London, England - The Christian Union at the University of Exeter is set to sue the university and students' guild after an independent adjudicator ruled that non-Christians should be allowed to become members of the society.
The student at the centre of the row, Ben Martin of the Evangelical Christian Union (ECU), said the new ruling was "unbalanced and selective", and that the ECU had no other option than to challenge the decision in court through a judicial review.
The ECU had been in dispute with Exeter's students' guild since 2006. The guild had suspended the society because its practice of asking committee members and speakers to sign a declaration of faith breached the guild's equal opportunities policy.
In May last year, the guild forced the then Exeter Christian Union to change its name to Exeter "Evangelical" Christian Union following a complaint by a student.
In October the guild resolved that aspects of the ECU's constitution were "manifestly inconsistent" with guild policy, which stated that "it shall be an offence for any society ... to discriminate in any way against an individual or group of individuals based on their gender, ethnic origin, disabilities, sexuality, beliefs (including political and religious beliefs), physical appearance, or other personal attributes".
As a consequence the guild froze the ECU's bank account and banned them from holding or advertising events on guild premises.
The ECU's privileges were later reinstated.
Mr Martin filed a complaint of discrimination against guild president Jemma Percy, all other student members of the guild, and the university, over the name change and the suspension of privileges.
Invoking its internal complaints procedure, the university brought in Mark Shaw QC to rule on the complaint.
In his adjudication, Mr Shaw said the guild was right to insist that society membership, which the guild funds, should be available to all guild members without discrimination.
He said the prejudice caused to the ECU by the loss of privileges while it was suspended from the guild was both "slight and temporary".
He said that criticism of the university itself for failing to supervise, condemn and restrain the guild's constitution or activities was "misplaced", and that Mr Martin's "consistent refusal properly to engage in the [complaints procedure] contributed to the failure to reach a mediated resolution".
According to Mr Shaw, the guild approached the complaints procedure "in a spirit of genuine conciliation", but it should have been quicker in telling the ECU that its privileges had been reinstated. The decision was taken on December 15 and the ECU was not told until January 4.
Mr Shaw said, however, it was "wrong and misleading" for the ECU to file a judicial review claim on January 5 as if the guild's challenged decision were still in place.
In response to the adjucation, Mr Martin said: "Mr Shaw held that the Guild were 'laudable' in their aims, [that] the university had no responsibility for the discrimination against Christians, and that the CU was wrong to require that those leading the CU should be Christians. That position, he said, could be held by anyone of any faith or none, provided they agree to the objectives of the CU.
"I fully cooperated with Mr Shaw and he has treated my fundamental rights of religious association and belief in a derisory fashion. Issues of religious association and freedom of speech are fundamental human rights and not ones on which I, or the CU is prepared to compromise."