Defending my "groan"

Rob adds his thoughts, and thereby fills out the picture, of the Kent School District case.  He writes:  "[T]he legitimate pedagogical objectives of a high school are much different than a university.  A university is, or at least should be, a broad and vibrant marketplace of competing moral claims.  I'm not sure that model is appropriate for a high school."  I agree.  He asks, "[b]ut even if we disagree with the school's decision not to approve Truth given its exclusion of non-Christians from voting membership, do we really want to give Truth a constitutional right to demand that it be approved?"  Maybe not.  I did not say that we do.

My frustration was focused, and was directed at least as much at the District as at the Ninth Circuit:  Even if we factor in Rob's "official approval" point, my own claim is that it is not "discrimination" -- at least, it is not "discrimination" in the sense that gives normative heft to anti-"discrimination" laws -- for a Christian club to limit membership to Christians.   And, I see no reason -- even if we understand the mission of a high school in the way Rob suggests -- for a public high school in a liberal (properly understood) society to have any qualms about providing "equal access" (as the law requires) to "Christian" clubs that are for "Christians."  Such clubs are doing doing nothing wrong, nothing illiberal, nothing that they should be ashamed of, and nothing that a public school should worry about endorsing, when they construct their membership in accord with their identities.