• A new Utah bill would protect religious, political and ideological student groups from university discrimination.
• The bill would prevent universities from discriminating against religious groups for having leadership requirements based on their religious values.
• The bill directly confronts the Supreme Court’s decision in Christian Legal Society Chapter v. Martinez.

Would it seem fair to require a Christian student group to have a Muslim vice president or a liberal group to have a conservative treasurer? The U.S. Supreme Court has allowed universities to do just that, but a new Utah bill would protect these student groups. This is good policy.

Sponsored by Rep. Karianne Lisonbee, HB 390 – Religious Expression in Higher Education is designed to prevent universities in Utah from discriminating against religious, ideological and political student groups. Universities would be unable to prevent these groups from scheduling activities available to other campus organizations and could not force the groups to elect members of different ideological backgrounds or religious beliefs.

The bill would also ensure that these groups have access to the same facilities, programs and funding sources as other clubs and organizations. Examples of this could include access to tables and signage at university club fairs or pathways to university funding that has been set aside for student group activities or trips.

HB 390 would directly confront Christian Legal Society Chapter v. Martinez, a case where the Supreme Court decided that university student groups had to allow any student to participate regardless of their beliefs. This applied to both membership and leadership in religious, political and ideological student groups.

In 2019, a Christian club located at a high school in California experienced the discrimination and abuse that is possible when protections like HB 390 are not in place. A disgruntled teacher at the high school petitioned for the club to be removed because of its religious beliefs, and the school district complied. The district not only disallowed the group from meeting formally on campus but also enacted a rule that clubs could not deny a student from serving as a leader even if they did not share the beliefs or values espoused by the club.

The Christian club was allowed to continue meeting informally, but its members were subjected to further abuse, including members of the school newspaper taking hundreds of photos of each student in attendance, sometimes inches from their face. Eventually a lawsuit was filed, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in support of the Christian club. The court stated that government entities cannot subject religious organizations to special treatment or penalties because of their beliefs.

I have personal experience serving as a leader of a Christian student group on the campus of the University of Utah. While I think the university desired to protect our freedom of speech during my time as a leader, I believe that further protections are necessary. Former leaders of the same group told me about an incident when disparaging rumors started on campus about our members. They said that during the semester when the rumors appeared, it was difficult to receive approval for recruiting and sharing about their group on campus. They also recalled feeling hostility from students on campus. While the University of Utah, thankfully, recognized that the rumors had no merit, without any formal protections in place we could have easily been removed as an official group, like the club in California.

The protections outlined in HB 390 are equally important for political and ideological student groups. While particular political beliefs may be more or less popular on university campuses, it should not mean that the opinions of the majority of students should be allowed to silence the minority. University campuses should be places of informed and amicable dialogue where students from every side of the political and ideological spectrum feel safe to share their perspectives in a productive manner. Forcing student organizations of a certain leaning to allow students of an opposing perspective to serve as leaders in the group would run counter to this objective, effectively silencing the group.

The University of Utah has put specific bylaws in place for student organizations to freely and openly speak their minds through demonstrations and protests. One example is the specification of zones on campus designated for free speech activities, including protests and organizations. These regulations have not always existed in their current form, however, and could be subject to change in the future depending on the administration. Having legislation in place at the state level is vital to ensure that the whims of a university administration cannot allow for discrimination and abuse directed at religious groups.

While Utah may not have experienced as drastic an example as that of California in 2019,  this does not mean that similar discrimination is not possible. Utah’s universities must be places of free and open dialogue about religion, politics and ideologies. That is why it is key to ensure that student groups on university campuses across the state are free to elect members of their own beliefs and have access to university resources available to other student organizations. Without these protections, student groups are open to discrimination from teachers, administrators and fellow students.