WRAL News reported last night that a federal judge dismissed the lawsuit brought by the Alpha Iota Omega Christian fraternity against UNC. The news didn’t elaborate, making it sound as if UNC had won a significant victory in court.

The Durham Herald-Sun gets to the heart of the matter:

Judge Frank Bullock Jr. wrote that members of the fraternity had “filed this lawsuit as outsiders, challenging the university system, and end this lawsuit as insiders, fully participating in the university system. The claims of the original complaint are [thus] moot and the court will not allow plaintiffs to morph it into a new case.” …

The three members of Alpha Iota Omega originally sued UNC in 2004 in a dispute over the university’s non-discrimination policy that would have required the fraternity to admit non-Christians. … But, as Bullock noted in his ruling, in March 2005, UNC amended its policy, allowing official recognition to “student organizations that select their members on the basis of commitment to a set of beliefs.” In September 2005, Alpha Iota Omega applied for and received official recognition, the judge wrote, “entitling them to full and equal privileges at UNC for the 2005-06 academic year.”

In other words, AIO and Constitutional rights are the victors here. Nevertheless, sounding as if this outcome had been UNC’s goal from the get-go, UNC Chancellor Moeser declared victory (if you were wondering whatever happened to the Iraqi Information Minister, maybe he’s producing spin at UNC):

We are pleased that Judge Bullock has agreed with the university’s position: this case is moot. Our successful motion to dismiss the case and the plaintiff’s claims reflected good-faith voluntary efforts to clarify the university’s existing non-discrimination policy, which had been repeatedly misinterpreted or misunderstood by the plaintiffs – a fact duly noted by the court….

We believe this ruling affirms the university’s central position since the case began. There is value in having a non-discrimination policy at a public university. Our objective remains seeking to carefully balance our students’ First Amendment rights with the rights guaranteed by the U.S. and North Carolina Constitutions to equal protection of the laws and freedom from discrimination.

Yes, it “affirms the university’s central position” ? now that the university has changed it “since the case began.” Recall that Moeser’s initial comments were that the university’s nondiscrimination policy as it stood in 2003 was necessary to resolve “a tension between the First Amendment to the Constitution and the equal protection provisions in the Fourteenth Amendment.”

One that point, here’s what Judge Bullock had to say:

… the court was satisfied that application of the policy (as written, although perhaps not as interpreted by the university) to Plaintiffs would violate their rights as guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

That “and” indicates movement in concert by the amendments, not tension. That’s why Judge Bullock issued the preliminary injunction last year, and why UNC revised its policy in 2005 to clarify the tension between (a) the First and Fourteenth Amendments and (b) its policy. UNC’s policy now allows “student organizations t[o] select their members on the basis of commitment to a set of beliefs.” Tension resolved.