The clash between campus speech codes and constitutional protections is once again erupting on American college campuses, where Christian and conservative student groups are being denied official recognition and access to resources for refusing to abandon their core beliefs.
According to Just The News, recent disputes at a New York community college and a private liberal arts institution in Washington state have triggered legal action and warnings from prominent civil liberties organizations, underscoring a growing pattern in higher education: administrators and student leaders invoking nondiscrimination and inclusion policies to marginalize religious and right-of-center voices that do not conform to prevailing progressive orthodoxies. While public universities are bound by the First Amendment and most private colleges pledge to follow similar standards in their own policies, these commitments are increasingly tested when the viewpoints in question are Christian, conservative, or both.
At the State University of New Yorks Broome Community College, Campus Bible Fellowship (CBF) has filed suit after the school refused to renew its recognition because the group requires its leaders to maintain a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. The complaint alleges that this leadership requirement, which the college claims violates its antidiscrimination rules, has effectively barred the ministry from reserving campus space and accessing financial resources, thereby punishing it for its religious identity and mission.
Represented by Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), CBF argues that SUNY Broomes conditions for recognition violate three distinct protections in the First Amendment: the free exercise of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom of assembly. ADF senior counsel Tyson Langhofer warned that Forcing CBF to accept leaders who dont share their religious beliefs fundamentally alters their religious expression by seeking to control a fundamental aspect of CBFs governance, doctrine, and faith, framing the dispute as a direct assault on the autonomy of religious organizations to define their own leadership.
Notably, the lawsuit does not mention the Supreme Courts 2010 decision in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, which upheld an all-comers policy at a public law school that required recognized student groups to accept any student as a member or leader, regardless of belief. Instead, the complaint contends that SUNY Broome is not even applying its own open access policy consistently, pointing to recognized student organizations that appear to exclude members of the opposite sex, suggesting selective enforcement when religious groups are involved.
This is the second lawsuit in as many months targeting SUNY Broomes policy, following a similar challenge by InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, which is represented by the religious liberty firm Becket. Becket attorney Colten Stanberry likened the colleges stance to compelling ideological incoherence, saying the policy is like telling a Yankees fan club that it has to let a Red Sox fan be president, a vivid analogy that underscores how absurd it is to demand that belief-based organizations abandon their defining convictions.
A spokesperson for SUNY Broome told Just The News that the college cannot comment on pending litigation, a standard institutional response that offers little insight into how administrators justify the apparent double standard. ADF, for its part, did not respond when asked why the Martinez precedent was omitted from the complaint, leaving observers to speculate whether the group intends to distinguish the case on factual grounds or challenge the reach of that decision.
On the other side of the country, at Whitman College in Washington, a nascent Republican student organization has run into a different but related barrier: a student government that appears openly hostile to conservative politics. The Whitman Republican Club turned to the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) after the student Senate subjected its founder to an hour-long interrogation about President Trump, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and Title IX, before voting 25-0 to deny the club recognition, which would have provided funding and access to campus resources.
Club Chairman David Dunbabin told Seattle Red 770 AM that the Senates actions violated its own constitution and bylaws, which explicitly prohibit discrimination based on political beliefs and extend that protection to student groups. He further claimed that Whitman President Sarah Bolton asked me directly to start it, because I mentioned that I work with the local GOP, suggesting that the administration initially encouraged the formation of a Republican club only to stand by as student leaders shut it down once its views became politically inconvenient.
FIREs legal warning letter cites Whitmans student handbook, which promises every student the right to freedom of speech, expression, and association, and asserts that these commitments morally and legally bind the college to follow First Amendment jurisprudence. In other words, even as a private institution, Whitman has voluntarily pledged to uphold the same free-speech principles that constrain public universities, a pledge that appears hollow if a Republican club can be rejected solely because its ideology offends progressive sensibilities.
A FIRE spokesperson told Just The News that Whitman has not responded to the letter, which sets a Sept. 14 deadline for action, and that the Republican clubs only plan for now is to reapply for recognition in the fall. Neither the college nor the student government responded to questions about the episode, including what role, if any, President Bolton played in encouraging or later distancing herself from the clubs formation.
This is not the first time a college president has allegedly signaled support for a conservative initiative only to retreat when campus activists push back. In California, the Kern Community College District has paid millions of dollars over the past two years to settle litigation brought by conservative faculty members who alleged retaliation for their involvement in a right-leaning think tank at Bakersfield College, a case that further illustrates how dissenting viewpoints can be punished under the guise of equity or inclusion.
New York Times columnist and former FIRE president David French, a frequent critic of both the Trump administration and the Make America Great Again movement, nonetheless defended the rights of the Whitman Republican Club in stark terms. The Republican Club could change its name to 'MAGA Trumpers who MAGA all day and MAGA all night,' and the university should still provide viewpoint neutral access to recognition and resources," French said, underscoring that constitutional principles do not hinge on whether one approves of the speech in question.
Back in New York, the CBF chapter at SUNY Broome operates as the campus ministry of Ohio-based Baptist Mid-Missions Global Ministries, with a trained chaplain and a mission to share the gospel of Jesus Christ as set forth in the Holy Bible through all activities. According to the lawsuit, the group welcomes all students to participate in its general membership, activities, and events, reserving leadership roles for Christians alone, a distinction that mirrors how many religious organizations function in civil society without controversy.
The college, however, presented CBF with what the complaint calls a coercive and unconstitutional choice: either preserve its Christian character and forfeit recognition, or abandon its faith-based leadership standards in exchange for special access to funding, meeting and event space, club fairs, printing resources, and the ability to advertise on the colleges website and student club page. This framing effectively turns access to basic student organization benefits into a lever to pressure religious groups into diluting their beliefs, a tactic that conservatives argue weaponizes public power against faith.
CBF President Jacob Seachrist, a named plaintiff, is required to pay a mandatory $215 student activity fee each semester pursuant to policies that infringe on his and CBFs constitutional rights, the complaint states. Recognized student clubs can receive up to $500 a year from these student activity fees, meaning Seachrist is compelled to subsidize a system that denies his own group equal access to the funds.
The ministry had been recognized continuously from 1996 until 2025, when Director of Student Activities Nick Kocienewski refused to renew its status based on 10 sections of its constitution that require voting members and officers to adhere to CBFs statement of faith, act as spiritual leaders, and/or maintain a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. The group remained on inactive status for the entire 20252026 academic year, stripped of all benefits, and Kocienewski again rejected a revised constitution when Seachrist resubmitted it this spring, signaling an entrenched administrative stance against faith-based leadership criteria.
CBF is now challenging the constitutionality of three key elements of SUNY Broomes student organization policies: the open-access rule, the nondiscrimination statement that clubs must adopt, and what it calls the college discretion rule. That latter provision grants Kocienewski and the student government broad authority to deny recognition to groups with an inappropriate focus or those that would unduly burden or marginalize other students, language that critics say is vague enough to be used as a political bludgeon against disfavored viewpoints.
The lawsuit notes that this discretion rule does not define or contain any comprehensive guidelines, standards, or criteria that limit the discretion of officials, nor does it require them to approve or deny an application within a certain time period, leaving applicants in a state of indefinite uncertainty. Such open-ended authority, conservatives argue, invites arbitrary and ideologically driven decision-making, particularly when the targets are Christian ministries or right-of-center organizations.
To bolster its claim of selective enforcement, the suit identifies three recognized clubs that appear to reserve leadership or membership for one sex: Love You Like a Sister, Elevate Her, and Men of Excellence, the last of which is limited to men of color. The existence of these groups, alongside the rejection of CBF, suggests that SUNY Broomes policies are not neutral or generally applicable and that secular or identity-based organizations receive more favorable treatment than religious ones.
At Whitman College, FIREs warning letter relies heavily on the March 8 student Senate minutes, portions of which the organization posted publicly to document the questioning of the Republican Club. FIRE did not become involved until Aug. 31, when it began pressing the college to adopt viewpoint-neutral criteria for evaluating the clubs reapplication this fall, a standard that would prevent student leaders from using ideological litmus tests to block recognition.
Before voting on recognition, senators grilled club representatives on how they would oppose the national Republican Partys platform on deport[ing] pro-Hamas radicals and how they would protect students from pro-ICE guest speakers. They also demanded to know what language about trans and LGBTQ individuals has to do with party principles and repeatedly accused the club of contradictions, effectively putting mainstream conservative positions on trial in a forum that was supposed to assess organizational eligibility, not enforce ideological conformity.
According to Seattle Red 770 AM, senators questions referenced the clubs recent ICE-related event and a letter in the campus newspaper supporting a state ballot measure to restrict girls sports to biological females. Dunbabin said he challenged the Senate on why it could recognize progressive groups such as Planned Parenthood, Generation Action, and the Climate Justice Coalition, yet deny recognition to a Republican club that simply reflects a different set of political values.
More than one senator suggested that the club should remove Republican from its name, a telling indication that the objection was not procedural but ideological. You can name yourselves whatever you want, but the language of your constitution is in direct contrast to our own constitution, one senator said in the final comment recorded in the minutes, adding, I would suggest that you remove the title and make a debate club, a proposal that would effectively erase the groups partisan identity.
The minutes also capture the exasperation of the clubs representatives as they faced accusations and insinuations about their motives and beliefs. Why is it on us to prove we are not harmful? All of us have been doxed on YikYak, one response is paraphrased, referring to the campus-specific anonymous social network; Dunbabin added that his room has been doxxed and his window spit at multiple times from having [an] Israeli flag, illustrating the real-world harassment that can accompany being openly conservative or pro-Israel on a left-leaning campus.
Another club response asked, How are we excluding minority groups when we are ourselves a minority group on campus? a question that cuts to the heart of the matter: in an environment where the student body is overwhelmingly white and, by survey, liberal, conservative and religious students often function as ideological minorities. Dunbabin said roughly half the clubs board members are immigrants, a fact reflected in a club photo, and that they have been treated worse than he has, underscoring how the rhetoric of inclusion can be selectively applied when the minority in question holds the wrong political views.
These disputes at SUNY Broome and Whitman College highlight a broader national trend in which institutions that claim to champion diversity and free expression increasingly tolerate only one side of the ideological spectrum. For conservatives, the stakes are not merely about club charters or access to meeting rooms, but about whether public universities and private colleges that promise to follow First Amendment principles will honor those commitments when the speech at issue is Christian, Republican, or otherwise out of step with progressive campus orthodoxy.
Login