted doing the same thing: using this specious "duplication" argument.

Whoops...it was AB that wrote the above quoted text, not Dave J. Sorry.

AB, duplication was UM's stated reason for denying recognition to the conservative group, not CUA's for the NAACP.

"Parent have the right to oversee the moral upbringing of their children."

Well, certainly not absolutely once their children are actually adults, as most college students are.

Oops, I'm wrong. Uh, never mind. Chalk that up to insufficient caffeine this morning, or something. ;-)

Stu G:

My understanding is that CUA gave two reasons for rejecting the NAACP, redundancy and abortion.

It would have been clearer if they had left out redundency but I doubt that any observer doubts that abortion is the real issue behind the denial.

Likewise, Miami was busted for using the bureaucratic reson of redundancy. Again, nobody doubted that the real issue behind the denial was that the group was Conservative.

Again, parents have the right to oversee the moral upbringing of their children. Institutions like CUA were founded because secular colleges generally do not provide the necessary, solid moral foundation.

Yes, the students are adults when they go to college and, yes, they can reject their parents guidance. That still doesn't change the fact that their parents have the right to try to guide their children in the path of virtue.

My undestanding is the same as Stu G's - duplication and abortion. There is some dispute as to the latter. Laura - you are correct in noting that there has been some discussion of the link between the proposed campus chapter and a pro-abortion rally in DC. The proposed chapter denies same.

As a CUA alumni, an action like this is simply par for the course. I'm not suprised that the administration there left this decision for the end of the academic year once the campus cleared and there wasn't anyone around to hold their feet to the fire.

As for the denial of certification on the basis of the NAACP's support of abortion, I have to ask this question: why does CUA continue to allow College Democrats to operate on campus. As I see it, the national Democratic party is far more closely associated with the fight for abortion rights than the NAACP. Why not tell them to get lost too?

Eric makes excellent points about the Democrats. The summer decision is also telling....college administrators routinely makes these kind of gutless decisions when they won't have to have the students around to get upset.

Another unstated issue here - related to the duplication argument in general - is the implicit mistrust of the "marketplace of ideas" exhibited by far too many administrators. If the students are right, the group will do well; if they're not, the organization will disband soon enough. What's the harm to anyone for having let the students try? I suspect the problem - again - is the mindset in the Ivory Tower that views marketplaces of any stripe as inherently suspect and centralized planning by an enlightened elite as preferable.

Stu G.

This is not about the marketplace ideas at all. It is about Truth. Abortion is the taking of a human life and so must be opposed. Supporting it is not an option. That is why CUA is banning the NAACP.

AB: You'll notice my comment said, "related to the duplication argument in general." Apparently you didn't pick up that this comment was not specific to the situation CUA.

But, however, to relate this to CUA...do they have other groups on campus which have some position on the wrong side of the abortion issue? College Democrats, for example? I'll wager dollars to donuts they do. So, your statement that this is about the truth of abortion is almost certainly inaccurate. Or, CUA is inconsistent in its application of this rule. If it even is a rule. That doesn't seem to have been established either.

Stu G,

I am sorry that I misconstued your posting.

The issue of consistancy is an interesting one.

There is no reason that you should follow this, but in recent years there has been a feeling that Catholic Colleges had become too secular and lost their identity.

There has been a push from the top (I think starting with the Pope and Cardinal Ratzinger)to move closer to an explicit Catholic culture on campus.

It is in the nature of bureaucracy, such as a collge administration, to resist change. As some parts change faster than others, there will be inconsistancies as some parts do things the old way and some the new way.

I think that is likely what is happening here. As new organizations apply they are being scrutinized more closely--hence this rejection.

Older organizations have not come to the bureaucrats attention. Give them time. In 5 or 10 years, any organization that supports abortion is likely to find itself kicked off campus.

A request for forming a chapter of the Ku Klux Klan at Howard University was denied just recently.

I hope the NAACP and the ACLU will provide as much assitance as they seem to with Catholic University.

Don't hold your breath...

Stu G.,

The Catholic church has no stance against freedom of speech, BUT it vehemently disagrees with abortion. That's why I say the comparison between the NAACP and the ACLU is inadequate. It's apples and oranges. Hell, the Vatican opposes pro-choice advocates taking Holy Communion. People who continue to publicly sin are denied communion, that's how it works. Why would an institution allow an organization that supports a mortal sin to become a student group on their campus.