Texas A&M; Can’t Ban Gay Group, High Court Says

The Supreme Court today refused to let Texas A&M; University ban a homosexual student group from campus.

The court, citing a lack of jurisdiction, let stand a ruling that officials of the state-supported university violated gay students’ rights by not giving the group official recognition.

University officials say that official recognition of Gay Student Services could lead to “increased overt homosexual activity and resulting physical, psychological and disease ramifications . . . in the student body.”

Law Tossed Out

When recognition was first refused to the group in 1976, homosexual conduct was illegal in Texas. A federal judge ruled that state law unconstitutional in 1983.

Texas A&M; officials also said that withholding recognition of Gay Student Services was in keeping with the university’s ban on fraternities.

A federal judge, who had upheld the ban against the homosexual organization, agreed with university officials that the group was not being singled out, since Texas A&M; did not recognize any fraternal organizations.

But the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals found last August that the university withheld official recognition of Gay Student Services because the group supports homosexuality.

Appeals Court Ruling

“We think it clear from the facts that (Texas A&M;) refused officially to recognize GSS based upon the homosexual content of the group’s ideas,” the appeals court said.

The 5th Circuit Court noted that the group “sought recognition to provide services and information regarding gay issues to gay persons and to the general public.”

The appeals court also said that it was only speculation by university officials that recognition of the group would lead to “dire consequences,” and that banning the organization from campus would protect public health.

The public health argument is not enough to overcome the right to free expression, the appeals court added.

In other cases, the Supreme Court:

--Let stand a ruling that businesses selling videotapes of stories taken from television news broadcasts violate copyright law.

--Agreed to consider killing an old antitrust lawsuit in which Zenith Radio Corp. and another U.S. maker of electronic products seek billions of dollars from their Japanese competitors.

--Allowed a state university to ban religious solicitation in campus dormitories while letting student government candidates campaign there.

--Sidestepped a dispute over the power of federal courts to order California officials to ensure that a school for the blind is safe from earthquakes.