Muslim Students Association and Antidiscrimination Rules:

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education reports:

The [Muslim Student Association]’s difficulties [at Louisiana State University] . . . was told [in Fall 2003] that a new policy required all student organizations to revise their constitutions to explicitly state that they would not deny membership on the basis of a list of criteria including “religion” and “sexual orientation.”

After discussions with administrators, the MSA decided it could not include any language in its constitution that was inconsistent with its desired expressive purpose and was therefore unable to attain official recognition. Over the course of a year, the group effectively lost all of its privileges to reserve and use on-campus facilities, to distribute literature, and to enjoy other benefits normally granted to officially recognized student organizations. . . .

Fortunately, LSU has reversed course, apparently with a good deal of nudging by FIRE. A victory for actual diversity, in the sense of a university environment in which groups with very different views and approaches to life can effectively convey their views.

UPDATE: Reader Shlomo Rubin writes that: “FIRE also appear to overstate their case when they assert that without registered status, the group cannot distribute literature. I read the exchange of letters between FIRE and LSU at FIRE’s web site. In the Letter from LSU Dean of Students Kevin Price to FIRE, November 22, 2004, Kevin Price denied that one has to be registered to distribute literature. In the reply to Mr. Price, FIRE states that the group was prevented from setting up its weekly ‘Dawah Table’ in the LSU Union. (Dawah is a term that is used by Muslims for the proselytizing to non Muslims.) I assume they would have given out literature that the ‘Dawah Table.’ However, the press release implies that there is a ban on non registered groups distributing of literature, and not that they limited from doing so in a particular time and place.” I’m not sure about these details, but I thought I’d note the issue for readers. The basic thrust of FIRE’s argument, I think, remains sound.