Many readers will be familiar with Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, the Supreme Court’s 2010 opinion upholding the constitutionality of an “all-comers” policy at the UC-Hastings law school. The all-comers policy required student groups, including religious organizations like CLS, to open their membership to all law students, regardless of belief. By a 5-4 vote, the Court held that this policy was a reasonable, viewpoint-neutral regulation consistent with the First Amendment.
One of the arguments CLS made against the all-comers policy was that the policy made it vulnerable to sabotage by students hostile to its message. Non-Christians could join CLS precisely in order to hijack the organization and subvert its mission. The Court dismissed this concern as fanciful. There was no history of hostile takeovers of campus groups, Justice Ginsburg wrote, and one had to give law students more credit for maturity. Besides, the law school’s code of student conduct prohibited disruption of campus activities; if such things happened, the law school would surely intervene.
Justice Ginsburg’s dismissal of the possibility of student hijacking came to mind as I was reading this post on Rod Dreher’s blog. Dreher describes a recent forum on marriage organized by a student group at Columbia University. The forum was open to everyone on campus and featured speakers with traditional views, including Sherif Girgis, Lynn Wardle, and Bradford Wilcox. Even though the forum was sold out, the room was half empty. Why? Campus Democrats had hoarded tickets, apparently in an effort to prevent people from attending and hearing the speakers. Some campus Democrats did attend briefly to hold up protest signs and walk out. Here’s one student’s view of the situation, from the Columbia student paper:
From the start, the CU Democrats seemed misinformed—if not intent on spreading misinformation—about the purpose of the forum. It was not, as some that day said, an “anti-gay marriage tirade,” but a debate on the status of the modern family. . . . [T]he issue of the future of the family is a conversation that the CU Democrats seem unwilling to allow to take place, much less to take part in, despite their physical presence.
To be sure, hoarding tickets to a one-day conference is not the same thing as taking over a group. And, depending on your view of things, you might think of what the Columbia Democrats did as a harmless stunt or even a brave gesture for equality. Still, the campus Democrats used an all-comers policy to disrupt an event sponsored by another student group and limit that group’s message from reaching its intended audience. To me, this suggests that the possibility of hostile takeovers is not as far-fetched as the Martinez Court believed.
February 23rd, 2013 | 11:45 am
Still, the campus Democrats used an all-comers policy to disrupt an event sponsored by another student group and limit that group’s message from reaching its intended audience.
Columbia University has an all-comers policy for student organizations?
As best I can determine, “all-comers policy” here refers to the fact that the conference was open to the public. It does not refer to any Columbia University policy about membership in student organizations.
If the Columbia Democrats did indeed reserve a large number of tickets without the intention of showing up (an allegation for which no proof is offered) that is certainly a form of sabotage that cannot be condoned. But unless I am missing something, it has nothing to do with Christian Legal Society v. Martinez.
February 23rd, 2013 | 2:17 pm
It would be nice if for once a story like this were reported and condemned by the mainstream media. Far too many of our “elite” colleges are held captive by left wing bullies unwilling to countenance dissent and quick to accuse others of engaging in “hate speech.” They profess to love the first amendment, but only for ideologically pure speech.
February 23rd, 2013 | 3:07 pm
“They profess to love the first amendment, but only for ideologically pure speech.”
They also usually claim to value diversity, critical thinking, challenging assumptions, education and learning. They are hypocrites and blind to the fact.
February 24th, 2013 | 8:24 am
Let’s give some background here, the policy applies to student organizations that get to draw from the funds all students have to contribute into then all students should be able to enjoy them. Exclusionary clubs are fine, provided they exclude themselves from the pot everyone has to chip into. I can see why you can argue for a policy of allowing exclusionary clubs but anyone commenting on law should acknowledge that a good policy is not a right.
Even though the forum was sold out, the room was half empty. Why? Campus Democrats had hoarded tickets
Sounds more like the event only had enough interested people to fill half the seats so if they did indeed do that all they accomplished was effectively making a donation to the group by buying up their tickets! The letter cited by a student who was actually there and sympathetic to the group doesn’t allege sabatoge but only that the event was unfairly ‘prejudged’ (which might be why so few attended!).
February 24th, 2013 | 2:57 pm
Sounds more like the event only had enough interested people to fill half the seats so if they did indeed do that all they accomplished was effectively making a donation to the group by buying up their tickets!
Boonton,
The tickets were free, so if the Columbia University Democrats did indeed somehow “hog” tickets (a) that they had no intention to use and (b) that others at Columbia would have wanted, then they violated the rules of fair play. However, this has absolutely nothing to do with an all-comers policy for student organizations. It is a stunt that could be attempted for any event that is open to the general public.
It seems what we need is a bit of investigative journalism on the part of the Columbia Spectator, when all we have is an allegation by a single student in an opinion column. Surely the organization that sponsored the event knows who obtained the tickets. Conceivable they have a way of identifying the no-shows. But in the absence of anyone actually looking in to the matter in some detail, it seems to me pure conjecture as to how many of the empty seats were due to Columbia University Democrats reserving seats they had no intention of using.
I don’t think Mark Movsesian is right to draw conclusions from this alleged incident about universities instituting all-comers policies for student organizations. But if the Columbia University Democrats violated the rules of fair play by “hogging” tickets, it ought to be demonstrated, and they ought to be disciplined.
I don’t think all-comers policies make sense at the college level, but I do think universities have a right to prohibit discrimination.
February 24th, 2013 | 6:18 pm
David,
Dreher is the only one I see alleging the CDS ‘hogged’ the tickets to keep people out. The only evidence he presents is the fact that the room was half empty despite being ‘sold out’.
If people paid money for the tickets, then yes half the room being empty would be surprising. If they gave away all the tickets for free, half full would not be surprising. There’s a lot to do in NYC and listening to academics talk about family isn’t on top of many people’s list.
The student who wrote the letter in defense of the group was there and is sympathetic to them. IF the CDS had engaged in a conspiracy to keep people out by hogging tickets he probably would have said something, he didn’t. Instead he complained that the student body of Columbia had unfairly prejudged the group as simply being biased against gays (which might be why many who took a ‘free’ ticket figured it wasn’t for them and tossed it in the trash).
February 25th, 2013 | 9:31 am
Dreher is the only one I see alleging the CDS ‘hogged’ the tickets to keep people out. The only evidence he presents is the fact that the room was half empty despite being ‘sold out’.
Boonton,
No, the student article strongly implies that the empty seats were the result of the actions of the Columbia Democrats:
As I said, if they did deliberately reserve a large number of tickets they had no intention of using, they violated the rules of fair play. If they reserved a reasonable number of seats for their silent protest, that’s different, but in my opinion, obnoxious. I disagree with Girgis, George, and Anderson, but they are worth hearing. If the Democrats wanted to protest, they could have protested outside the hall.
February 25th, 2013 | 3:43 pm
David,
Thanks I missed that, but this leads us to the same problem. A ‘sold out’ event where tickets are given away for free? Sorry no. If you’re giving away tickets for free of course you’re going to ‘sell out’. It’s easy to hand people free tickets. Getting them to show up is the hard part so yes being half empty for a ‘free’ academic talking head event isn’t all that shocking. As the letter indicated, it sounds like the student body was largely apathetic, not denied a chance to see something they really wanted because the CDS took all the tickets. But it’s easy to see how the ‘ticket hog’ meme could take off. It serves both the function of letting those on the side of the speakers assert victimhood while at the same time providing them a way to believe they are much more popular than they really are.
February 25th, 2013 | 10:00 pm
Boonton, under what evidentiary conditions would you conclude that the seats were empty because CDS deliberately kept them out of the hands of others?
It seems difficult to be certain one way or another, which is why I’m bewildered about why you’re so certain that the CDS action could not have been responsible for the empty seats, and apathy must have been.
February 26th, 2013 | 6:54 am
Pentamom
Boonton, under what evidentiary conditions would you conclude that the seats were empty because CDS deliberately kept them out of the hands of others?
Already listed a few:
1. Actual ‘sold out’ conditions. It would be odd for people to shell out even a small amount for tickets and then not show up.
1.1 Evidence that these events are big deals at Columbia. ‘Standing room only’ is usually the exception, not the norm for an academic talking head event.
2. Direct accusation by organizers.
3. Actual people trying to get in denied because they lacked tickets (the letter writer says a few students wandered by and were let in).
4. Some articulation of exactly how the CDS did this. If I requested 80% of the ‘free tickets’ to the First Things commentaters forum do you think the editors would just give them to me? If this was such a hot event you’d think plenty of groups other than the Democratic club would be requesting blocks of tickets. Why give the CDS half the stock?
It seems difficult to be certain one way or another, which is why I’m bewildered about why you’re so certain that the CDS action could not have been responsible for the empty seats…
Reasonable doubt = not guilty. Very weak evidence combined with a strong incentive for self-deception on the part of the accusors make a pretty good case.
March 1st, 2013 | 9:19 am
“3. Actual people trying to get in denied because they lacked tickets (the letter writer says a few students wandered by and were let in).
Okay, that people were let in without tickets is a good indicator. Had no one tried to get in without tickets is would not have been. At least, in my experience it’s not — maybe the culture of “I’m special” has changed things so that it’s more common to try to get into things where there are signs saying “tickets required” when you don’t have a ticket, than it has been in my experience.
Apart from that, though, your points are taken.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact