v. Subversive Activities Control Board, 367 U.S. 1, 137, 81 S.Ct. 1357, 1431, 6 L.Ed.2d 625 (1961) (Black, J., dissenting)). In this case, the College has not yet offered any justification for its denial of recognition to the Black and Hispanic Alumni Association, and thus it is impossible to determine at this stage whether this action was motivated by a desire to “discourage one viewpoint and advance another” in violation of the First Amendment. See Perry Education Ass’n v. Perry Local Educators’ Ass’n, 460 U.S. 37, 49, 103 S.Ct. 948, 957, 74 L.Ed.2d 794 (1983) (indicating that strict scrutiny analysis should be applied when public officials attempt to suppress expression merely because they oppose the speaker’s views). See also Searcey v. Crim, 815 F.2d 1389, 1394-95 (11th Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>); Gay Student Services v. Texas A & M
holding that the district court was authorized to remand the proceedings to the board where the board failed to make required findings holding that board of educations policy of barring peace organizations from presenting career information to students violated first amendment where board allowed other organizations to disseminate such information and failed to offer any justifications as to why it was reasonable to deny plaintiff organizations these limited access rights holding that organizations designated by the secretary of state as terrorist organizations must have the opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner and must have the opportunity to present at least in written form such evidence as those entities may be able to produce to rebut the administrative record or otherwise negate the proposition that they are foreign terrorist organizations holding that a charitable organizations religious purposes will not remove it from the purview of a property tax exemption holding that in a designation of a foreign terrorist organization under the antiterrorism and effective death penalty act of 1996 aedpa the governments use of classified information without permitting the organization to view the information did not violate the organizations due process rights