The New York Times editorial “A Case of Discrimination” argues that the Supreme Court should rule in favor of Hastings College of Law over student group Christian Legal Society. The authors state that the college has always had a non-discrimination policy applied to all student groups and required them not to discriminate in order to receive official recognition from the college. They claim that the Christian Legal Society had previously signed up to this policy and then in 2004 began asking members to sign a statement of faith. Because of this, Hastings College of Law canceled the student group's recognition and they sued claiming a denial of their First Amendment rights. Hastings College of Law wrote its policy to comply with California state law, which makes it illegal for state-funded post-secondary educational institutions to discriminate on the basis of religion or sexual orientation. Therefore, Hastings College of Law decided that it was illegal to discriminate against their student groups as well. The Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of Hastings College of Law, declaring its rule view neutral and reasonable (1). Although the statement seems logical, it is difficult to find concrete evidence to support their argument. Therefore, their conclusion is likely false, because a decision in favor of Hastings College of Law denies student groups their First Amendment rights and ignores years of legal precedent. The first leg of the editorial's argument is based on Hastings' non-discrimination policy which covers all student groups equally, thus achieving neutrality of viewpoints. According to Hastings, their policy “allows political, social, and cultural student organizations to select officials and members who are dedicated to a particular set of ideals or groups bel...... middle of paper ...... istian ( 17??). French agrees with his opinion and describes it as a war for the right to have Christian leadership in Christian groups. The first case cited describes an openly gay woman seeking to lead Tufts Christian Fellowship whose beliefs conflicted with hers. Other Christian groups on campus were more open, but she sought to lead and change the one group, which chose to exclude her based on her beliefs. He didn't win his battle because student groups have the right to choose who they associate with. While universities accept that environmentalists should lead environmental groups and that libertarians should lead libertarians, religion seems to derail the rational thought process. A study conducted by the Institute for Jewish and Community Research in 2007 found that most faculty admitted to having a strongly negative view of evangelical Christians (17??). Therefore