Freedom To Dissemble

     Under CLS v. Martinez public universities are now permitted to adopt an "all-comers" policy that requires university recognized student organizations ("SRO") to accept any and all applicants for membership and leadership positions. That sounds fine on a superficial level, but no deeper. Because in practice, it forces an SRO's doors open to someone espousing views diametrically opposed to the group's very purpose. So, theoretically, an entrepreneurial-minded libertarian could join the Campus Communist Youth Party (and run for president even) and the young Marxists would have no choice but to put up with him if they wanted to keep the important benefits that come with being an SRO.  

     Last fall, Vanderbilt University implemented an "all-comers" policy under Martinez (even though as a private institution it is not restrained by the First Amendment and could simply ban CLS if it so chose), and then (this month) announced its intent to begin enforcing it. At a public hearing on the issue,Vanderbilt's vice chancellor for academic affairs challenged a law student and CLS member to "be open to a member that doesn’t share your faith beliefs who could be a wonderful member of CLS, maybe even a leader. But we’re not saying you have to vote for that person. We’re simply saying that person, who maybe does not profess allegiance to Jesus Christ as his or her Lord and Savior, should be allowed to run for office in CLS." 

    Thus, per the chancellor, a person who is a sworn Non-Something could somehow be a "wonderful member" or "even a leader" of a group so dedicated to that very Something that the members of the group make that Something the first word in the name of their group, as the Christian Legal Society has done. Assuming that Vanderbilt's administration actually believes this absurdity, what does it possibly hope to gain by forcing groups like CLS to test it?