At this moment, whose notion of equality is to prevail? Is it the university’s, taking the form of a blanket nondiscrimination policy? Or is it the student group’s, taking the form of the desire to maintain both associational freedom and campus citizenship?

Current First Amendment doctrine is ill-equipped to resolve the tension between these competing values, or “ends.” It is ill-equipped because any traditional First Amendment test is written to consider only one “end” — the end of the regulator. This was true prior to the Supreme Court’s June 2010 decision in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez. However, the Court’s opinion in CLS made the situation worse by applying the simplistic and unhelpful “limited public forum” test. The limited public forum test may have been the least common denominator between competing doctrines, but choosing it was a mistake.

This Article takes on several tasks. It explains the notion of campus citizenship, showing how the goal of equality on campus actually has two aspects to it — the equality of the students potentially excluded from a group, and also the equality of the group that is excluded from the campus. It shows how and why current doctrine, but especially the limited public forum doctrine, are not up to the task of resolving the inherent conflict in this dual conception of equality. Finally, it offers a new (and neo-Aristotelian) means-ends analysis courts should use in this context in order to account for the dual ends of these cases: nondiscrimination and expressive association.

Why contract law? This article contends that several difficult challenges in contract jurisprudence remain unresolved because neither law and economics nor rights theorists have been successful in accounting for the actual desires of contracting parties. For example, current theoretical frameworks fail to fully explain contract’s duality as both an economic and social institution. They fail to account for parties’ interest in both wealth maximization and justice. Virtue jurisprudence accounts for these critical dualities better than either law and economics or individual rights. Accordingly, this article suggests that virtue jurisprudence may reframe how both theorists and courts think about “the parties’ intent,” which is a foundational concept in any contract case.

This article takes on several tasks. It explains virtue theory in ways that show its relevance to contract law. It lays out a historical case for the importance of virtue theory to political liberalism and free markets. It explores several sites where current theoretical approaches do not fully capture contracting parties’ intent. Finally, it shows how virtue jurisprudence may offer a superior descriptive, and normative, account of intent-based doctrines in contract law.