Since its founding at Iowa State University last fall, “Cuffs”, a student group devoted to BDSM (bondage, discipline, sado-masochism), has generated as much controversy as the first gay student clubs did almost 30 years ago. Like the first gay college clubs, which faced obstacles when seeking on-campus status, so, too, did Cuffs.

School officials at ISU didn’t exactly welcome the club. On-campus status means a club can access school facilities, student funds, and may have access to bulletin boards, the campus paper and a host of other essentials a student club needs to organize. On-campus does not mean that the college supports the club or the ideas for which it stands. It simply means the college recognizes its right to conduct business.

Cuffs agreed to follow all campus rules, but campus officials worried that the club might promote harm to students. For example, Greek groups must agree not to engage in hazing.

In all fairness to the ISU student affairs folks, the school had to take a look at the club’s purpose to make sure it was not going to harm students.

School officials at public colleges must recognize all student groups seeking on-campus status. The First Amendment protects the right to expressive association.

In the 1960s, for example, college officials attempted to prevent recognizing anti-war clubs, like the “Students for a Democratic Society.”

Arguing that SDS was not patriotic and would engage in violent protests at a Connecticut college, a school president would not recognize the group.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the president’s action violated the First Amendment right to freedom of association.

The court found that the government may only prevent a student group from forming when the group possesses “unlawful plans and goals” and has a specific intent to further those illegal aims.

SDS had a major goal of sharing and promoting anti-war views. Only one aspect of SDS, civil disobedience, was against the law. The court found that was not enough to justify not recognizing the group.

Rather, the president’s dislike with the group’s philosophy seemed to be the overriding reason for denying SDS. The court indicated that mere dislike for a group’s views cannot justify the state interfering with its right to exist.

Following this Supreme Court case, Healy v. James, several campus officials tried to block on-campus status to gay college student groups. School officials claimed the groups would promote sodomy, which was against the law. The lower federal courts found that the groups were not meeting to engage in sex, but rather to share ideas about being gay.

Ironically, this issue is back before the federal courts, as a Gay-Straight Alliance seeks to meet at a high school in Lubbock, Texas.

Based upon Healy, ISU had to grant Cuffs on-campus status.

The campus newspaper, Iowa State Daily, chronicled the events of Cuffs’ first meeting.

Reporter Tom Barton reported that a female student agreed to be a willing model for a “demonstration” of flogging.

When the matter hit the paper, school officials investigated to see if an “assault” occurred. Obviously, clubs cannot engage in assault.

Not surprisingly, the campus judicial officer found that an assault occurred and sanctioned Cuffs, even though the girl consented.

During a hearing on the alleged assault, the officer cited testimony from the president of Cuffs. He indicated that he needed to use a live subject because he needed to show the audience how her skin color changed after contact with the instruments. The woman called out numbers to indicate the intensity of the sensation.

The officer concluded that “education as a basis for this demonstration is not a legal justification for striking another person and is not a defense to committing an assault.”

The officer distinguished “assaults” occurring in the boxing club. She noted that those groups do not engage in assault because they are willing participants engaged in “sport, social or other activity.”

In all fairness to the judicial officer, the Cuffs case is a tough one because there isn’t really any precedent for such a case involving a student group. So she didn’t revoke the group’s on-campus status. She put the group on probation.

Nevertheless, ISU should not have taken any action against Cuffs in any measure. It should have treated it the same as any other student group where “bodily contact” is necessary to the activity.