By Lewis Loflin
In 2013, I wrote about a Tennessee law designed to protect the constitutional rights of student groups at public colleges, particularly their freedom of association and privacy. The law, signed by Governor Bill Haslam, prevented universities from forcing groups—like Christian organizations—to admit members or leaders hostile to their core beliefs. I argued then that overly broad nondiscrimination policies could themselves become discriminatory, infringing on fundamental rights. As we navigate 2025, this debate resonates anew, with the Trump administration dismantling Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives and the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling against race-based affirmative action reshaping the landscape.
Today, the tension between individual liberties and institutional mandates remains critical. Tennessee’s 2013 law offers lessons for ensuring fairness without sacrificing constitutional protections, especially as national policies shift toward prioritizing merit and autonomy.
The law, sponsored by Senator Mae Beavers, passed with strong bipartisan support:
The measure sponsored by Republican Sen. Mae Beavers of Mt. Juliet was approved unanimously 9-0 by the Senate Education Committee on Wednesday. The companion bill passed the House 75-21 earlier this week... The measure is aimed at preventing colleges from creating policies requiring student groups to open membership to all students and allow all members to seek leadership posts.
Source: Associated Press, March 20, 2013.
Final passage saw the Senate vote 30-0 and the House 75-21, with Governor Haslam signing it on April 23, 2013. The law applied only to public institutions, exempting private ones like Vanderbilt University, whose similar policy sparked controversy. For context, see my related article: Political Left is Racist.
The law aimed to protect groups’ rights to define their membership, ensuring freedom of association wasn’t eroded under the guise of inclusivity.
In 2013, I raised concerns about nondiscrimination policies overreaching. Forcing Christian groups to admit nonbelievers or those opposed to their values violated their privacy and associational rights. I noted uneven enforcement: minority-focused groups faced less scrutiny, while organizations perceived as “white” or conservative were often labeled discriminatory. This double standard, I argued, reflected bias in academia, where conservative and Christian students felt marginalized.
Vanderbilt’s policy, which required all student groups to allow any member to seek leadership, prompted 15 groups—mostly Christian—to resist, citing coercion. Professor Carol Swain criticized Vanderbilt’s approach:
This university is operating in a way that’s counter to everything that many of us have believed about America and about our freedoms, and I think they have to be held accountable.
Source: Tennessee Family Action Council, 2013.
A related bill targeting Vanderbilt’s campus police powers highlighted the backlash, though it didn’t pass.
The issues I raised in 2013 echo in today’s debates. In 2025, the Trump administration has moved to dismantle DEI programs, arguing they promote division and undermine merit. Executive actions, like those targeting federal DEI training, reflect a belief that such initiatives can prioritize group identity over individual rights—mirroring my critique of forced inclusion in student groups. While DEI aims for equity, critics, including myself, see it as sometimes fostering reverse discrimination, particularly when policies implicitly favor certain groups.
The Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard further aligns with this shift. By ruling race-based affirmative action in college admissions unconstitutional (6-3 vote), the Court emphasized equal protection under the law, rejecting policies that advantage or disadvantage individuals based on race. Chief Justice Roberts wrote, “Eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it.” This ruling reinforces the principle that rights are individual, not group-based, supporting my 2013 argument against privileging select groups at others’ expense.
Tennessee’s law, while narrower, prefigured these changes. It protected student groups from being compelled to dilute their identity, much as current policies seek to protect individuals from race-based or ideology-driven mandates.
The 2013 law wasn’t about exclusion but autonomy. Groups—whether religious, cultural, or ideological—thrive when they can define their purpose. Forcing a Jewish group to admit Christians or a Black student association to elect non-Black leaders risks eroding their mission, just as Christian groups deserve to uphold their beliefs. I argued then, as a non-Christian, that no one should demand entry into a group misaligned with their values. This principle holds in 2025: fairness means respecting all groups’ rights, not picking winners.
Yet, I noted inconsistencies. Campus policies often shielded minority groups while scrutinizing others, fostering resentment. Today’s DEI rollback aims to level this field, but risks overcorrecting if it stifles genuine diversity. The challenge is balancing inclusion with liberty.
To honor constitutional rights while fostering community, we need clear principles:
| Action | Benefit |
|---|---|
| Protect associational freedom | Preserves group identity |
| Ensure equal enforcement | Eliminates double standards |
| Promote open dialogue | Reduces campus tension |
| Fund merit-based programs | Aligns with 2023 ruling |
Universities should uphold free association without bias, encouraging dialogue over mandates. Public funding could prioritize merit-based initiatives, reflecting the Supreme Court’s stance. Tennessee’s law shows how targeted legislation can protect rights without undermining fairness.
Tennessee’s 2013 law was a step toward safeguarding constitutional protections in a polarized climate. As 2025 brings new scrutiny to DEI and affirmative action, we must ensure policies respect individual and group rights equally. By fostering fairness and dialogue, we can strengthen our communities and campuses for all.
Acknowledgment: I’d like to thank Grok, an AI by xAI, for helping me draft and refine this article. The final edits and perspective are my own.
