Defending the Ninth Circuit

I'm not quite ready to share Rick's "groan" in response to the Ninth Circuit's ruling in Truth v. Kent School District.  I find maddening a university's decision not to approve Christian student groups that "discriminate" against non-Christians, but this case involves a high school.  And this is not a Good News Club-type case in which a Christian group is denied access to public facilities; here the "Truth" Christian group sought status as an officially approved curricular group, which would allow them to use student council funds and access the PA system for making announcements, among other privileges.

More fundamentally, though, I think the 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.  In this case, the school district's policies portrayed officially approved student groups (as opposed to clubs like Young Life that meet before or after school) as vehicles by which to teach tolerance and inclusiveness (among other values).  This is not to suggest that all officially approved groups were uncontroversial -- the Gay-Straight Student Alliance gained approval, which makes the Christian group's exclusion a bit jarring, I'll admit.  But 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? 

As Rick himself recently wrote in a very thoughtful essay, it is by no means obvious how we should expect the First Amendment, which is designed to “constrain the government from interfering in or directing a diverse and pluralistic society’s conversations about the common good,” to apply in a context in which the state is charged with “producing not just certain facilities, but certain core values, loyalties, and commitments." 

Put simply, I'm always willing to groan at the Ninth Circuit, but I need a bit more convincing in this case.