Yes, 20 U.S. Code § 4071 (the Equal Access Act) was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Ronald Reagan on August 11, 1984. It prohibits public secondary schools receiving federal funds from denying equal access to student groups based on religious, political, or philosophical content.
And President Reagan was older and still thought this was great and signed it.
So it also prevents discrimination and provides equal access to student groups that oppose the GSA’s beliefs and philosophies as well?
The original intent was to prevent Christian clubs from being denied access. No one could foresee the sodomites using it for their Trojan Horse.
According to the article, there are plenty of reasons that "gay" clubs could be excluded, based the specific wording in the Equal Access Act.
Here’s how the law does not protect GSAsSecondary schools only
Definition of “content” does not include perversions
The activity must be voluntary
The clubs must be student-initiated and student-run
No involvement by school employees
Another RF chicken/egg impact on our Peace and Tranquility inclinations as defined in our Constitution; a Constitution that requires from US a peaceful political resistance to the underhanded but court supported Left thus leaving US at the courts mercy if/when the democrats/RINO's resume power.
From https://resource.rockarch.org/story/rockefeller-foundation-history-origins-to-2013/
Gender, Diversity and Equity.
Beginning with the 1972 appointment of its first female trustee, Mathilde Krim, (the wikipedia link is not part of RF's story) the Foundation focused more overtly on women’s issues, particularly the special problems affecting single female heads of household. It appointed a cross-divisional President’s Task Force on Women’s Programming in 1981.
But the Foundation concluded that integrating rather than separating women’s issues was more in keeping with its long tradition of tackling the full complexity of any problem. As then-President Lyman explained, this did not mean that the RF viewed gender inequity as a minor issue:
The Rockefeller Foundation does not pretend to be neutral on the questions of gender role or the exploitation and oppression of women. What we do seek is to operate on the basis of knowledge rather than stereotypes. Getting past the heat and into the light on gender issues is itself a worthwhile goal for a foundation. Most of our work is still in progress, but we have been able to demonstrate, for example, that it simply is not true that women are not interested in issues such as national security or that girls ‘naturally’ shun the quantitative sciences.
Rockefeller Foundation Annual Report, 1984 Show Citation 27X
The Rockefeller Foundation, Annual Report 1984 (New York: The Rockefeller Foundation, 1984) 6.
Rather than establish a separate program dedicated to women’s issues, the RF chose instead to tackle gender inequity within each of its existing programs. A major initiative of the 1980s was a six-year demonstration program that trained women heads of household for employment in four cities. Similarly, the key role women play as small-holder farmers in Africa permeated AGRA’s work in the 2000s.
Investing in Community-based Organizations
There were other reasons for Foundation leadership to be concerned with the concept of “leverage.” When the Rockefeller Foundation was founded in 1913, it was one of a mere handful of large-scale philanthropies. By 1982, there were over 22,000 foundations in the United States. Yet these foundations (and their governmental and international counterparts) still struggled to eradicate poverty, hunger, and poor health.
In the United States in the 1980s, as the Reagan administration signaled significant federal budget cuts, the RF pondered its most effective role in a complicated context. For the RF, especially, its historical contributions encouraged high expectations. As then-president Lyman explained in 1982:
To most people, names like Rockefeller, Carnegie, Ford, and Mellon connote money, lots of it… Not only are the foundations’ resources wholly inadequate to assume the burdens of the modern welfare state, or even a substantially reduced version thereof, but to look to them for this purpose is to misread their role in American life. That role is not a simple one, given the diversity of foundations as to size, stated aims, and methods of operation.
Rockefeller Foundation Annual Report, 1982 Show Citation 28
In re-examining its role, the RF began to look to a different kind of grantee. In earlier decades, the foundation had generally channeled its funds through large, established institutions, from university research laboratories to international organizations like the Red Cross. The 1980s and 1990s introduced smaller community-based organizations that worked directly to help the poor gain access to essential goods, services, and economic opportunities. The RF began to support and collaborate within this arena, particularly when it came to issues of urban poverty.
As it had with gender, the RF took an integrated approach to the root causes underlying racial inequity, focusing once again on cities. It connected and collaborated with community-based organizations and sought to improve public schools, access to resources, and employment opportunities. In the late 1980s, the Foundation retooled its ongoing Equal Opportunity (EO) program to examine persistent urban poverty. Based on studies it conducted, the Foundation identified school reform as the root cause that might effect the largest social change. By 1999, it phased out a general EO program in favor of the Working Communities initiative, which aimed to revitalize urban neighborhoods on multiple levels.
The Global and Urban Turn
Rockefeller Foundation work had always been international in scope. In the 1990s, the Foundation began to envision its work as not only international but global, recognizing the interconnectedness of economies, markets, environmental factors, technology-driven communication, and populations. While once it might have been described as an American philanthropy working internationally, its leaders came to conceive of it as a “truly global foundation,” dropping distinctions between international and domestic programs.
At the same time, Foundation staff recognized a global population shift toward cities. They crafted approaches to address urbanization’s interconnected web of poverty, race, gender, education and economics, as well as to city planning and environmental resilience. The complexity of urban concerns — not to mention global social, economic, and environmental problems — required the Foundation to work at a systems level, from multinational to local...