Feminist and LGBTQ organizations at California State University-San Marcos together receive nearly $300,000 from the student government each year to spend as they wish, with no strings attached.
Student clubs at the taxpayer-funded institution, including its Students for Life chapter, can only apply for $500 per semester, with many strings attached.
The unlimited discretion of the Gender Equity Center and LGBTQA Pride Center to distribute and withhold mandatory student fees constitutes “back room deliberations” in violation of the First Amendment, a federal judge ruled Tuesday, Aug. 13.
Pro-life students won their “facial challenge” to the “cosponsorship funding process” at CSUSM. U.S. District Judge James Lorenz ordered the university to implement “narrowly drawn, reasonable, and definite standards” for applying for funds maintained by the two “community centers.”
Until then, the feminist and LGBTQ centers are not allowed to use student fees from “objecting students,” such as Students for Life members, to cosponsor events.
The dispute started when Associated Students Inc. refused to cosponsor or provide funding for SFL’s event with pro-life speaker Mike Adams, a professor at the University of North Carolina-Wilmington.
When SFL asked the two centers to cosponsor the event – at the suggestion of the student government – an official denied the request on content-neutral grounds.
Judge Lorenz first knocked down the university’s claim that the plaintiffs don’t have standing. They “clearly” do because “the undisputed evidence shows” they paid mandatory fees to support speech that violated their beliefs, and the denied funding request “cut short” their effort to bring Adams to campus.
Full story at The College Fix.
Have we seen an other version of a similar complaint, possibly at a different Cal State campus?
The judge seems to have correctly identified the issue. The funds to support the ‘clubs’ come from mandatory student fees. Thus, in my humble opinion, as long as the ‘club’ activity is permissible under secular law, the ‘club’ should be able to compete equally for their share of available funds. Otherwise, the University is failing part of its purpose to present diverse viewpoints, even those with which one may not agree.
A prolife group needs to apply and ask for equivalent funds. If they refuse, then a good lawsuit must be filed.
EQUAL Justice under the law.