Widmar v. Vincent: UMKC says: "Get Thee to a Nunnery, Cornerstone!"

 UMKC created a generally-open, designated public forum for all recognized student groups. However, it decided to exclude from this marketplace for student speech Cornerstone, an evangelical Christian student group who wished to meet on campus for prayer, singing hymns, Bible study, and religious discussion. Cornerstone was excluded by UMKC pursuant to a university regulation that prohibited the use of University buildings "for purposes of religious worship or religious teaching."

Does this exclusion violate the Free Speech Clause? What kind of speech exclusion is this? Content-based? Viewpoint-based? 

Does it also violate the Free Exercise Clause?

Does UMKC have a compelling state interest? Least restrictive means?

Notice the Lemon test applied in 1981. Does an open forum for all student groups have a secular purpose? Does it advance religion? Would excluding religious groups inhibit religion?

 

But also remember the statement we have been memorizing: "There is a crucial distinction between government speech endorsing religion, to which the Establishment Clause applies, and private speech endorsing religion which the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses protect."

But the Lemon test is dead and a stake has been driven through its heart.

So lets apply the new test, as stated by Justice Kavanaugh in his concurring opinion in American Legion:

"[T]he Court today applies a history and tradition test in examining and upholding the constitutionality of the Bladensburg Cross....And the cases together lead to an overarching set of principles: If the challenged government practice is not coercive and if it (i) is rooted in  history and tradition; or (ii) treats religious people, organizations, speech, or activity equally to comparable secular people,  organizations,  speech,  or  activity;  or  (iii) represents  a   permissible  legislative  accommodation  or  exemption  from  a  generally applicable law, then  there ordinarily is no Establishment Clause violation. The   practice   of   displaying   religious   memorials,   particularly   religious   war  memorials, on public land is not coercive and is rooted in history and tradition. The Bladensburg Cross does not violate the Establishment Clause. . . ."