The university is doing the right thing by alleviating politically-minded registered student organizations from having to comply with CMU’s registered student organization nondiscrimination clause.

The decision, which will take place next semester, will give political organizations at CMU the right to deny membership to any student they feel doesn’t agree with their RSO’s beliefs.

While the decision may have an adverse effect on the university’s efforts to increase diversity, CMU really had no choice because it will be saved from a potential “freedom of association” lawsuit.

Previously, only religious RSOs were exempt from the clause, which says all students have the right to join any RSO, regardless of ideological belief.

But in all fairness, it doesn’t make sense for politically-minded organizations to have to open their doors to everyone.

Allowing an extreme liberal to join College Republicans, or allowing an extreme conservative to join College Democrats, for example, shouldn’t be enforced.

Sure, it’s nice to make groups open to anyone. But when there’s a potential that some students might join a group to sabotage it, a line has to be drawn.

The nondiscrimination clause didn’t become a problem until recent allegations surfaced that a certain group of students joined CMU’s Young Americans for Freedom to disrupt the group’s proceedings, according to a Monday story in Central Michigan Life.

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), after hearing of the claims, sent an inquiry to CMU officials on March 16, requesting that belief-based RSOs be exempt from the clause.

University President Michael Rao and interim Provost Gary Shapiro decided to exempt certain belief-based RSOs from complying because the university faced the principle of freedom of association.

They really had no choice.

Although the phrase “freedom of association” does not appear in the U.S. Constitution, it often is upheld in court.

Had the university decided not to comply with FIRE, it very well could have opened itself up to a lawsuit. And it most likely would have lost, considering the magnitude of past “freedom of association” Supreme Court cases such as Roberts v. United States Jaycees in 1984 and Boy Scouts of America v. Dale in 2000.

Although CMU wasn’t technically violating any laws, it was inappropriate in the way it instituted its nondiscrimination clause.

That’s why last week’s decision was the right – and only – one to make.

People who disagree may argue the decision opens the door for people to be shunned from an RSO for other reasons than political beliefs, in turn weakening diversity at CMU.

Tara Sweeney, FIRE senior program officer, said in Monday’s story that diversity and equality are goals CMU should try to achieve.

“However, ideologically-based organizations, such as Students Against Discrimination, the Gay/Straight Alliance, College Democrats, College Republicans and Young Americans for Freedom should be able to only admit members that agree with the ideological mission of the group,” Sweeney said.

She’s right, and it’s only fair the organizations who are allowed to bypass the clause be allowed to choose their members freely.

But, like many issues affecting this campus, not everyone is going to agree with it.

E-mail the author: defaultuser