OPINION OF THE COURT

ALITO, Circuit Judge:

The plaintiffs in this case challenge the constitutionality of a public school district’s “anti-harassment” policy, arguing that it violates the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech.1 The District Court, concluding that the policy prohibited no more speech than was already unlawful under federal and state anti-discrimination laws, held that the policy is constitutional and entered judgment for the school district. We reverse.

I.

A.

In August 1999, the State College Area School District (“SCASD”) adopted an Anti-Harassment Policy (“the Policy”). The full text of the Policy is reproduced in the Appendix to this opinion; we will briefly review the most relevant portions here.

The Policy begins by setting forth its goal — “providing all students with a safe, secure, and nurturing school environment” — and noting that “[disrespect among members of the school community is unacceptable behavior which threatens to disrupt the school environment and well being of the individual.” The second paragraph contains what appears to be the Policy’s operative definition of harassment:

Harassment means verbal or physical conduct based on one’s actual or perceived race, religion, color, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, disability, or other personal characteristics, and which has the purpose or effect of substantially interfering with a student’s educational performance or creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive environment.

The Policy continues by providing several examples of “harassment”:

Harassment can include any unwelcome verbal, written or physical conduct *203which offends, denigrates or belittles an individual because of any of the characteristics described above. Such conduct includes, but is not limited to, unsolicited derogatory remarks, jokes, demeaning comments or behaviors, slurs, mimicking, name calling, graffiti, innuendo, gestures, physical contact, stalking, threatening, bullying, extorting or the display or circulation of written material or pictures.

These examples are followed by a lengthy section captioned “Definitions,” which defines various types of prohibited harassment, including “Sexual harassment,” “Racial and color harassment,” “Harassment on the basis of religion,” “Harassment based on national origin,” “Disability harassment,” and “Other harassment” on the basis of characteristics such as “clothing, physical appearance, social skills, peer group, intellect, educational program, hobbies or values, etc.” The definitions state that harassment “can include unwelcome verbal, written or physical conduct directed at” the particular characteristic. Examples of specific types of harassment are also provided. For example, “Racial and color harassment” is said to include “nicknames emphasizing stereotypes, racial slurs, comments on manner of speaking, and negative references to racial customs.” Religious harassment reaches “derogatory comments regarding surnames, religious tradition, or religious clothing, or religious slurs or graffiti.” National origins harassment includes “negative comments regarding surnames, manner of speaking, customs, language, or ethnic slurs.” Harassment on the basis of sexual orientation extends to “negative name calling and degrading behavior.” Disability harassment encompasses “imitating manner of speech or movement.”

The Policy provides that “[a]ny harassment of a student by a member of the school community is a violation of this policy.”2 It establishes procedures for the reporting, informal mediation, and formal resolution of complaints. In addition, the Policy sets a list of punishments for harassment, “including but not limited to warning, exclusion, suspension, expulsion, transfer, termination, discharge ..., training, education, or counseling.”

B.

Plaintiff David Saxe is a member of the Pennsylvania State Board of Education and serves as an unpaid volunteer for SCASD. He is the legal guardian of both student-plaintiffs, who are enrolled in SCASD schools. After the Anti-Harassment Policy was adopted, Saxe filed suit in District Court, alleging that the Policy was facially unconstitutional. under the First Amendment’s free speech clause.3 In his Complaint, he alleged that

[a]ll Plaintiffs openly and sincerely identify themselves as Christians. They be-' lieve, and their religion teaches, that homosexuality is a sin. Plaintiffs further believe that they have a right to speak out about the sinful nature and harmful effects of homosexuality. Plaintiffs also feel compelled by their religion to speak out on other topics, especially moral issues.

(App.27.) Plaintiffs further alleged that they feared that they were likely to be punished under the Policy for speaking out about their religious beliefs, engaging in symbolic activities reflecting those beliefs, and distributing religious literature. (App.27-28.) They sought to have the Policy declared unconstitutionally vague and *204overbroad and its operation permanently enjoined.

The District Court found that Saxe had standing to mount a facial challenge but granted SCASD’s motion to dismiss on the pleadings, holding that the Policy was facially constitutional. See Saxe v. State College Area School District, 77 F.Supp.2d 621 (M.D.Pa.1999). The Court found that the Policy’s operative definition of harassment was contained in its second paragraph, which, as the Court read it, prohibited “language or conduct which is based on specified characteristics and which has the effect of ‘substantially interfering with a student’s educational performance’ or which creates a hostile educational atmosphere.” Id. at 625. The Court went on to observe that this standard is similar to “that used by courts and agencies to define harassment for purposes of Title VII, Title IX, the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, etc.” Id. Consequently, the Court held that the Policy does not prohibit “anything that is not already prohibited by law” and therefore cannot be unconstitutional. Id. at 626. Rejecting the plaintiffs’ vagueness argument, the Court asserted that “a more precise definition of harassment, like Justice Stewart’s famous description of ‘pornography,’ may be virtually impossible.” Id. at 625. Plaintiffs appealed.

II.

The District Court dismissed the plaintiffs’ free speech claims based on its conclusion that “harassment,” as defined by federal and state anti-discrimination statutes, is not entitled to First Amendment protection. The Court rejected the plaintiffs’ characterization of the Policy as a “hate speech code,” holding instead that it merely prohibits harassment that is already unlawful under state and federal law. The Court observed:

Harassment has never been considered to be protected activity under the First Amendment. In fact, the harassment prohibited under the Policy already is unlawful. The Policy is a tool which gives SCASD the ability to take action itself against harassment which may subject it to civil liability.

Saxe, 77 F.Supp.2d at 627.

We disagree with the District Court’s reasoning. 'There is no categorical “harassment exception” to the First Amendment’s free speech clause. Moreover, the SCASD Policy prohibits a substantial amount of speech that would not constitute actionable harassment under either federal or state law.

A.

Because the District Court based its holding on a determination that the Policy simply replicated existing law, we begin by briefly reviewing the scope of the applicable anti-harassment statutes. At the federal level, discriminatory harassment in the public schools is governed primarily by two statutes. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides that “[n]o person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000d. Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 further provides that “[n]o person ... shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any educational program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.” 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a). Although less often involved in harassment cases, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794, makes it unlawful for programs receiving federal assistance to discriminate on the basis of disability or age.4

*205The federal courts have held that these statutes create a private right of action similar to that available under Title VII, which prohibits discrimination in the workplace. Most significantly for this case, the Supreme Court has recognized that a public school student may bring suit against a school under Title IX for so-called “hostile environment” harassment. Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education, 526 U.S. 629, 119 S.Ct. 1661, 143 L.Ed.2d 839 (1999); Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools, 503 U.S. 60, 74-75, 112 S.Ct. 1028, 117 L.Ed.2d 208 (1992).

The concept of “hostile environment” harassment originated in a series of Title VII cases involving sexual harassment in the workplace. In Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 106 S.Ct. 2399, 91 L.Ed.2d 49 (1986), the Supreme Court held that Title VII prohibits abusive and discriminatory conduct that creates a “hostile environment” — that is, harassment so severe or pervasive as “to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment and create an abusive working environment.” Id. at 67, 106 S.Ct. 2399. In Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 114 S.Ct. 367, 126 L.Ed.2d 295 (1993), the Court clarified that in order for conduct to constitute harassment under a “hostile environment” theory, it must both: (1) be viewed subjectively as harassment by the victim and (2) be objectively severe or pervasive enough that a reasonable person would agree that it is harassment. See id. at 21-22, 114 S.Ct. 367. The Court emphasized that the objective prong of this inquiry must be evaluated by looking at the “totality of the circumstances.” “These may include,” the Court observed, “the frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee’s work performance.” Id. at 23, 114 S.Ct. 367. See also Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., 523 U.S. 75, 80, 118 S.Ct. 998, 140 L.Ed.2d 201 (1998) (“Conduct that is not severe or pervasive enough to create an objectively hostile or abusive work environment — an environment that a reasonable person would find hostile or abusive — is beyond Title VII’s purview.”). In defining the contours of this concept, the Court has repeatedly stated that Title YII is not violated by the “mere utterance of an ... epithet which engenders offensive feelings in an employee” or by mere “ ‘discourtesy or rudeness,’ unless so severe or pervasive as to constitute an objective change in the conditions of employment.” Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 787, 118 S.Ct. 2275, 141 L.Ed.2d 662 (1998).

The Supreme Court has extended an analogous cause of action to students under Title IX. Originally, such claims were limited to cases involving harassment of a student by a teacher or other agent of the school. See Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools, supra. However, in 1999, in Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education, supra, the Court held that Title IX also permits a plaintiff to recover damages from a federally funded educational institution for certain cases of student-on-student sexual harassment. To recover in such a case,

a plaintiff must establish sexual harassment of students that is so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive, and *206that so undermines and detracts from the victims’ educational experience, that the victim students are effectively denied equal access to an institution’s resources and opportunities.

Id. at 651, 119 S.Ct. 1661. This determination “ ‘depends on a constellation of surrounding circumstances, expectations, and relationships,’ including, but not limited to, the ages of the harasser and the victim, and the number of individuals involved.” Id. (quoting Oncale, 523 U.S. at 82, 118 S.Ct. 998). The Court stressed that “[djamages are not available for simple acts of teasing and name-calling among school children, even where these comments target differences in gender.” Id. at 652, 119 S.Ct. 1661. Rather, private damages actions against the school are limited to cases in which the school “acts with deliberate indifference to known acts of harassment,” and those acts have “a systemic effect on educational programs and activities.” Id. at 633, 653, 119 S.Ct. 1661.5

B.

With this framework in mind, we now turn to the District Court’s assertion that “harassment has never been considered to be protected activity under the First Amendment.” The District Court’s categorical pronouncement exaggerates the current state of the case law in this area.

There is of course no question that non-expressive, physically harassing conduct is entirely outside the ambit of the free speech clause. But there is also no question that the free speech clause protects a wide variety of speech that listeners may consider deeply offensive, including statements that impugn another’s race or national origin or that denigrate religious beliefs. See, e.g., Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 89 S.Ct. 1827, 23 L.Ed.2d 430 (1969); Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 60 S.Ct. 900, 84 L.Ed. 1213 (1940). When laws against harassment attempt to regulate oral or written expression on such topics, however detestable the views expressed may be, we cannot turn a blind eye to the First Amendment implications. “Where pure expression is involved,” anti-discrimination law “steers into the territory of the First Amendment.” DeAngelis v. El Paso Mun. Police Officers Ass’n, 51 F.3d 591, 596 (5th Cir.1995).

This is especially true because, as the Fifth Circuit has noted, when anti-discrimination laws are “applied to ... harassment claims founded solely on verbal insults, pictorial or literary matter, the statutefs] impose[ ] content-based, viewpoint-discriminatory restrictions on speech.” DeAngelis, 51 F.3d at 596-97. Indeed, a disparaging comment directed at an individual’s sex, race, or some other personal characteristic has the potential to create an “hostile environment”—and thus come within the ambit of anti-discrimination laws—precisely because of its sensitive subject matter and because of the odious viewpoint it expresses.6

*207This sort of content- or viewpoint-based restriction is ordinarily subject to the most exacting First Amendment scrutiny. This point was dramatically illustrated in R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377, 112 S.Ct. 2538, 120 L.Ed.2d 305 (1992), in which the Supreme Court struck down a municipal hate-speech ordinance prohibiting “fighting words” that aroused “anger, alarm or resentment on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender.” Id. at 377, 112 S.Ct. 2538. While recognizing that fighting words generally are unprotected by the First Amendment, the Court nevertheless found that the ordinance unconstitutionally discriminated on the basis of content and viewpoint:

Displays containing some words — odious racial epithets, for example — would be prohibited to proponents of all views. But “fighting words” that do not themselves invoke race, color, creed, religion, or gender — aspersions upon a person’s mother, for example — would seemingly be usable ad libitum in the placards of those arguing in favor of racial, color, etc. tolerance and equality, but could not be used by that speaker’s opponents.

Id. at 391, 112 S.Ct. 2538. Striking down the law, the Court concluded that “[t]he point of the First Amendment is that majority preferences must be expressed in some fashion other than silencing speech on the basis of content.” Id. at 392, 112 S.Ct. 2538.

Loosely worded anti-harassment laws may pose some of the same problems as the St. Paul hate speech ordinance: they may regulate deeply offensive and potentially disruptive categories of speech based, at least in part, on subject matter and viewpoint. Although the Supreme Court has written extensively on the scope of workplace harassment, it has never squarely addressed whether harassment, when it takes the form of pure speech, is exempt from First Amendment protection. See Weller v. Citation Oil & Gas Corp., 84 F.3d 191, 194 n. 6 (5th Cir.1996) (noting that the Supreme Court has “provided] little guidance whether conduct targeted for its expressive content ... may be regulated under Title VII”); Aguilar v. Avis Rent A Car Sys., Inc., 21 Cal.4th 121, 87 Cal.Rptr.2d 132, 980 P.2d 846, 863 (Cal.1999) (Werdegar, J., concurring) (“No decision by the United States Supreme Court has, as yet, declared that the First Amendment permits restrictions on speech creating a hostile work environment.”).7

SCASD relies heavily on a passage in R.A.V. in which the Court suggested in dictum that at least some harassing speech does not warrant First Amendment protection:

[Sjince words in some circumstances violate laws directed not against speech but against conduct (a law against treason, for example, is violated by telling the enemy the nation’s defense secrets) a particular content-based subcategory of a proscribable class of speech can be swept up incidentally within the reach of a statute directed at conduct rather than speech [citing Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., 501 U.S. 560, 571, 111 S.Ct. 2456, 115 L.Ed.2d 504 (1991); FTC v. Superior Court Trial Lawyers Ass’n, 493 U.S. 411, 425-32, 110 S.Ct. 768, 107 L.Ed.2d 851 (1990); and United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367, 376-77, 88 S.Ct. *2081673, 20 L.Ed.2d 672 (1968) ]. Thus, for example, sexually derogatory “fighting words,” among other words, may produce a violation of Title VII’s general prohibition against sexual discrimination in employment practices. Where the government does not target conduct on the basis of its expressive content, acts are not shielded from regulation merely because they express a discriminatory idea or philosophy.

R.A.V., 505 U.S. at 389, 112 S.Ct. 2538 (other citations omitted) (emphasis added).

This passage suggests that government may constitutionally prohibit speech whose non-expressive qualities promote discrimination. For example, a supervisor’s statement “sleep with me or you’re fired” may be proscribed not on the ground of any expressive idea that the statement communicates, but rather because it facilitates the threat of discriminatory conduct. Despite the purely verbal quality of such a threat, it surely is no more “speech” for First Amendment purposes than the robber’s demand “your money or your life.” Accord NLRB v. Gissel Packing Co., 395 U.S. 575, 617, 618, 89 S.Ct. 1918, 23 L.Ed.2d 547 (1969) (holding that employer’s “threat of retaliation” on basis of union membership was “without the protection of the First Amendment”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).8 Similarly, we see no constitutional problem with using an employer’s offensive speech as evidence of motive or intent in a case involving an allegedly discriminatory employment action. Accord Dawson v. Delaware, 503 U.S. 159, 112 S.Ct. 1093, 117 L.Ed.2d 309 (1992) (“The Constitution does not erect a per se barrier to the admission of evidence concerning one’s beliefs and associations ... simply because those beliefs and associations are protected by the First Amendment.”).

*209The previously quoted passage from R.A.V., however, does not necessarily mean that anti-discrimination laws are categorically immune from First Amendment challenge when they are applied to prohibit speech solely on the basis of its expressive content. See DeAngelis, 51 F.3d at 596 n. 7; John E. Nowak & Ronald D. Rotunda, Constitutional Law § 16.39, at 1116 (5th ed.1995). “Harassing” or discriminatory speech, although evil and offensive, may be used to communicate ideas or emotions that nevertheless implicate First Amendment protections. As the Supreme Court has emphatically declared, “[i]f there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea offensive or disagreeable.” Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 414, 109 S.Ct. 2533, 105 L.Ed.2d 342 (1989).

For this reason, we cannot accept SCASD’s contention that the application of anti-harassment law to expressive speech can be justified as a regulation of the speech’s “secondary effects.” R.AV. did acknowledge that content-discriminatory speech restrictions may be permissible when the content classification merely “happens to be associated with particular ‘secondary effects’ of the speech, so that the regulation is ‘justified without reference to the content of the ... speech.’ ” R.AV, 505 U.S. at 389, 112 S.Ct. 2538 (quoting Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc., 475 U.S. 41, 48, 106 S.Ct. 925, 89 L.Ed.2d 29 (1986)). The Supreme Court has made it clear, however, that the government may not prohibit speech under a “secondary effects” rationale based solely on the emotive impact that its offensive content may have on a listener: “Listeners’ reactions to speech are not the type of ‘secondary effects’ we referred to in Renton .... The emotive impact of speech on its audience is not a ‘secondary effect.’ ” Boos v. Barry, 485 U.S. 312, 321, 108 S.Ct. 1157, 99 L.Ed.2d 333 (1988); see also United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, 529 U.S. 803, 120 S.Ct. 1878, 1885, 146 L.Ed.2d 865 (2000) (“The overriding justification for the regulation is concern for the effect of the subject matter on [listeners].... This is the essence of content-based regulation.”); Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement, 505 U.S. 123, 134, 112 S.Ct. 2395, 120 L.Ed.2d 101 (1992) (“Listeners’ reaction to speech is not a content-neutral basis for regulation.”). Nor do we believe that the restriction of expressive speech on the basis of its content may be characterized as a mere “time, place and manner” regulation. See Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844, 879, 117 S.Ct. 2329, 138 L.Ed.2d 874 (1997) (“time, place and manner” analysis not applicable when statute “regulates speech on the basis of its content”); Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. v. Public Util. Comm’n, 475 U.S. 1, 20, 106 S.Ct. 903, 89 L.Ed.2d 1 (1986) (“[flor a time, place, or manner regulation to be valid, it must be neutral as to the content of the speech”); Consolidated Edison Co. v. Public Serv. Comm’n, 447 U.S. 530, 536, 100 S.Ct. 2326, 65 L.Ed.2d 319 (1980) (“a constitutionally permissible time, place, or manner restriction may not be based upon either the content or subject matter of speech”).

In short, we see little basis for the District Court’s sweeping assertion that “harassment” — at least when it consists of speech targeted solely on the basis of its expressive content — “has never been considered to be protected activity under the First Amendment.” Such a categorical rule is without precedent in the decisions of the Supreme Court or this Court, and it belies the very real tension between anti-harassment laws and the Constitution’s guarantee of freedom of speech.

We do not suggest, of course, that no application of anti-harassment law to expressive speech can survive First Amendment scrutiny. Certainly, preventing discrimination in the workplace — and in the schools — is not only a legitimate, but a compelling, government interest. See, e.g., Board of Directors of Rotary Internation *210 al v. Rotary Club of Duarte, 481 U.S. 537, 549, 107 S.Ct. 1940, 95 L.Ed.2d 474 (1987). And, as some courts and commentators have suggested, speech may be more readily subject to restrictions when a school or workplace audience is “captive” and cannot avoid the objectionable speech. See, e.g., Aguilar, 87 Cal.Rptr.2d 132, 980 P.2d at 871-73 (Werdegar, J., concurring). We simply note that we have found no categorical rule that divests “harassing” speech, as defined by federal anti-discrimination statutes, of First Amendment protection.

C.

In any event, we need not map the precise boundary between permissible anti-discrimination legislation ahd impermissible restrictions on First Amendment rights today. Assuming for present purposes that the federal anti-discrimination laws are constitutional in all of their applications to pure speech, we note that the SCASD Policy’s reach is considerably broader.

For one thing, the Policy prohibits harassment based on personal characteristics that are not protected under federal law. Titles VI and IX, taken together with the other relevant federal statutes, cover only harassment based on sex, race, color, national origin, age and disability. The Policy, in contrast, is much broader, reaching, at the extreme, a catch-all category of “other personal characteristics” (which, the Policy states, includes things like “clothing,” “appearance,” “hobbies and values,” and “social skills”). Insofar as the policy attempts to prevent students from making negative comments about each others’ “appearance,” “clothing,” and “social skills,” it may be brave, futile, or merely silly. But attempting to proscribe negative comments about “values,” as that term is commonly used today, is something else altogether. By prohibiting disparaging speech directed at a person’s “values,” the Policy strikes at the heart of moral and political discourse — the lifeblood of constitutional self government (and democratic education) and the core concern of the First Amendment. That speech about “values” may offend is not cause for its prohibition, but rather the reason for its protection: “a principal ‘function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger.’ ” Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 408-09, 109 S.Ct. 2533, 105 L.Ed.2d 342 (1989) (quoting Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1, 4, 69 S.Ct. 894, 93 L.Ed. 1131 (1949)). No court or legislature has ever suggested that unwelcome speech directed at another’s “values” may be prohibited under the rubric of anti-discrimination.

We do not suggest, of course, that a public school may never adopt regulations more protective than existing law; it may, provided that those regulations do not offend the Constitution. Such regulations cannot be insulated from First Amendment challenge, however, based on the argument that they do no more than prohibit conduct that is already unlawful.

Moreover, the Policy’s prohibition extends beyond harassment that objectively denies a student equal access to a school’s education resources. Even on a narrow reading, the Policy unequivocally prohibits any verbal or physical conduct that is based on an enumerated personal characteristic and that “has the purpose or effect of substantially interfering with a student’s educational performance or creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive environment.” (emphasis added). Unlike federal anti-harassment law, which imposes liability only when harassment has “a systemic effect on educational programs and activities,” Davis, 526 U.S. at 633, 119 S.Ct. 1661 (emphasis added), the Policy extends to speech that merely has the “purpose” of harassing another. This formulation, by focusing on the speaker’s motive rather than the effect of speech on the learning *211environment, appears to sweep in those “simple acts of teasing and name-calling” that the Davis Court explicitly held were insufficient for liability.

D.

The District Court justifies its ruling by a syllogism: (1) the SCASD Policy covers only speech that is already prohibited under federal and state anti-harassment laws; (2) such prohibited speech is not entitled to First Amendment protection; (3) therefore, the Policy poses no First Amendment problems. This reasoning is flawed in both its major and minor premises. First, the Policy — even narrowly interpreted — covers substantially more speech than applicable federal and state laws. Second, the courts have never embraced a categorical “harassment exception” from First Amendment protection for speech that is within the ambit of federal anti-discrimination laws.

III.

Accordingly, we must examine whether the Policy may be justified as a permissible regulation of speech within the schools.

A.

We begin by reviewing the Supreme Court’s cases demarcating the scope of a student’s right to freedom of expression while in school.9 The Court set out the framework for student free speech claims in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503, 89 S.Ct. 733, 21 L.Ed.2d 731 (1969). In Tinker, a group of students was suspended for wearing black armbands to protest American involvement in the Vietnam War. The Court held that the wearing of the armbands to make a political statement was “closely akin to ‘pure speech’ ” and thus was constitutionally protected. Id. at 505, 89 S.Ct. 733. Taking as its premise that “[i]t can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate,” id. at 506, 89 S.Ct. 733, the Court reasoned that

[t]he school officials banned and sought to punish petitioners for a silent, passive expression of opinion, unaccompanied by any disorder or disturbance on the part of the petitioners. There is here no evidence whatever of the petitioners’ interference, actual or nascent, with the school’s work or of collision with the rights of other students to be secure and left alone. Accordingly, this case does not concern speech or action that intrudes upon the work of the school or the rights of other students.

Id. at 504, 89 S.Ct. 733. Significantly, the Court emphasized that “undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance is not enough to overcome the right to freedom of expression.” Id. at 508, 89 S.Ct. 733.

Under Tinker, then, regulation of student speech is generally permissible only when the speech would substantially disrupt or interfere with the work of the school or the rights of other students. As subsequent federal cases have made clear, Tinker requires á specific and significant fear of disruption, not just some remote apprehension of disturbance. In Chandler v. McMinnville School District, 978 F.2d 524 (9th Cir.1992), for example, a middle school punished students who wore “SCAB” buttons to protest replacement teachers during a strike. Because the school had failed to present any evidence that the buttons were “inherently disruptive” to school activities, the court held that students could proceed with their First Amendment claim. In Chalifoux v. New Caney Independent School District, 976 F.Supp. 659 (S.D.Tex.1997), a high *212school student challenged his school’s policy against gang-related apparel. The school applied the ban to prohibit the plaintiff, a devout Catholic, from wearing a rosary to school on the ground that some gangs had adopted the rosary as then-identifying symbol. The court held that the ban failed to satisfy Tinker's substantial disruption test:

[Although Plaintiffs wore them rosaries outside their shirts-for several months, they were never misidentified as gang members nor approached by gang members. There also was no evidence that they attracted the attention of other students because of their rosaries.... Accordingly, the Court finds that there was insufficient evidence of actual disruption at New Caney High School, or that there was substantial reason for NCISD to anticipate a disruption, to justify the infringement on Plaintiffs’ religiously-motivated speech.

Chalifoux, 976 F.Supp. at 667. Finally, in Clark v. Dallas Independent School District, 806 F.Supp. 116, 120 (N.D.Tex.1992), the court held that a high school could not prohibit its students from distributing religious tracts on school grounds. Again citing Tinker, the court held that “Defendants have failed to establish that Plaintiffs’ distribution of the religious tracts gave rise to a material or substantial disruption of the operation” of the school. Id. at 120. Noting that the only evidence of disruption was the objection of several other students, the court observed that “[i]f school officials were permitted to prohibit expression to which other students objected, absent any further justification, the officials would have a license to prohibit virtually every type of expression.” Id.

The Tenth Circuit’s recent decision in West v. Derby Unified School District No. 260, 206 F.3d 1358 (10th Cir.2000), which reached a different result, nevertheless confirms Tinker’s requirements of specificity and concreteness. In West, a middle school student was suspended for drawing a Confederate flag in math class under a school policy providing that a “student shall not racially harass or intimidate another student by name calling, using racial or derogatory slurs,[or] wearing or possession of items depicting or implying racial hatred or prejudice.” Id. at 1361. The Court upheld the suspension under Tinker’s substantial disruption standard, finding that the school had demonstrated a concrete threat of substantial disruption:

[B]ased upon recent past events, Derby School District officials • had reason to believe that a student’s display of the Confederate flag might cause disruption and interfere with the rights of other students to be secure and let alone.... The district experienced a series of racial incidents [including “hostile confrontations” and at least one fight] in 1995, some of which were related to the Confederate flag.... The Racial Harassment policy enacted in response to this situation was clearly something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint. The history of racial tension in the district made administrators’ and parents’ concerns about future substantial disruptions from possession of Confederate flag symbols at school reasonable.

Id. at 1366 (citation omitted). As West makes clear, the mere desire to avoid “discomfort” or “unpleasantness” is not enough to justify restricting student speech under Tinker. However, if a school can point to a well-founded expectation of disruption—especially one based on past incidents arising out of similar speech—the restriction may pass constitutional muster.

Since Tinker, the Supreme Court has carved out a number of narrow categories of speech that a school may restrict even without the threat of substantial disruption. In Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675, 106 S.Ct. 3159, 92 L.Ed.2d 549 (1986), the Court upheld the school’s suspension of a high school stu*213dent who, at a school assembly, nominated a peer for class office through “an elaborate, graphic, and explicit sexual metaphor.” Id. at 677, 106 S.Ct. 3159. Holding that the student’s expression was not protected by the First Amendment, the Court reasoned that

[t]he schools, as instruments of the state, may determine that the essential lessons of civil, mature conduct cannot be conveyed in a school that tolerates lewd, indecent, or offensive speech and conduct such as that indulged in by this confused boy.

Id. at 683, 106 S.Ct. 3159. Distinguishing Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 91 S.Ct. 1780, 29 L.Ed.2d 284 (1971), in which the Court struck down an adult’s conviction for wearing a jacket bearing an obscenity in a public courthouse, the Court explained that

[i]t does not follow ... that, simply because the use of an offensive form of expression may not be prohibited to adults making what the speaker considers a political point, the same latitude must be permitted to children in public school.... “[T]he First Amendment gives a high school student the classroom right to wear Tinker’s armband, but not Cohen’s jacket.”

Fraser, 478 U.S. at 683, 106 S.Ct. 3159 (citations omitted). According to Fraser, then, there is no First Amendment protection for “lewd,” “vulgar,” “indecent,” and “plainly offensive” speech in school. Fraser permits a school to prohibit words that “offend for the same reasons that obscenity offends” — a dichotomy neatly illustrated by the comparison between Cohen’s jacket and Tinker’s armband. Fraser, 478 U.S. at 685, 106 S.Ct. 3159 (quoting FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726, 746, 98 S.Ct. 3026, 57 L.Ed.2d 1073 (1978)); see also Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260, 286 n. 2, 108 S.Ct. 562, 98 L.Ed.2d 592 (Brennan, J., dissenting) (Fraser exception limited “to the appropriateness of the manner in which the message is conveyed, not of the message’s content”); East High Gay/Straight Alliance v. Board of Educ. of Salt Lake City School Dist., 81 F.Supp.2d 1166, 1193 (D.Utah 1999) (“Fraser speaks to the form and manner of student speech, not its substance. It addresses the mode of expression, not its content or viewpoint.”).

Finally, in Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260, 108 S.Ct. 562, 98 L.Ed.2d 592 (1988), the Court upheld, against First Amendment challenge, a principal’s deletion of student articles on teen pregnancy from a school-sponsored newspaper. Distinguishing Tinker, the Court noted the school had not opened the newspaper up as a public forum and therefore could “exercis[e] editorial control over the style and content of student speech in school-sponsored expressive activities as long as [its] actions are reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns.” Id. at 273, 108 S.Ct. 562 (emphasis added). As the Court reasoned,

[t]he question whether the First Amendment requires a school to tolerate particular student speech — the question that we addressed in Tinker — is different from the question whether the First Amendment requires a school affirmatively to promote particular student speech. The former question addresses educators’ ability to silence a student’s personal expression that happens to occur on the school premises. The latter question concerns educators’ authority over school-sponsored publications, theatrical productions, and other expressive activities that students, parents, and members of the public might reasonably perceive to bear the imprimatur of the school_Educators are entitled to exercise greater control over this second form of student expression....

Id. at 270-71, 108 S.Ct. 562. In Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of University of Virginia, 515 U.S. 819, 115 S.Ct. 2510, 132 L.Ed.2d 700 (1995), the Court made clear that Hazelwood’s, permissive “legitimate pedagogical concern” test governs only when a student’s school-sponsored speech *214could reasonably be viewed as speech of the school itself:

[W]hen the State is the speaker, it may make content-based choices. When the University determines the content of the education it provides, it is thé University speaking, and we have permitted the government to regulate the content of what is or is not expressed when it is the speaker or when it enlists private entities to convey its own message.... It does not follow, however ... that viewpoint-based restrictions are proper when the University does not itself speak or subsidize transmittal of a message it favors but instead encourage[s] a diversity of views from private speakers. A holding that the University may not discriminate based on the viewpoint of private persons whose speech it facilitates does not restrict the University’s own speech, which is controlled by different principles. See, e.g., ... Hazelwood School Dist. v. Kuhlmeier, [484 U.S. at 270-72, 108 S.Ct. 562].

Rosenberger, 515 U.S. at 834, 115 S.Ct. 2510. Similarly, a post-Hazelwood case from the Seventh Circuit illustrates that school “sponsorship” of student speech is not lightly to be presumed. See Hedges v. Wauconda Comm. Unit Sch. Dist. No. 118, 9 F.3d 1295, 1299 (7th Cir.1993). In striking down a blanket prohibition against distributing religious materials on school grounds, the Hedges Court rejected the argument that the ban was justified under Hazelwood because observers might “infer that the school endorses whatever it permits”:

[The School District] proposes to throw up its hands, declaring that because misconceptions are possible it may silence its pupils, that the best defense against misunderstanding is censorship.... Public belief that the government is partial does not permit the government to become partial. Students therefore may hand out literature even if the recipients would misunderstand its provenance. The school’s proper response is to educate the audience rather than squelch the speaker.

Hedges, 9 F.3d at 1299; see also Burch v. Barker, 861 F.2d 1149, 1159 (9th Cir.1988) (“under ground newspaper” distributed on school grounds could not reasonably be viewed as school-sponsored).

To summarize: Under Fraser, a school may categorically prohibit lewd, vulgar or profane language. Under Hazelwood, a school may regulate school-sponsored speech (that is, speech that a reasonable observer would view as the school’s own speech) on the basis of any legitimate pedagogical concern. Speech falling outside of these categories is subject to Tinker’s general rule: it may be regulated only if it would substantially disrupt school operations or interfere with the right of others. See Chandler, 978 F.2d at 529; Pyle v. South Hadley Sch. Comm., 861 F.Supp. 157, 166 (D.Mass.1994).

IV.

We turn now to the SCASD Policy itself. Saxe levies facial challenges against the Policy on both overbreadth and vagueness grounds. Because we hold that the Policy, even narrowly read, is unconstitutionally overbroad, we do not reach the merits of Saxe’s vagueness claim.

A.

A regulation is unconstitutional on its face on overbreadth grounds where there is a “a likelihood that the statute’s very existence will inhibit free expression” by “inhibiting the speech of third parties who are not before the Court.” Members of City Council v. Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. 789, 799, 104 S.Ct. 2118, 80 L.Ed.2d 772 (1984). To render a law unconstitutional, the overbreadth must be “not only real but substantial in relation to the statute’s plainly legitimate sweep.” Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 615, 93 S.Ct. 2908, 37 L.Ed.2d 830 (1973).

On first reading, the Policy on its face appears both unconstitutionally vague *215and overbroad. As an initial matter, the Policy contains several separate passages, each of which could be read as embodying its operative definition of banned speech. The Policy's second paragraph sets forth one definition:

Harassment means verbal or physical conduct based on one’s actual or perceived race, religion, color, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, disability, or other personal characteristics, and which has the purpose or effect of substantially interfering with a student’s educational performance or creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive environment.

This, however, is immediately followed two paragraphs later by a statement that harassment under the Policy “can include any unwelcome verbal, written or physical conduct which offends, denigrates or belittles an individual because of any of the characteristics described above.” In addition, in a separate section, the Policy purports to set out “definitions” for various categories of harassment that do not always coincide with the above-quoted language. Religious harassment, for example, is defined as “unwelcome verbal, written or physical conduct directed at the characteristics of a person’s religion, such as derogatory comments regarding surnames, religious tradition, or religious clothing, or religious slurs, or graffiti.”

Certainly, some of these purported definitions of harassment are facially over-broad. No one would suggest that a school could constitutionally ban “any unwelcome verbal ... conduct which offends ... an individual because of’ some enumerated personal characteristics. Nor could the school constitutionally restrict, without more, any “unwelcome verbal ... conduct directed at the characteristics of a person’s religion.” The Supreme Court has held time and again, both within and outside of the school context, that the mere fact that someone might take offense at the content of speech is not sufficient justification for prohibiting it. See Tinker, 393 U.S. at 509, 89 S.Ct. 733 (school may not prohibit speech based on the “mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint”); Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 414, 109 S.Ct. 2533, 105 L.Ed.2d 342 (1989) (“If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.”); Street v. New York, 394 U.S. 576, 592, 89 S.Ct. 1354, 22 L.Ed.2d 572 (1969) (“It is firmly settled that ... the public expression of ideas may not be prohibited merely because the ideas are themselves offensive to some of their hearers.”); see also Doe v. University of Michigan, 721 F.Supp. 852, 863 (E.D.Mich.1989) (striking down university speech code: “Nor could the University proscribe speech simply because it was found to be offensive, even gravely so, by large numbers of people.”).

Before declaring the Policy unconstitutional, however, we must first determine whether it is susceptible to a reasonable limiting construction: “the elementary rule is that every reasonable construction must be resorted to, in order to save a statute from unconstitutionality.” 10 Stretton v. Disciplinary Bd. of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 944 F.2d 137, 144 (3d Cir.1991) (citations *216omitted); see also Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, 455 U.S. 489, 494 n. 4, 102 S.Ct. 1186, 71 L.Ed.2d 362 (1982) (“In evaluating a facial challenge to a state law, a federal court must, of course, consider any limiting construction.”); Broadrick, 413 U.S. at 617 n. 16, 93 S.Ct. 2908 (“a federal court must determine what a state statute means before it can judge its facial unconstitutionality”).

When the Policy is read as a whole, it appears that, its operative definition of prohibited harassment is contained in the above-quoted second paragraph, which requires that speech either “substantially interfer[e] with a student’s educational performance or creat[e] an intimidating, hostile or offensive environment.” The Policy’s fourth paragraph and “Definitions” section could reasonably be read as merely listing examples of conduct that might (but would not necessarily) violate this operative definition. On this narrow reading, the second paragraph would supply the Policy’s “formal” definition of prohibited harassment, but the other sections of the Policy could still be relevant in clarifying vague or ambiguous terms in that operative definition.

So narrowed, the Policy would require the following elements before speech could be deemed harassing: (1) verbal or phj^sical conduct (2) that is based on one’s actual or perceived personal characteristics and (3) that has the purpose or effect of either (3a) substantially interfering with a student’s educational performance or (3b) creating an intimidating hostile, or offensive environment.

It is apparent from these elements that SCASD cannot take solace in the relatively more permissive Fraser or Hazelwood standards. First, the Policy does not confine itself merely to vulgar or lewd speech; rather, it reaches any speech that interferes or is intended to interfere with educational performance or that creates or is intended to create a hostile environment. While some Fraser-type speech may fall within this definition, the Policy’s scope is clearly broader. Second, the Policy does not contain any geographical or contextual limitations; rather, it purports to cover “[a]ny harassment of a student by a member of the school community.” Thus, its strictures presumably apply whether the harassment occurs in a school sponsored assembly, in the classroom, in the hall between classes, or in a playground or athletic facility.11 Obviously, the Policy covers far more than just Hazelwood-type school-sponsored speech; it also sweeps in private student speech that merely “happens to occur on the school premises.” Hazelwood, 484 U.S. at 271, 108 S.Ct. 562. As a result, SCASD cannot rely on Hazel-wood’s, more lenient “legitimate pedagogical concern” test in defending the Policy from facial attack.

In short, the Policy, even narrowly read, prohibits a substantial amount of non-vulgar, non-sponsored student speech. SCASD must therefore satisfy the Tinker test by showing that the Policy’s restrictions are necessary to prevent substantial disruption or interference with the work of the school or the rights of other students. Applying this test, we conclude that the Policy is substantially overbroad.

As an initial matter, the Policy punishes not only speech that actually causes disruption, but also speech that merely intends to do so: by its terms, it covers speech “which has the purpose or effect of’ interfering with educational perfor-*217manee or creating a hostile environment. This ignores Tinkers requirement that a school must reasonably believe that speech will cause actual, material disruption before prohibiting it.

In addition, even if the “purpose” component is ignored, we do not believe that prohibited “harassment,” as defined by the Policy, necessarily rises to the level of a substantial disruption under Tinker. We agree that the Policy’s first prong, which prohibits speech that would “substantially interfere] with a student’s educational performance,” may satisfy the Tinker standard. The primary function of a public school is to educate its students; conduct that substantially interferes with the mission is, almost by definition, disruptive to the school environment.

The Policy's second criterion, however— which prohibits speech that “creat[es] an intimidating, hostile or offensive environment” — poses a more difficult problem. There are several possible grounds on which SCASD could attempt to justify this prohibition. First, SCASD could argue that it has an interest in avoiding liability for harassment under Franklin and Davis. However, because the Policy prohibits substantially more conduct than would give rise to liability under these cases, this justification is unavailing.

Second, SCASD could argue that speech creating a “hostile environment” may be banned because it “intrudes upon ... the rights of other students.” Tinker, 393 U.S. at 504, 89 S.Ct. 733. The precise scope of Tinker's “interference with the rights of others” language is unclear; at least one court has opined that it covers only independently tortious speech like libel, slander or intentional infliction of emotional distress. See Slotterback v. Interboro Sch. Dist., 766 F.Supp. 280, 289 n. 8 (E.D.Pa.1991); see also Kuhlmeier v. Hazelwood Sch. Dist., 795 F.2d 1368, 1375 (8th Cir.), rev’d on other grounds, 484 U.S. 260, 108 S.Ct. 562, 98 L.Ed.2d 592 (1988). In any case, it is certainly not enough that the speech is merely offensive to some listener. See, e.g., Rivera, 721 F.Supp. at 1191. Because the Policy’s “hostile environment” prong does not, on its face, require any threshold showing of severity or pervasiveness, it could conceivably be applied to cover any speech about some enumerated personal characteristics the content of which offends someone.12 This could include much “core” political and religious speech: the Policy’s “Definitions” section lists as examples of covered harassment “negative” or “derogatory” speech about such contentious issues as “racial customs,” “religious tradition,” “language,” “sexual orientation,” and “values.” Such speech, when it does not pose a realistic threat of substantial disruption, is within a student’s First Amendment rights.

Finally, SCASD might argue that the “hostile environment” prohibition is required to maintain an orderly and non-disruptive educational environment. However, as Tinker made clear, the “undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance” is not enough to justify a restriction on student speech. Although SCASD correctly asserts that it has a compelling interest in promoting an educational environment that is safe and conducive to learning, it fails to provide any particularized reason as to why it anticipates substantial disruption from the broad swath of student speech prohibited under the Policy.

The Policy, then, appears to cover substantially more speech than could be prohibited under Tinker's substantial disruption test. Accordingly, we hold that the Policy is unconstitutionally overbroad.

*218V.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the District Court is reversed.

RENDELL, Circuit Judge,

concurring:

I write separately only to note my strong disagreement with the notion, espoused by the District Court and discussed at length in Part II.B of the majority opinion, that the judicial analysis of permissible restrictions on speech in a given setting should be affected — let alone dictated — by legislative enactments intended to proscribe activity that could be classified as “harassment.” Our attempt at reasoning through this postulate should demonstrate its futility, given the numerous variables that impact on any determination regarding the limits of permissible speech and the rigorous analysis that we must follow in every First Amendment case— the analysis that our opinion does in fact follow in reaching the result in this case.

Perhaps the only way, or time, that such legislation could be a guide would be if its provisions were identical to the policy at issue, or if in a case involving an as-applied challenge to a policy, the legislative provisions addressed every aspect of the particular factual setting at issue. Even then, I submit that it would be the reasoning by a court upholding its constitutionality, rather than the legislation itself, that would provide the necessary guidance.

I view the use of harassment legislation as an especially inappropriate barometer here because this case is not a harassment case. Rather, it is framed by appellants as a First Amendment speech case. Moreover, it is a school speech case. While reliance on provisions of harassment laws or policies might be an easy way to resolve difficult cases such as this one, therein lies the rub — there are no easy ways in the complex area of First Amendment jurisprudence.

ATTACHMENT

APPENDIX

STATE COLLEGE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT

State College PA 16801

ANTI-HARASSMENT POLICY

(approved August 9,1999) ■

GENERAL STATEMENT OF POLICY

The State College Area School District is committed to providing all students with a safe, secure, and nurturing school environment. Members of the school community are expected to treat each other with mutual respect. Disrespect among members of the school community is unacceptable behavior which threatens to disrupt the school environment and well being of the individual.

Harassment means verbal or physical conduct based on one’s actual or perceived race, religion, color, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, disability, or other personal characteristics, and which has the purpose or effect of substantially interfering with a student’s educational performance or creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive environment.

According to state law (18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2709), an individual commits the crime of harassment when, with intent to harass, annoy or alarm another person, the individual subjects, or attempts or threatens to subject, the other person to unwelcome physical contact; follows the other person in or about a public place or places; or behaves in a manner which alarms or seriously annoys the other person and which serves no legitimate purpose.

Harassment can include any unwelcome verbal, written or physical conduct which offends, denigrates, or belittles an individual because of any of the characteristics described above. Such conduct includes, but is not limited to unsolicited derogatory remarks, jokes, demeaning comments or behavior, slurs, mimicking, name calling, graffiti, innuendo, gestures, physical con*219tact, stalking, threatening, bullying, extorting or the display or circulation of written materials or pictures.

It is the policy of the State College Area School District to oppose and prohibit, without qualification harassment based on race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, disability, and other forms of harassment. Harassment is not only a form of discrimination, but also disrespectful behavior which will not be tolerated.

Any harassment of a student by a member of the school community is a violation of this policy.

The State College Area School District shall act to investigate all complaints of harassment, either formal or informal, verbal or written, and will take appropriate action against any member of the school community who is found to have violated this policy.

It is a separate and distinct violation of this policy for any member of the school community to retaliate against any person who reports alleged harassment or against any person who testifies, assists or participates in an investigation, proceeding or hearing relating to such harassment. It is possible that an alleged harasser may be found to have violated this anti-retaliation provision even if the underlying complaint of harassment is not found to be a violation of this policy. Retaliation includes, but is not limited to any form of intimidation, reprisal or harassment and may be redressed through application of the same reporting, investigation, and enforcement procedures as for harassment. In addition, a person who knowingly makes a false report may be subject to the same action that the State College Area School District may take against any other individual who violates this policy. The term “false report” refers only to those made in bad faith and does not include a complaint that could not be corroborated or which did not rise to the level of harassment. Any school employee or student who is found to have violated this policy shall be subject to action including, but not limited to warning, remedial training, education or counseling, suspension, exclusion, expulsion, transfer, termination or discharge, and legal action under state and federal statutes.

DEFINITIONS

School community includes, but is not limited to, all students, school employees, contractors, unpaid volunteers, school board members, and other visitors.

School employee includes, but is not limited to, all teachers, support staff, administrators, bus drivers, custodians, cafeteria workers, coaches, volunteers, and agents of the school.

Sexual harassment means unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature when:

(a) submission to that conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of a student’s education;

(b) submission to or rejection of such conduct by a student is used as a component of the basis for decisions affecting that student;

(c) the conduct has the purpose or effect of substantially interfering with a student’s educational performance or creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive educational environment.

This applies whether the harassment is between people of the same or different gender. Sexual harassment can include unwelcome verbal, written or physical conduct, directed at or related to a person’s gender, such as sexual gossip or personal comments of a sexual nature, sexually suggestive or foul language, sexual jokes, whistling, spreading rumors or lies of a sexual nature about someone, demanding sexual favors, forcing sexual activity by threat of punishment or offer of educational reward, obscene graffiti, display or sending of pornographic pictures or ob*220jects, offensive touching, pinching, grabbing, kissing or hugging or restraining someone’s movement in a sexual way.

Racial and color harassment can include unwelcome verbal, written, or physical conduct directed at the characteristics of a person’s race or color, such as nicknames emphasizing stereotypes, racial slurs, comments on manner of speaking, and negative reference to racial customs.

Harassment on the basis of religion is unwelcome verbal, written or physical conduct directed at the characteristics of a person’s religion, such as derogatory comments regarding surnames, religious tradition, or religious clothing, or religious slurs, or graffiti.

Harassment on the basis of national origin is unwelcome verbal, written or physical conduct directed at the characteristics of a person’s national origin, such as negative comments regarding surnames, manner of speaking, customs, language, or ethnic slurs.

Harassment on the basis of sexual orientation is unwelcome verbal, written or physical conduct directed at the characteristics of a person’s perceived sexual orientation, such as negative name calling and degrading behavior.

Disability harassment includes harassment based on a person’s disabling mental or physical condition and includes any unwelcome verbal, written or physical conduct, directed at the characteristics of a person’s disabling condition, such as imitating manner of speech or movement, or interference with necessary equipment.

Other harassment on the basis of such things as clothing, physical appearance, social skills, peer group, income, intellect, educational program, hobbies or values, etc. may also cause or effect substantial interfering with a student’s educational performance or creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive environment. This type of harassment is also protected against by this policy and procedures.

PROCEDURES FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF ANTI-HARASSMENT POLICY

Reporting

Any school employee who observes, overhears or otherwise witnesses harassment, which may be unlawful, or to whom such harassment is reported, must take prompt and appropriate action to stop the harassment and to prevent its recurrence.

In the event that the school employee is unable to personally take prompt and appropriate action, the employee must report the incident or complaint in writing, ordinarily within one school day, to the appropriate school complaint official(s) designated by this policy.

Any student or other person who believes that harassment of a student has occurred shall inform any school employee or one of the harassment complaint officials.

Any student who believes that he/she has been the target of harassment as defined in this policy may bring his/her complaint to the attention of any school employee or the harassment complaint official(s). The complaint may be made either orally or in writing. The following are the harassment complaint officials:

Principal in each building or his/her des-ignee

or

Personnel Director

If one of the harassment complaint officials is the person alleged to be engaged in the harassment, the complaint shall be filed with one of the alternative officials or any other school employee the student chooses.

Process

Informal Procedure

It may be possible to resolve a complaint through a voluntary conversation between the complaining student and the alleged harasser which is facilitated by a school employee or by a designated harassment complaint official. The State College Area School District believes that this Informal *221Procedure may be an opportunity for educating students regarding what may not be understood to be offensive. In addition, those trained in mediation may provide an avenue to resolve issues of harassment in a problem-solving model. If the complaining student or alleged harasser is a student under the age of 18, the harassment complaint official should notify the student’s parent(s)/guardian(s) if, after initial consultation with the student, it is determined to be in the best interests of the student. Both the complaining student and the alleged harasser may be accompanied by a person of his/her choice for support and guidance. If the complaining student and the alleged harasser feel that a resolution has been achieved, then the conversation may remain confidential and no further action is necessary. The results of an informal resolution shall be reported by the facilitator, in writing, to the superintendent and to the school principal.

If the complaining student, the alleged harasser, or the school employee/harassment complaint official, chooses not to utilize the informal procedure, or believes that the informal procedure has been unsuccessful, he/she may proceed to the formal procedure. Any complaint against a school employee shall be handled through the formal procedure.

Formal Procedure

Step 1

The harassment complaint official shall fill out a harassment complaint form based on the written or verbal allegations of the complaining student. This complaint form shall be kept in a centralized and secure location.

(a) The complaint form shall detail the facts and circumstances of the incident or pattern of behavior.

(b) If a student under 18 years of age is involved, his/her parents shall be notified immediately unless, after consultation with the student, it is determined not to be in the best interests of the student.

(c)An investigation shall be completed by the harassment complaint official •within 14 calendar days from the date of the complaint or report.

Step 2

The investigation may consist of personal interviews with the complaining student, the alleged harasser and any other individuals who may have knowledge of the alleged incident(s) or circumstances giving rise to the complaint. In determining whether alleged conduct constitutes a violation of this policy, the harassment complaint official should consider the surrounding circumstances, any relevant documents, the nature of the behavior, past incidents or past or continuing patterns of behavior, the relationships between the parties involved and the context in which the alleged incidents occurred. Whether a particular action or incident constitutes a violation of this policy requires a determination based on all the facts and surrounding circumstances.

In addition, the State College Area School District may take immediate steps, at its discretion, to protect the complaining student, alleged harasser, witnesses, and school employees pending completion of an investigation of alleged harassment and may make any appropriate referrals for assistance, including but not limited to counseling, rape crisis intervention, notification of police, etc.

The investigation will be completed as soon as practicable, but no later than 10 school days from the complaint or report. The harassment complaint official shall make a written report to the superintendent and the school principal upon completion of the investigation. The report shall include a determination as to whether the allegations have been substantiated as factual and whether they appear to be violations of this policy.

*222Step 3

Following the investigation, the harassment complaint official shall recommend to the superintendent and/or school principal what action, if any, is required. The State College Area School District shall take appropriate action in all cases where the harassment complaint official concludes that this policy has been violated. Any person who is determined to have violated this policy shall be subject to action, including but not limited to warning, exclusion, suspension, expulsion, transfer, termination, discharge or any other remedial action, including but not limited to training, education, or counseling. Action taken for violation of this policy shall be consistent with the requirements of any applicable collective bargaining agreement, State College Area School District policy, state and federal law, including but not limited to the due process protections for students with disabilities.

Step 4

The Director of Personnel or school principal shall maintain the written report of the investigation and results in his/her office. In the case of an investigation conducted by the school district, the superintendent shall receive a copy of the investigation report and results. If the harassment complaint official concludes that the policy has been violated by a professional educator or administrator, a report of the findings shall be filed in the district employee’s personnel file.

The complaining student and the alleged harasser shall be informed of the results of the investigation, including whether the allegations were found to be factual, whether there was a violation of the policy, and whether disciplinary action was or will be taken.

REPORTING OF POTENTIAL PHYSICAL AND/OR SEXUAL ABUSE

Several behaviors listed as sexual harassment (i.e., sexual touching, grabbing, pinching, being forced to kiss someone, being forced to do something sexual other than kissing, sexual assault) may also constitute physical or sexual abuse. Physical abuse is defined as inflicting intentional bodily harm. Sexual abuse is defined as any act or acts by a person involving sexual molestation or exploitation of another person, including but not limited to incest, prostitution, rape, sodomy or any lewd or lascivious conduct. Thus, under certain circumstances, alleged harassment may also be possible physical and/or sexual abuse under Pennsylvania law. Such harassment or abuse is subject to the duties of mandatory reporting and must be reported to the appropriate authorities within 24 hours of the time the educator' becomes aware of the suspected abuse. (Reference State College Area School District Policy #806)

CONFIDENTIALITY

The State College Area School District recognizes that both the complaining student and the alleged harasser have strong interests in maintaining the confidentiality of the allegations and related information. The privacy of the complaining student, the individual(s) against whom the complaint is filed, and the witnesses will be respected as much as possible, consistent with legal obligations to investigate, to take appropriate action, and to comply with any discovery or disclosure obligations.

ALTERNATIVE COMPLAINT PROCEDURES

In addition to, or instead of, filing a harassment complaint through this policy, a person may choose to exercise other options, including but not limited to filing a complaint with outside agencies including the police or filing a private lawsuit.

Outside Agencies

A charge of harassment may also be investigated by the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission, the Pennsylvania De*223partment of Education, or the Office for Civil Rights of the U.S. Department of Education which may be contacted as follows:

PA Human Relations Commission

Harrisburg Regional Office

1101-1125 South Front Street

Harrisburg, PA 17104

Phone: (717)787-9784

TTY: (717)787-7279

Pennsylvania Department of Education

333 Market Street

Harrisburg, PA 17126-0333

Phone: (717)787-2644

TTY: (717) 783-8445

Office for Civil Rights, Philadelphia Office

U.S. Department of Education

3535 Market Street, Room 6300, 03-2010

Philadelphia, PA 19104-3326

Phone: (215) 596-6787

TTY: (215)596-6794

LITIGATION

A student who has been harassed may file a lawsuit under a number of federal or state statutes (including Titles TV, VI, and IX of the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and appropriate Pennsylvania laws). He or she or his/her parent(s) should consult with a private attorney about these rights and options.

NOTICE AND PUBLICATION

The State College Area Board of School Directors shall provide notice of the policy and procedures to students, custodial parents or guardians and school employees. Notice to students shall be in age-appropriate language and should include examples of harassment. At a minimum, the policy shall be conspicuously posted throughout each school building in areas accessible to all members of the school community. The notice shall also appear in the school handbook and any other publication of the school district that sets forth the comprehensive rules, procedures and standards of conduct for the school. There shall be procedures for publicizing, on an annual basis, the identity of the harassment complaint officials who are designated to receive complaints. The board shall use its discretion in developing and initiating age-appropriate programs to effectively inform students and school employees about the substance of the policy and procedures in order to help prevent harassment.

*643Chief Justice Rehnquist

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Petitioners are the Boy Scouts of America and the Monmouth Council, a division of the Boy Scouts of America (col*644lectively, Boy Scouts). The Boy Scouts is a private, not-for-profit organization engaged in instilling its system of values in young people. The Boy Scouts asserts that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the values it seeks to instill. Respondent is James Dale, a former Eagle Scout whose adult membership in the Boy Scouts was revoked when the Boy Scouts learned that he is an avowed homosexual and gay rights activist. The New Jersey Supreme Court held that New Jersey’s public accommodations law requires that the Boy Scouts readmit Dale. This ease presents the question whether applying New Jersey’s public accommodations law in this way violates the Boy Scouts’ First Amendment right of expressive association. We hold that it does.

I

James Dale entered Scouting in 1978 at the age of eight by joining Monmouth Council’s Cub Scout Pack 142. Dale became a Boy Scout in 1981 and remained a Scout until he turned 18. By all accounts, Dale was an exemplary Scout. In 1988, he achieved the rank of Eagle Scout, one of Scouting’s highest honors.

Dale applied for adult membership in the Boy Scouts in 1989. The Boy Scouts approved his application for the position of assistant scoutmaster of Troop 78. Around the same time, Dale left home to attend Rutgers University. After arriving at Rutgers, Dale first acknowledged to himself and *645others that he is gay. He quickly became involved with, and eventually became the eopresident of, the Rutgers University Lesbian/Gay Alliance. In 1990, Dale attended a seminar addressing the psychological and health needs of lesbian and gay teenagers. A newspaper covering the event interviewed Dale about his advocacy of homosexual teenagers’ need for gay role models. In early July 1990, the newspaper published the interview and Dale’s photograph over a caption identifying him as the eopresident of the Lesbian/ Gay Alliance.

Later that month, Dale received a letter from Monmouth Council Executive James Kay revoking his adult membership. Dale wrote to Kay requesting the reason for Monmouth Council’s decision. Kay responded by letter that the Boy Scouts “specifically forbid membership to homosexuals.” App. 137.

In 1992, Dale filed a complaint against the Boy Scouts in the New Jersey Superior Court. The complaint alleged that the Boy Scouts had violated New Jersey’s public accommodations statute and its common law by revoking Dale’s membership based solely on his sexual orientation. New Jersey’s public accommodations statute prohibits, among other things, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in places of public accommodation. N. J. Stat. Ann. §§ 10:5-4 and 10:5-5 (West Supp. 2000); see Appendix, infra, at 661-663.

The New Jersey Superior Court’s Chancery Division granted summary judgment in favor of the Boy Scouts. The court held that New Jersey’s public accommodations law was inapplicable because the Boy Scouts was not a place of public accommodation, and that, alternatively, the Boy Scouts is a distinctly private group exempted from coverage under New Jersey’s law. The court rejected Dale’s common-law claim, holding that New Jersey’s policy is embodied in the public accommodations law. The court also concluded that the Boy Scouts’ position in respect of active homosexuality was clear *646and held that the First Amendment freedom of expressive association prevented the government from forcing the Boy Scouts to accept Dale as an adult leader.

The New Jersey Superior Court’s Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of Dale’s common-law claim, but otherwise reversed and remanded for further proceedings. 308 N. J. Super. 516, 706 A. 2d 270 (1998). It held that New Jersey’s public accommodations law applied to the Boy Scouts and that the Boy Scouts violated it. The Appellate Division rejected the Boy Scouts’ federal constitutional claims.

The New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Appellate Division. It held that the Boy Scouts was a place of public accommodation subject to the public accommodations law, that the organization was not exempt from the law under any of its express exceptions, and that the Boy Scouts violated the law by revoking Dale’s membership based on his avowed homosexuality. After considering the state-law issues, the court addressed the Boy Scouts’ claims that application of the public accommodations law in this ease violated its federal constitutional rights “‘to enter into and maintain . . . intimate or private relationships . . . [and] to associate for the purpose of engaging in protected speech.’” 160 N. J. 562, 605,734 A. 2d 1196, 1219 (1999) (quoting Board of Directors of Rotary Int’l v. Rotary Club of Duarte, 481 U. S. 537, 544 (1987)). With respect to the right to intimate association, the court concluded that the Boy Scouts’ “large size, nonseleetivity, inclusive rather than exclusive purpose, and practice of inviting or allowing nonmembers to attend meetings, establish that the organization is not ‘sufficiently personal or private to warrant constitutional protection’ under the freedom of intimate association.” 160 N. J., at 608-609, 734 A. 2d, at 1221 (quoting Duarte, supra, at 546). With respect to the right of expressive association, the court “agree[d] that Boy Scouts expresses a belief in moral values and uses its activities to encourage the moral development *647of its members.” 160 N. J., at 613, 734 A. 2d, at 1223. But the court concluded that it was “not persuaded . . . that a shared goal of Boy Scout members is to associate in order to preserve the view that homosexuality is immoral.” Ibid., 734 A. 2d, at 1223-1224 (internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, the court held “that Dale’s membership does not violate the Boy Scouts’ right of expressive association because his inclusion would not ‘affect in any significant way [the Boy Scouts’] existing members’ ability to carry out their various purposes.’” Id., at 615, 734 A. 2d, at 1225 (quoting Duarte, supra, at 548). The court also determined that New Jersey has a compelling interest in eliminating “the destructive consequences of discrimination from our society,” and that its public accommodations law abridges no more speech than is necessary to accomplish its purpose. 160 N. J., at 619-620, 734 A. 2d, at 1227-1228. Finally, the court addressed the Boy Scouts’ reliance on Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, Inc., 515 U. S. 557 (1995), in support of its claimed First Amendment right to exclude Dale. The court determined that Hurley did not require deciding the ease in favor of the Boy Scouts because “the reinstatement of Dale does not compel Boy Scouts to express any message.” 160 N. J., at 624, 734 A. 2d, at 1229.

We granted the Boy Seouts’ petition for certiorari to determine whether the application of New Jersey’s public accommodations law violated the First Amendment. 528 U. S. 1109 (2000).

II

In Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U. S. 609, 622 (1984), we observed that “implicit in the right to engage in activities protected by the First Amendment” is “a corresponding right to associate with others in pursuit of a wide variety of political, social, economic, educational, religious, and cultural ends.” This right is crucial in preventing the majority from imposing its views on groups that would *648rather express other, perhaps unpopular, ideas. See ibid. (stating that protection of the right to expressive association is “especially important in preserving political and cultural diversity and in shielding dissident expression from suppression by the majority”). Government actions that may unconstitutionally burden this freedom may take many forms, one of which is “intrusion into the internal structure or affairs of an association” like a “regulation that forces the group to accept members it does not desire.” Id., at 623. Forcing a group to accept certain members may impair the ability of the group to express those views, and only those views, that it intends to express. Thus, “[fjreedom of association . . . plainly presupposes a freedom not to associate.” Ibid.

The forced inclusion of an unwanted person in a group infringes the group’s freedom of expressive association if the presence of that person affects in a significant way the group’s ability to advocate public or private viewpoints. New York State Club Assn., Inc. v. City of New York, 487 U. S. 1, 13 (1988). But the freedom of expressive association, like many freedoms, is not absolute. We have held that the freedom could be overridden “by regulations adopted to serve compelling state interests, unrelated to the suppression of ideas, that cannot be achieved through means significantly less restrictive of associational freedoms.” Roberts, supra, at 623.

To determine whether a group is protected by the First Amendment’s expressive associational right, we must determine whether the group engages in “expressive association.” The First Amendment’s protection of expressive association is not reserved for advocacy groups. But to come within its ambit, a group must engage in some form of expression, whether it be public or private.

Because this is a First Amendment ease where the ultimate conclusions of law are virtually inseparable from findings of fact, we are obligated to independently review the *649factual record to ensure that the state court’s judgment does not unlawfully intrude on free expression. See Hurley, supra, at 567-568. The record reveals the following. The Boy Scouts is a private, nonprofit organization. According to its mission statement:

“It is the mission of the Boy Scouts of America to serve others by helping to instill values in young people and, in other ways, to prepare them to make ethical choices over their lifetime in achieving their full potential.

“The values we strive to instill are based on those found in the Scout Oath and Law:

“Scout Oath

“On my honor I will do my best

“To do my duty to God and my country

“and to obey the Scout Law;

“To help other people at all times;

“To keep myself physically strong,

“mentally awake, and morally straight.

“Scout Law

“A Scout is:

“Trustworthy Obedient

“Loyal Cheerful

“Helpful Thrifty

“Friendly Brave

“Courteous Clean

“Kind Reverent.” App. 184.

Thus, the general mission of the Boy Scouts is clear: “[T]o instill values in young people.” Ibid. The Boy Scouts seeks to instill these values by having its adult leaders spend time with the youth members, instructing and engaging them in activities like camping, archery, and fishing. During the time spent with the youth members, the scoutmasters and assistant scoutmasters inculcate them with the Boy *650Scouts’ values — both expressly and by example. It seems indisputable that an association that seeks to transmit such a system of values engages in expressive activity. See Roberts, swpra, at 636 (O’Connor, J., concurring) (“Even the training of outdoor survival skills or participation in community service might become expressive when the activity is intended to develop good morals, reverence, patriotism, and a desire for self-improvement”).

Given that the Boy Scouts engages in expressive activity, we must determine whether the forced inclusion of Dale as an assistant scoutmaster would significantly affect the Boy Scouts’ ability to advocate public or private viewpoints. This inquiry necessarily requires us first to explore, to a limited extent, the nature of the Boy Scouts’ view of homosexuality.

The values the Boy Scouts seeks to instill are “based on” those listed in the Scout Oath and Law. App. 184. The Boy Scouts explains that the Scout Oath and Law provide “a positive moral code for living; they are a list of ‘do’s’ rather than ‘don’ts.’ ” Brief for Petitioners 3. The Boy Scouts asserts that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the values embodied in the Scout Oath and Law, particularly with the values represented by the terms “morally straight” and “clean.”

Obviously, the Scout Oath and Law do not expressly mention sexuality or sexual orientation. See supra, at 649. And the terms “morally straight” and “clean” are by no means self-defining. Different people would attribute to those terms very different meanings. For example, some people may believe that engaging in homosexual conduct is not at odds with being “morally straight” and “clean.” And others may believe that engaging in homosexual conduct is contrary to being “morally straight” and “clean.” The Boy Scouts says it falls within the latter category.

The New Jersey Supreme Court analyzed the Boy Scouts’ beliefs and found that the “exclusion of members solely on the basis of their sexual orientation is inconsistent with Boy *651Scouts’ commitment to a diverse and ‘representative’ membership ... [and] contradicts Boy Scouts’ overarching objective to reach ‘all eligible youth.’” 160 N. J., at 618, 734 A. 2d, at 1226. The court concluded that the exclusion of members like Dale “appears antithetical to the organization’s goals and philosophy.” Ibid. But our cases reject this sort of inquiry; it is not the role of the courts to reject a group’s expressed values because they disagree with those values or find them internally inconsistent. See Democratic Party of United States v. Wisconsin ex rel. La Follette, 450 U. S. 107, 124 (1981) (“[A]s is true of all expressions of First Amendment freedoms, the courts may not interfere on the ground that they view a particular expression as unwise or irrational”); see also Thomas v. Review Bd. of Indiana Employment Security Div., 450 U. S. 707, 714 (1981) (“[Rjeligious beliefs need not be acceptable, logical, consistent, or comprehensible to others in order to merit First Amendment protection”).

The Boy Scouts asserts that it “teach[es] that homosexual conduct is not morally straight,” Brief for Petitioners 39, and that it does “not want to promote homosexual conduct as a legitimate form of behavior,” Reply Brief for Petitioners 5. We accept the Boy Scouts’ assertion. We need not inquire further to determine the nature of the Boy Scouts’ expression with respect to homosexuality. But because the record before us contains written evidence of the Boy Scouts’ viewpoint, we look to it as instructive, if only on the question of the sincerity of the professed beliefs.

A 1978 position statement to the Boy Scouts’ Executive Committee, signed by Downing B. Jenks, the President of the Boy Scouts, and Harvey L. Price, the Chief Scout Executive, expresses the Boy Scouts’ “official position” with regard to “homosexuality and Scouting”:

“Q. May an individual who openly declares himself to be a homosexual be a volunteer Scout leader?

*652“A. No. The Boy Scouts of America is a private, membership organization and leadership therein is a privilege and not a right. We do not believe that homosexuality and leadership in Scouting are appropriate. We will continue to select only those who in our judgment meet our standards and qualifications for leadership.” App. 453-454.

Thus, at least as of 1978 — the year James Dale entered Scouting — the official position of the Boy Scouts was that avowed homosexuals were not to be Scout leaders.

A position statement promulgated by the Boy Scouts in 1991 (after Dale’s membership was revoked but before this litigation was filed) also supports its current view:

‘We believe that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the requirement in the Scout Oath that a Scout be morally straight and in the Scout Law that a Scout be clean in word and deed, and that homosexuals do not provide a desirable role model for Scouts.” Id., at 457.

This position statement was redrafted numerous times but its core message remained consistent. For example, a 1993 position statement, the most recent in the record, reads, in part:

“The Boy Scouts of America has always reflected the expectations that Scouting families have had for the organization. We do not believe that homosexuals provide a role model consistent with these expectations. Accordingly, we do not allow for the registration of avowed homosexuals as members or as leaders of the BSA.” Id., at 461.

The Boy Scouts publicly expressed its views with respect to homosexual conduct by its assertions in prior litigation. For example, throughout a California ease with similar facts filed in the early 1980’s, the Boy Scouts consistently asserted the same position with respect to homosexuality that it asserts today. See Curran v. Mount Diablo Council of Boy *653Scouts of America, No. C-365529 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 25, 1991); 48 Cal. App. 4th 670, 29 Cal. Rptr. 2d 580 (1994); 17 Cal. 4th 670,952 P. 2d 218 (1998). We cannot doubt that the Boy Scouts sincerely holds this view.

We must then determine whether Dale’s presence as an assistant scoutmaster would significantly burden the Boy Scouts’ desire to not “promote homosexual conduct as a legitimate form of behavior.” Reply Brief for Petitioners 5. As we give deference to an association’s assertions regarding the nature of its expression, we must also give deference to an association’s view of what would impair its expression. See, e. g., La Follette, supra, at 123-124 (considering whether a Wisconsin law burdened the National Party’s assoeiational rights and stating that “a State, or a court, may not constitutionally substitute its own judgment for that of the Party”). That is not to say that an expressive association can erect a shield against antidiscrimination laws simply by asserting that mere acceptance of a member from a particular group would impair its message. But here Dale, by his own admission, is one of a group of gay Scouts who have “become leaders in their community and are open and honest about their sexual orientation.” App. 11. Dale was the copresident of a gay and lesbian organization at college and remains a gay rights activist. Dale’s presence in the Boy Scouts would, at the very least, force the organization to send a message, both to the youth members and the world, that the Boy Scouts accepts homosexual conduct as a legitimate form of behavior.

Hurley is illustrative on this point. There we considered whether the application of Massachusetts’ public accommodations law to require the organizers of a private St. Patrick’s Day parade to include among the marchers an Irish-American gay, lesbian, and bisexual group, GLIB, violated the parade organizers’ First Amendment rights. We noted that the parade organizers did not wish to exclude the GLIB members because of their sexual orientations, but because they wanted to march behind a GLIB banner. We observed:

*654“[A] contingent marching behind the organization’s banner would at least bear witness to the fact that some Irish are gay, lesbian, or bisexual, and the presence of the organized marchers would suggest their view that people of their sexual orientations have as much claim to unqualified social acceptance as heterosexuals .... The parade’s organizers may not believe these facts about Irish sexuality to be so, or they may object to unqualified social acceptance of gays and lesbians or have some other reason for wishing to keep GLIB’s message out of the parade. But whatever the reason, it boils down to the choice of a speaker not to propound a particular point of view, and that choice is presumed to lie beyond the government’s power to control.” 515 U. S., at 574-575.

Here, we have found that the Boy Scouts believes that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the values it seeks to instill in its youth members; it will not “promote homosexual conduct as a legitimate form of behavior.” Reply Brief for Petitioners 5. As the presence of GLIB in Boston’s St. Patrick’s Day parade would have interfered with the parade organizers’ choice not to propound a particular point of view, the presence of Dale as an assistant scoutmaster would just as surely interfere with the Boy Scout’s choice not to propound a point of view contrary to its beliefs.

The New Jersey Supreme Court determined that the Boy Scouts’ ability to disseminate its message was not significantly affected by the forced inclusion of Dale as an assistant scoutmaster because of the following findings:

“Boy Scout members do not associate for the purpose of disseminating the belief that homosexuality is immoral; Boy Scouts discourages its leaders from disseminating any views on sexual issues; and Boy Scouts includes sponsors and members who subscribe to different views *655in respect of homosexuality.” 160 N. J., at 612, 734 A. 2d, at 1223.

We disagree with the New Jersey Supreme Court’s conclusion drawn from these findings.

First, associations do not have to associate for the “purpose” of disseminating a certain message in order to be entitled to the protections of the First Amendment. An association must merely engage in expressive activity that could be impaired in order to be entitled to protection. For example, the purpose of the St. Patrick’s Day parade in Hurley was not to espouse any views about sexual orientation, but we held that the parade organizers had a right to exclude certain participants nonetheless.

Second, even if the Boy Scouts discourages Scout leaders from disseminating views on sexual issues — a fact that the Boy Scouts disputes with contrary evidence — the First Amendment protects the Boy Scouts’ method of expression. If the Boy Scouts wishes Scout leaders to avoid questions of sexuality and teach only by example, this fact does not negate the sincerity of its belief discussed above.

Third, the First Amendment simply does not require that every member of a group agree on every issue in order for the group’s policy to be “expressive association.” The Boy Scouts takes an official position with respect to homosexual conduct, and that is sufficient for First Amendment purposes. In this same vein, Dale makes much of the claim that the Boy Scouts does not revoke the membership of heterosexual Scout leaders that openly disagree with the Boy Scouts’ policy on sexual orientation. But if this is true, it is irrelevant.1 The presence of an avowed homosexual and gay *656rights activist in an assistant scoutmaster’s uniform sends a distinctly different message from the presence of a heterosexual assistant scoutmaster who is on record as disagreeing with Boy Scouts policy. The Boy Scouts has a First Amendment right to choose to send one message but not the other. The fact that the organization does not trumpet its views from the housetops, or that it tolerates dissent within its ranks, does not mean that its views receive no First Amendment protection.

Having determined that the Boy Scouts is an expressive association and that the forced inclusion of Dale would significantly affect its expression, we inquire whether the application of New Jersey’s public accommodations law to require that the Boy Scouts accept Dale as an assistant scoutmaster runs afoul of the Scouts’ freedom of expressive association. We conclude that it does.

State public accommodations laws were originally enacted to prevent discrimination in traditional places of public accommodation — like inns and trains. See, e.g., Hurley, supra, at 571-572 (explaining the history of Massachusetts’ public accommodations law); Romer v. Evans, 517 U. S. 620, 627-629 (1996) (describing the evolution of public accommodations laws). Over time, the public accommodations laws have expanded to cover more places.2 New Jersey’s statu*657tory definition of “ ‘[a] place of public accommodation’ ” is extremely broad. The term is said to “include, but not be limited to,” a list of over 50 types of places. N. J. Stat. Ann. § 10:5 — 5(Z) (West Supp. 2000); see Appendix, infra, at 661-663. Many on the list are what one would expect to be places where the public is invited. For example, the statute includes as places of public accommodation taverns, restaurants, retail shops, and public libraries. But the statute also includes places that often may not carry with them open invitations to the public, like summer camps and roof gardens. In this ease, the New Jersey Supreme Court went a step further and applied its public accommodations law to a private entity without even attempting to tie the term “place” to a physical location.3 As the definition of “public accommodation” has expanded from clearly commercial entities, such as restaurants, bars, and hotels, to membership organizations such as the Boy Scouts, the potential for conflict between state public accommodations laws and the First Amendment rights of organizations has increased.

We recognized in cases such as Roberts and Duarte that States have a compelling interest in eliminating discrimination against women in public accommodations. But in each of these cases we went on to conclude that the enforcement of these statutes would not materially interfere with the ideas that the organization sought to express. In Roberts, we said “[i]ndeed, the Jayeees has failed to demonstrate ... *658any serious burdens on the male members' freedom of expressive association.” 468 U. S., at 626. In Duarte, we said:

“impediments to the exercise of one’s right to choose one’s associates can violate the right of association protected by the First Amendment. In this case, however, the evidence fails to demonstrate that admitting women to Rotary Clubs will affect in any significant way the existing members’ ability to carry out their various purposes.” 481 U. S., at 548 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

We thereupon concluded in each of these cases that the organizations’ First Amendment rights were not violated by the application of the States’ public accommodations laws.

In Hurley, we said that public accommodations laws “are well within the State’s usual power to enact when a legislature has reason to believe that a given group is the target of discrimination, and they do not, as a general matter, violate the First or Fourteenth Amendments.” 515 U. S., at 572. But we went on to note that in that case “the Massachusetts [public accommodations] law has been applied in a peculiar way” because “any contingent of protected individuals with a message would have the right to participate in petitioners’ speech, so that the communication produced by the private organizers would be shaped by all those protected by the law who wished to join in with some expressive demonstration of their own.” Id., at 572-573. And in the associational freedom cases such as Roberts, Duarte, and New York State Club Assn., after finding a compelling state interest, the Court went on to examine whether or not the application of the state law would impose any “serious burden” on the organization’s rights of expressive association. So in these cases, the associational interest in freedom of expression has *659been set on one side of the scale, and the State’s interest on the other.

Dale contends that we should apply the intermediate standard of review enunciated in United States v. O’Brien, 391 U. S. 367 (1968), to evaluate the competing interests. There the Court enunciated a four-part test for review of a governmental regulation that has only an incidental effect on protected speech — in that case the symbolic burning of a draft card. A law prohibiting the destruction of draft cards only incidentally affects the free speech rights of those who happen to use a violation of that law as a symbol of protest. But New Jersey’s public accommodations law directly and immediately affects assoeiational rights, in this ease associational rights that enjoy First Amendment protection. Thus, O’Brien is inapplicable.

In Hurley, we applied traditional First Amendment analysis to hold that the application of the Massachusetts public accommodations law to a parade violated the First Amendment rights of the parade organizers. Although we did not explicitly deem the parade in Hurley an expressive association, the analysis we applied there is similar to the analysis we apply here. We have already concluded that a state requirement that the Boy Scouts retain Dale as an assistant scoutmaster would significantly burden the organization’s right to oppose or disfavor , homosexual conduct. The state interests embodied in New Jersey’s public accommodations law do not justify such a severe intrusion on the Boy Scouts’ rights to freedom of expressive association. That being the case, we hold that the First Amendment prohibits the State from imposing such a requirement through the application of its public accommodations law.4

*660Justice Stevens’ dissent makes much of its observation that the public perception of homosexuality in this country has changed. See post, at 699-700. Indeed, it appears that homosexuality has gained greater societal acceptance. See ibid. But this is scarcely an argument for denying First Amendment protection to those who refuse to accept these views. The First Amendment protects expression, be it of the popular variety or not. See, e. g., Texas v. Johnson, 491 U. S. 397 (1989) (holding that Johnson’s conviction for burning the American flag violates the First Amendment); Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U. S. 444 (1969) (per curiam) (holding that a Ku Klux Klan leader’s conviction for advocating unlawfulness as a means of political reform violates the First Amendment). And the fact that an idea may be embraced and advocated by increasing numbers of people is all the more reason to protect the First Amendment rights of those who wish to voice a different view.

Justice Stevens’ extolling of Justice Brandéis’ comments in New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, 285 U. S. 262, 311 (1932) (dissenting opinion); see post, at 664, 700, confuses two entirely different principles. In New State Ice, the Court struck down an Oklahoma regulation prohibiting the manufacture, sale, and distribution of ice without a license. Justice Brandéis, a champion of state experimentation in the economic realm, dissented. But Justice Brandéis was never a champion of state experimentation in the suppression of free speech. To the contrary, his First Amendment commentary provides compelling support for the Court’s opinion in this case. In speaking of the Founders of this Nation, Justice Brandéis emphasized that they “believed that free*661dom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth.” Whitney v. California, 274 U. S. 357, 375 (1927) (concurring opinion). He continued:

“Believing in the power of reason as applied through public discussion, they eschewed silence coerced by law — the argument of force in its worst form. Recognizing the occasional tyrannies of governing majorities, they amended the Constitution so that free speech and assembly should be guaranteed.” Id., at 375-376.

We are not, as we must not be, guided by our views of whether the Boy Scouts’ teachings with respect to homosexual conduct are right or wrong; public or judicial disapproval of a tenet of an organization’s expression does not justify the State’s effort to compel the organization to accept members where such acceptance would derogate from the organization’s expressive message. “While the law is free to promote all sorts of conduct in place of harmful behavior, it is not free to interfere with speech for no better reason than promoting an approved message or discouraging a disfavored one, however enlightened either purpose may strike the government.” Hurley, 515 U. S., at 579.

The judgment of the New Jersey Supreme Court is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

APPENDIX TO OPINION OF THE COURT

N. J. Stat. Ann. § 10:5-4 (West Supp. 2000). “Obtaining employment, accommodations and privileges without discrimination; civil right

“All persons shall have the opportunity to obtain employment, and to obtain all the accommodations, advantages, facilities, and privileges of any place of public aeeommoda*662tion, publicly assisted housing accommodation, and other real property without discrimination because of race, creed, color, national origin, ancestry, age, marital status, affectional or sexual orientation, familial status, or sex, subject only to conditions and limitations applicable alike to all persons. This opportunity is recognized as and declared to be a civil right.”

N. J. Stat. Ann. § 10:5-5 (West Supp. 2000). “Definitions

“As used in this act, unless a different meaning clearly appears from the context:

“l. ‘A place of public accommodation’ shall include, but not be limited to: any tavern, roadhouse, hotel, motel, trailer camp, summer camp, day camp, or resort camp, whether for entertainment of transient guests or accommodation of those seeking health, recreation or rest; any producer, manufacturer, wholesaler, distributor, retail shop, store, establishment, or concession dealing with goods or services of any kind; any restaurant, eating house, or place where food is sold for consumption on the premises; any place maintained for the sale of ice cream, ice and fruit preparations or their derivatives, soda water or confections, or where any beverages of any kind are retailed for consumption on the premises; any garage, any public conveyance operated on land or water, or in the air, any stations and terminals thereof; any bathhouse, boardwalk, or seashore accommodation; any auditorium, meeting place, or hall; any theatre, motion-picture house, music hall, roof garden, skating rink, swimming pool, amusement and recreation park, fair, bowling alley, gymnasium, shooting gallery, billiard and pool parlor, or other place of amusement; any comfort station; any dispensary, clinic or hospital; any public library; any kindergarten, primary and secondary school, trade or business school, high school, academy, college and university, or any educational institution under the supervision of the State Board of Education, or the Commissioner of Education of the State of New Jersey. *663Nothing herein contained shall be construed to include or to apply to any institution, bona fide club, or place of accommodation, which is in its nature distinctly private; nor shall anything herein contained apply to any educational facility operated or maintained by a bona fide religious or sectarian institution, and the right of a natural parent or one in loco parentis to direct the education and upbringing of a child under his control is hereby affirmed; nor shall anything herein contained be construed to bar any private secondary or post secondary school from using in good faith criteria other than race, creed, color, national origin, ancestry or af-fectional or sexual orientation in the admission of students.”

Justice Stevens,

with whom Justice Souter, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer join, dissenting.

New Jersey “prides itself on judging each individual by his or her merits” and on being “in the vanguard in the fight to eradicate the cancer of unlawful discrimination of all types from our society.” Peper v. Princeton Univ. Bd. of Trustees, 77 N. J. 55, 80, 389 A. 2d 465, 478 (1978). Since 1945, it has had a law against discrimination. The law broadly protects the opportunity of all persons to obtain the advantages and privileges “of any place of public accommodation.” N. J. Stat. Ann. § 10:5-4 (West Supp. 2000). The New Jersey Supreme Court’s construction of the statutory definition of a “place of public accommodation” has given its statute a more expansive coverage than most similar state statutes. And as amended in 1991, the law prohibits discrimination on the basis of nine different traits including an individual’s “sexual orientation.”1 The question in this case is whether that ex*664pansive construction trenches on the federal constitutional rights of the Boy Scouts of America (BSA).

Because every state law prohibiting discrimination is designed to replace prejudice with principle, Justice Brandéis’ comment on the States’ right to experiment with “things social” is directly applicable to this ease.

“To stay experimentation in things social and economic is a grave responsibility. Denial of the right to experiment may be fraught with serious consequences to the Nation. It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country. This Court has the power to prevent an experiment. We may strike down the statute which embodies it on the ground that, in our opinion, the measure is arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable. We have power to do this, because the due process clause has been held by the Court applicable to matters of substantive law as well as to matters of procedure. But in the exercise of this high power, we must be ever on our guard, lest we erect our prejudices into legal principles. If we would guide by the light of reason, we must let our minds be bold.” New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, 285 U. S. 262, 311 (1932) (dissenting opinion).

In its “exercise of this high power” today, the Court does not accord this “courageous State” the respect that is its due.

The majority holds that New Jersey’s law violates BSA’s right to associate and its right to free speech. But that law *665does not “impos[e] any serious burdens” on BSA’s "collective effort on behalf of [its] shared goals,” Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U. S. 609, 622, 626-627 (1984), nor does it force BSA to communicate any message that it does not wish to endorse. New Jersey’s law, therefore, abridges no constitutional right of BSA.

I

James Dale joined BSA as a Cub Scout in 1978, when he was eight years old. Three years later he became a Boy Scout, and he remained a member until his 18th birthday. Along the way, he earned 25 merit badges, was admitted into the prestigious Order of the Arrow, and was awarded the rank of Eagle Scout — an honor given to only three percent of all Scouts. In 1989, BSA approved his application to be an Assistant Scoutmaster.

On July 19, 1990, after more than 12 years of active and honored participation, the BSA sent Dale a letter advising him of the revocation of his membership. The letter stated that membership in BSA “is a privilege” that may be denied "whenever there is a concern that an individual may not meet the high standards of membership which the BSA seeks to provide for American youth.” App. 185. Expressing surprise at.his sudden expulsion, Dale sent a letter requesting an explanation of the decision. Id., at 186. In response, BSA sent him a second letter stating that the grounds for the decision “are the standards for leadership established by the Boy Scouts of America, which specifically forbid membership to homosexuals.” Id., at 137. At that time, no such standard had been publicly expressed by BSA.

In this case, BSA contends that it teaches the young boys who are Scouts that homosexuality is immoral. Consequently, it argues, it would violate its right to associate to force it to admit homosexuals as members, as doing so would be at odds with its own shared goals and values. This contention, quite plainly, requires us to look at what, exactly, are the values that BSA actually teaches.

*666BSA’s mission statement reads as follows: “It is the mission of the Boy Seouts of America to serve others by helping to instill values in young people and, in other ways, to prepare them to make ethical choices over their lifetime in achieving their full potential.” Id., at 184. Its federal charter declares its purpose is “to promote, through organization, and cooperation with other agencies, the ability of boys to do things for themselves and others, to train them in scoutcraft, and to teach them patriotism, courage, self-reliance, and kindred values, using the methods which were in common use by Boy Scouts on June 15, 1916.” 86 U. S. C. §23; see also App. 315-316. BSA describes itself as having a “representative membership,” which it defines as “boy membership [that] reflects proportionately the characteristics of the boy population of its service area.” Id., at 65. In particular, the group emphasizes that “[n]either the charter nor the bylaws of the Boy Scouts of America permits the exclusion of any boy.... To meet these responsibilities we have made a commitment that our membership shall be representative of all the population in every community, district, and council.” Id., at 66-67 (emphasis in original).

To instill its shared values, BSA has adopted a “Scout Oath” and a “Scout Law” setting forth its central tenets. For example, the Scout Law requires a member to promise, among other things, that he will be “obedient.” Accompanying definitions for the terms found in the Oath and Law are provided in the Boy Scout Handbook and the Scoutmaster Handbook. For instance, the Boy Scout Handbook defines “obedient” as follows:

“A Scout is OBEDIENT. A Scout follows the rules of his family, school, and troop. He obeys the laws of his community and country. If he thinks these rules and laws are unfair, he tries to have them changed in an orderly manner rather than disobey them.” Id., at 188 (emphasis deleted).

*667To bolster its claim that its shared goals include teaching that homosexuality is wrong, BSA directs our attention to two terms appearing in the Scout Oath and Law. The first is the phrase “morally straight,” which appears in the Oath (“On my honor I will do my best ... To keep myself . . . morally straight”); the second term is the word “clean,” which appears in a list of 12 characteristics together constituting the Scout Law.

The Boy Scout Handbook defines “morally straight,” as such:

“To be a person of strong character, guide your life with honesty, purity, and justice. Respect and defend the rights of all people. Your relationships with others should be honest and open. Be clean in your speech and actions, and faithful in your religious beliefs. The values you follow as a Scout will help you become virtuous and self-reliant.” Id,., at 218 (emphasis deleted).

The Scoutmaster Handbook emphasizes these points about being “morally straight”:

“In any consideration of moral fitness, a key word has to be ‘courage.’ A boy’s courage to do what his head and his heart tell him is right. And the courage to refuse to do what his heart and his head say is wrong. Moral fitness, like emotional fitness, will clearly present opportunities for wise guidance by an alert Scoutmaster.” Id., at 239-240.

As for the term “clean,” the Boy Scout Handbook offers the following:

“A Scout is CLEAN. A Scout keeps his body and mind fit and clean. He chooses the company of those who live by these same ideals. He helps keep his home and community clean.

“Yoti never need to be ashamed of dirt that will wash off. If you play hard and work hard you can’t help get*668ting dirty. But when the game is over or the work is done, that kind of dirt disappears with soap and water. “There’s another kind of dirt that won’t come off by washing. It is the kind that shows up in foul language and harmful thoughts.

“Swear words, profanity, and dirty stories are weapons that ridicule other people and hurt their feelings. The same is true of racial slurs and jokes making fun of ethnic groups or people with physical or mental limitations. A Scout knows there is no kindness or honor in such mean-spirited behavior. He avoids it in his own words and deeds. He defends those who are targets of insults.” Id., at 225-226 (emphasis in original); see also id., at 189.2

It is plain as the light of day that neither one of these principles — “morally straight” and “clean” — says the slightest thing about homosexuality. Indeed, neither term in the Boy *669Scouts’ Law and Oath expresses any position whatsoever on sexual matters.

BSA’s published guidance on that topic underscores this point. Scouts, for example, are directed to receive their sex education at home or in school, but not from the organization: “Your parents or guardian or a sex education teacher should give you the facts about sex that you must know.” Boy Scout Handbook (1992) (reprinted in App. 211). To be sure, Scouts are not forbidden from asking their Scoutmaster about issues of a sexual nature, but Scoutmasters are, literally, the last person Scouts are encouraged to ask: “If you have questions about growing up, about relationships, sex, or making good decisions, ask. Talk with your parents, religious leaders, teachers, or Scoutmaster.” Ibid. Moreover, Scoutmasters are specifically directed to steer curious adolescents to other sources of information:

“If Scouts ask for information regarding... sexual activity, answer honestly and factually, but stay within your realm of expertise and comfort. If a Scout has serious concerns that you cannot answer, refer him to his family, religious leader, doctor, or other professional.” Scoutmaster Handbook (1990) (reprinted in App. 264).

More specifically, BSA has set forth a number of rules for Scoutmasters when these types of issues come up:

“You may have boys asking you for information or advice about sexual matters....

“How should you handle such matters?

“Rule number 1: You do not undertake to instruct Scouts, in any formalized manner, in the subject of sex and family life. The reasons are that it is not construed to be Scouting’s proper area, and that you are probably not well qualified to do this.

“Rule number 2: If Scouts come to you to ask questions or to seek advice, you would give it within your compe-*670tenee. A boy who appears to he asking about sexual intercourse, however, may really only be worried about his pimples, so it is well to find out just what information is needed.

“Rule number 3: You should refer boys with sexual problems to persons better qualified than you [are] to handle them. If the boy has a spiritual leader or a doctor who can deal with them, he should go there. If such persons are not available, you may just have to do the best you can. But don’t try to play a highly professional role. And at the other extreme, avoid passing the buck.” Scoutmaster Handbook (1972) (reprinted in App. 546-547) (emphasis added).

In light of BSA’s self-proclaimed ecumenism, furthermore, it is even more difficult to discern any shared goals or common moral stance on homosexuality. Insofar as religious matters are concerned, BSA’s bylaws state that it is “absolutely nonsectarian in its attitude toward... religious training.” Id., at 362. “The BSA does not define what constitutes duty to God or the practice of religion. This is the responsibility of parents and religious leaders.” Id., at 76. In fact, many diverse religious organizations sponsor local Boy Scout troops. Brief for Petitioners 3. Because a number of religious groups do not view homosexuality as immoral or wrong and reject discrimination against homosexuals,3 it is exceedingly difficult to believe that BSA none*671theless adopts a single particular religious or moral philosophy when it comes to sexual orientation. This is especially so in light of the fact that Scouts are advised to seek guidance on sexual matters from their religious leaders (and Scoutmasters are told to refer Scouts to them);4 BSA surely is aware that some religions do not teach that homosexuality is wrong.

II

The Court seeks to fill the void by pointing to a statement of “policies and procedures relating to homosexuality and Scouting,” App. 453, signed by BSA’s President and Chief Scout Executive in 1978 and addressed to the members of the Executive Committee of the national organization. Ante, at 651-652. The letter says that the BSA does “not believe that homosexuality and leadership in Scouting are appropriate.” App. 454. But when the entire 1978 letter is read, BSA’s position is far more equivocal:

“4. Q. May an individual who openly declares himself to be a homosexual be employed by the Boy Scouts of America as a professional or non-professional?

“A. Boy Scouts of America does not knowingly employ homosexuals as professionals or non-professionals. We are unaware of any present laws which would prohibit this policy.

*672“5. Q. Should a professional or non-professional individual who openly declares himself to be a homosexual be terminated?

“A. Yes, in the absence of any law to the contrary. At the present time we are unaware of any statute or ordinance in the United States which prohibits discrimination against individual’s employment upon the basis of homosexuality. In the event that such a law was applicable, it would be necessary for the Boy Scouts of America to obey it, in this case as in Paragraph I above. It is our position, however, that homosexuality and professional or non-professional employment in Scouting are not appropriate.” Id., at 454-455 (emphasis added).

Four aspects of the 1978 policy statement are relevant to the proper disposition of this case. First, at most this letter simply adopts an exclusionary membership policy. But simply adopting such a policy has never been considered sufficient, by itself, to prevail on a right to associate claim. See infra, at 678-685.

Second, the 1978 policy was never publicly expressed — unlike, for example, the Scout’s duty to be “obedient.” It was an internal memorandum, never circulated beyond the few members of BSA’s Executive Committee. It remained, in effect, a secret Boy Scouts policy. Far from claiming any intent to express an idea that would be burdened by the presence of homosexuals, BSA’s public posture — to the world and to the Scouts themselves — remained what it had always been: one of tolerance, welcoming all classes of boys and young men. In this respect, BSA’s claim is even weaker than those we have rejected in the past. See ibid.

Third, it is apparent that the draftsmen of the policy statement foresaw the possibility that laws against discrimination might one day be amended to protect homosexuals from employment discrimination. Their statement clearly provided that, in the event such a law conflicted with their policy, a Scout’s duty to be “obedient” and “obe[y] the laws,” even if “he thinks [the laws] are unfair,” would prevail in such a *673contingency. See supra, at 666. In 1978, however, BSA apparently did not consider it to be a serious possibility that a State might one day characterize the Scouts as a “place of public accommodation” with a duty to open its membership to all qualified individuals. The portions of the statement dealing with membership simply assume that membership in the Scouts is a “privilege” that BSA is free to grant or to withhold. The statement does not address the question whether the publicly proclaimed duty to obey the law should prevail over the private discriminatory policy if, and when, a conflict between the two should arise — as it now has in New Jersey. At the very least, then, the statement reflects no unequivocal view on homosexuality. Indeed, the statement suggests that an appropriate way for BSA to preserve its unpublished exclusionary policy would include an open and forthright attempt to seek an amendment of New Jersey’s statute. (“If he thinks these rules and laws are unfair, he tries to have them changed in an orderly manner rather than disobey them.”)

Fourth, the 1978 statement simply says that homosexuality is not “appropriate.” It makes no effort to connect that statement to a shared goal or expressive activity of the Boy Scouts. Whatever values BSA seeks to instill in Scouts, the idea that homosexuality is not “appropriate” appears entirely unconnected to, and is mentioned nowhere in, the myriad of publicly declared values and creeds of the BSA. That idea does not appear to be among any of the principles actually taught to Scouts. Rather, the 1978 policy appears to be no more than a private statement of a few BSA executives that the organization wishes to exclude gays — and that wish has nothing to do with any expression BSA actually engages in.

The majority also relies on four other policy statements that were issued between 1991 and 1993.5 All of them were *674written and issued after BSA revoked Dale’s membership. Accordingly, they have little, if any, relevance to the legal question before this Court.6 In any event, they do not bolster BSA’s claim.

In 1991, BSA issued two statements both stating: “We believe that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the requirement in the Scout Oath that a Scout be morally straight and in the Scout Law that a Scout be clean in word and deed, and that homosexuals do not provide a desirable role model for Scouts.” App. 457-458. A third statement issued in 1992 was substantially the same. Id., at 459. By 1998, however, the policy had changed:

“BSA Position

“The Boy Scouts of America has always reflected the expectations that Scouting families have had for the organization.

“We do not believe that homosexuals provide a role model consistent with these expectations.

“Accordingly, we do not allow for the registration of avowed homosexuals as members or as leaders of the BSA.” Id., at 461.

Aside from the fact that these statements were all issued after Dale’s membership was revoked, there are four important points relevant to them. First, while the 1991 and 1992 *675statements tried to tie BSA’s exclusionary policy to the meaning of the Scout Oath and Law, the 1998 statement abandoned that effort. Rather, BSA’s 1993 homosexual exclusion policy was based on its view that including gays would be contrary to “the expectations that Scouting families have had for the organization.” Ibid. Instead of linking its policy to its central tenets or shared goals — to teach certain definitions of what it means to be “morally straight” and “clean” — BSA chose instead to justify its policy on the “expeetatio[n]” that its members preferred to exclude homosexuals. The 1998 policy statement, in other words, was not based on any expressive activity or on any moral view about homosexuality. It was simply an exclusionary membership policy, similar to those we have held insufficient in the past. See infra, at 678-685.

Second, even during the brief period in 1991 and 1992, when BSA tried to connect its exclusion of homosexuals to its definition of terms found in the Oath and Law, there is no evidence that Scouts were actually taught anything about homosexuality’s alleged inconsistency with those principles. Beyond the single sentence in these policy statements, there is no indication of any shared goal of teaching that homosexuality is incompatible with being “morally straight” and “clean.” Neither BSA’s mission statement nor its official membership policy was altered; no Boy Scout or Scoutmaster Handbook was amended to reflect the policy statement; no lessons were imparted to Scouts; no change was made to BSA’s policy on limiting discussion of sexual matters; and no effort was made to restrict acceptable religious affiliations to those that condemn homosexuality. In short, there is no evidence that this view was part of any collective effort to foster beliefs about homosexuality.7

*676Third, BSA never took any clear and unequivocal position on homosexuality. Though the 1991 and 1992 policies state one interpretation of “morally straight” and “clean,” the group’s published definitions appearing in the Boy Scout and Scoutmaster Handbooks take quite another view. And BSA’s broad religious tolerance combined with its declaration that sexual matters are not its “proper area” render its views on the issue equivocal at best and incoherent at worst. We have never held, however, that a group can throw together any mixture of contradictory positions and then invoke the right to associate to defend any one of those views. At a minimum, a group seeking to prevail over an antidis-crimination law must adhere to a clear and unequivocal view.

Fourth, at most the 1991 and 1992 statements declare only that BSA believed “homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the requirement in the Scout Oath that a Scout be morally straight and in the Scout Law that a Scout be clean in word and deed.” App. 457 (emphasis added). But New Jersey’s law prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. And when Dale was expelled from the Boy Scouts, BSA said it did so because of his sexual orientation, not because of his sexual conduct.8

It is clear, then* that nothing in these policy statements supports BSA’s claim. The only policy written before the revocation of Dale’s membership was an equivocal, undisclosed statement that evidences no connection between the group’s discriminatory intentions and its expressive interests. The later policies demonstrate a brief — -though ulti*677mately abandoned — attempt to tie BSA’s exclusion to its expression, but other than a single sentence, BSA fails to show that it ever taught Scouts that homosexuality is not “morally straight” or “clean,” or that such a view was part of the group’s collective efforts to foster a belief. Furthermore, BSA’s policy statements fail to establish any clear, consistent, and unequivocal position on homosexuality. Nor did BSA have any reason to think Dale’s sexual conduct, as opposed to his orientation, was contrary to the group’s values.

BSA’s inability to make its position clear and its failure to connect its alleged policy to its expressive activities is highly significant. By the time Dale was expelled from the Boy Scouts in 1990, BSA had already been engaged in several suits under a variety of state antidiscrimination public accommodation laws challenging various aspects of its membership policy.9 Indeed, BSA had filed amicus briefs before this Court in two earlier right to associate cases (Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U. S. 609 (1984), and Board of Directors of Rotary Int’l v. Rotary Club of Duarte, 481U. S. 537 (1987)) pointing to these very cases; it was clearly on notice by 1990 that it might well be subjected to state public accommodation antidiscrimination laws, and that a court might one day reject its claimed right to associate. Yet it took no steps prior to Dale’s expulsion to clarify how its exclusivity was connected to its expression. It speaks volumes about the credibility of BSA’s claim to a shared goal that homosexuality is incompatible with Scouting that since at least 1984 it had been aware of this issue — indeed, concerned enough to twice file amicus briefs before this *678Court — yet it did nothing in the intervening six years (or even in the years after Dale’s explusion) to explain clearly and openly why the presence of homosexuals would affect its expressive activities, or to make the view of “morally straight” and “clean” taken in its 1991 and 1992 policies a part of the values actually instilled in Scouts through the Handbook, lessons, or otherwise.

Ill

BSA’s claim finds no support in our cases. We have recognized “a right to associate for the purpose of engaging in those activities protected by the First Amendment— speech, assembly, petition for the redress of grievances, and the exercise of religion.” Roberts, 468 U. S., at 618. And we have acknowledged that “when the State interferes with individuals’ selection of those with whom they wish to join in a common endeavor, freedom of association . . . may be implicated.” Ibid. But “[t]he right to associate for expressive purposes is not . . . absolute”; rather, “the nature and degree of constitutional protection afforded freedom of association may vary depending on the extent to which . . . the constitutionally protected liberty is at stake in a given ease.” Id., at 628, 618. Indeed, the right to associate does not mean “that in every setting in which individuals exercise some discrimination in choosing associates, their selective process of inclusion and exclusion is protected by the Constitution.” New York State Club Assn., Inc. v. City of New York, 487 U. S. 1,13 (1988). For example, we have routinely and easily rejected assertions of this right by expressive organizations with discriminatory membership policies, such as private schools,10 law *679firms,11 and labor organizations.12 In fact, until today, we have never once found a claimed right to associate in the selection of members to prevail in the face of a State’s anti-discrimination law. To the contrary, we have squarely held that a State’s antidiscrimination law does not violate a group’s right to associate simply because the law conflicts with that group’s exclusionary membership policy.

In Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U. S. 609 (1984), we addressed just such a conflict. The Jaycees was a nonprofit membership organization “‘designed to inculcate in the individual membership ... a spirit of genuine Americanism and civic interest, and ... to provide ... an avenue for intelligent participation by young men in the affairs of their community.’” Id., at 612-613. The organization was divided into local chapters, described as “ ‘young men’s organization[s],’ ” in which regular membership was restricted to males between the ages of 18 and 35. Id., at 613. But Minnesota’s Human Rights Act, which applied to the Jaycees, made it unlawful to “‘deny any person the full and equal *680enjoyment of ... a place of public accommodation because of . . . sex.’” Id., at 615. The Jaycees, however, claimed that applying the law to it violated its right to associate — in particular its right to maintain its selective membership policy.

We rejected that claim. Cautioning that the right to associate is not “absolute,” we held that “[[infringements on that right may be justified by regulations adopted to serve compelling state interests, unrelated to the suppression of ideas, that cannot be achieved through means significantly less restrictive of associational freedoms.” Id., at 623. We found the State’s purpose of eliminating discrimination is a compelling state interest that is unrelated to the suppression of ideas. Id., at 623-626. We also held that Minnesota’s law is the least restrictive means of achieving that interest. The Jaycees had “failed to demonstrate that the Act imposes any serious burdens on the male members’ freedom of expressive association.” Id., at 626. Though the Jaycees had “taken public positions on a number of diverse issues, [and]... regularly engage in a variety of... activities worthy of constitutional protection under the First Amendment,” there was “no basis in the record for concluding that admission of women as full voting members will impede the organization’s ability to engage in these protected activities or to disseminate its preferred views.” Id., at 626-627. “The Act,” we held, “requires no change in the Jaycees’ creed of promoting the interest of young men, and it imposes no restrictions on the organization’s ability to exclude individuals with ideologies or philosophies different from those of its existing members.” Id., at 627.

We took a similar approach in Board of Directors of Rotary Int’l v. Rotary Club of Duarte, 481 U. S. 537 (1987). Rotary International, a nonprofit corporation, was founded as “‘an organization of business and professional men united worldwide who provide humanitarian service, encourage high ethical standards in all vocations, and help build good*681will and peace in the world.’” Id., at 539. It admitted a cross section of worthy business and community leaders, id., at 540, but refused membership to women. “[T]he exclusion of women,” explained the group’s General Secretary, “results in an ‘aspect of fellowship ... that is enjoyed by the present male membership.’ ” Id., at 541. That policy also allowed the organization “to operate effectively in foreign countries with varied cultures and social mores.” Ibid. Though California’s Civil Rights Act, which applied to Rotary International, prohibited discrimination on the basis of sex, id., at 541-542, n. 2, the organization claimed a right to associate, including the right to select its members.

As in Jaycees, we rejected the claim, holding that “the evidence fails to demonstrate that admitting women to Rotary Clubs will affect in any significant way the existing members’ ability to carry out their various purposes.” 481 U. S., at 548. “To be sure,” we continued, “Rotary Clubs engage in a variety of commendable service activities that are protected by the First Amendment. But [California’s Civil Rights Act] does not require the clubs to abandon or alter any of these activities. It does not require them to abandon their basic goals of humanitarian service, high ethical standards in all vocations, good will, and peace. Nor does it require them to abandon their classification system or admit members who do not reflect a cross section of the community.” Ibid. Finally, even if California’s law worked a “slight infringement on Rotary members’ right of expressive association, that infringement is justified because it serves the State’s compelling interest in eliminating discrimination against women.” Id., at 549.13

*682Several principles are made perfectly clear by Jaycees and Rotary Club. First, to prevail on a claim of expressive association in the face of a State’s antidiscrimination law, it is not enough simply to engage in some kind of expressive activity. Both the Jaycees and the Rotary Club engaged in expressive activity protected by the First Amendment,14 yet that fact was not dispositive. Second, it is not enough to adopt an openly avowed exclusionary membership policy. Both the Jaycees and the Rotary Club did that as well.15 Third, it is not sufficient merely to articulate some connection between the group’s expressive activities and its exclusionary policy. The Rotary Club, for example, justified its male-only membership policy by pointing to the “ ‘aspect of fellowship . . . that is enjoyed by the [exclusively] male membership’ ” and by claiming that only with an exclusively male membership *683could it “operate effectively” in foreign countries. Rotary Club, 481 U. S., at 541.

Rather, in Jaycees, we asked whether Minnesota’s Human Rights Law requiring the admission of women “impose[d] any serious burdens” on the group’s “collective effort on behalf of [its] shared goals” 468 U. S., at 622, 626-627 (emphases added). Notwithstanding the group’s obvious publicly stated exclusionary policy, we did not view the inclusion of women as a “serious burden” on the Jaycees’ ability to engage in the protected speech of its choice. Similarly, in Rotary Club, we asked whether California’s law would “affect in any significant way the existing members’ ability” to engage in their protected speech, or whether the law would require the clubs “to abandon their basic goals.” 481 U. S., at 548 (emphases added); see also Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, Inc., 515 U. S. 557, 581 (1995) (“[A] private club could exclude an applicant whose manifest views were at odds with a position taken by the club’s existing members”); New York State Club Assn., 487 U. S., at 13 (to prevail on a right to associate claim, the group must “be able to show that it is organized for specific expressive purposes and that it will not be able to advocate its desired viewpoints nearly as effectively if it cannot confine its membership to those who share the same sex, for example, or the same religion”); NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U. S. 449, 462-463 (1958) (asking whether law “entail[ed] the likelihood of a substantial restraint upon the exercise by petitioner’s members of their right to freedom of association” and whether law is “likely to affect adversely the ability of petitioner and its members to pursue their collective effort to foster beliefs”). The relevant question is whether the mere inclusion of the person at issue would “impose any serious burden,” “affect in any significant way,” or be “a substantial restraint upon” the organization’s “shared goals,” “basic goals,” or “collective effort to foster beliefs.” Accordingly, it is necessary to examine what, exactly, are *684BSA’s shared goals and the degree to which its expressive activities would he burdened, affected, or restrained by including homosexuals.

The evidence before this Court makes it exceptionally clear that BSA has, at most, simply adopted an exclusionary membership policy and has no shared goal of disapproving of homosexuality. BSA’s mission statement and federal charter say nothing on the matter; its official membership policy is silent; its Scout Oath and Law — and accompanying definitions — are devoid of any view on the topic; its guidance for Scouts and Scoutmasters on sexuality declare that such matters are “not construed to be Scouting’s proper area,” but are the province of a Scout’s parents and pastor; and BSA’s posture respecting religion tolerates a wide variety of views on the issue of homosexuality. Moreover, there is simply no evidence that BSA otherwise teaches anything in this area, or that it instructs Scouts on matters involving homosexuality in ways not conveyed in the Boy Scout or Scoutmaster Handbooks. In short, Boy Scouts of America is simply silent on homosexuality. There is no shared goal or collective effort to foster a belief about homosexuality at all — let alone one that is significantly burdened by admitting homosexuals.

As in Jaycees, there is “no basis in the record for concluding that admission of [homosexuals] will impede the [Boy Scouts’] ability to engage in [its] protected activities or to disseminate its preferred views” and New Jersey’s law “requires no change in [BSA’s] creed.” 468 U. S., at 626-627. And like Rotary Club, New Jersey’s law “does not require [BSA] to abandon or alter any of” its activities. 481 U. S., at 548. The evidence relied on by the Court is not to the contrary. The undisclosed 1978 policy certainly adds nothing to the actual views disseminated to the Scouts. It simply says that homosexuality is not “appropriate.” There is no reason to give that policy statement more weight than Rotary International’s assertion that all-male membership *685fosters the group’s “fellowship” and was the only way it could “operate effectively.” As for BSA’s postrevocation statements, at most they simply adopt a policy of discrimination, which is no more dispositive than the openly discriminatory policies held insufficient in Jaycees and Rotary Club; there is no evidence here that BSA’s policy was necessary to— or even a part of — BSA’s expressive activities or was ever taught to Scouts.

Equally important is BSA’s failure to adopt any clear position on homosexuality. BSA’s temporary, though ultimately abandoned, view that homosexuality is incompatible with being “morally straight” and “clean” is a far cry from the clear, unequivocal statement necessary to prevail on its claim. Despite the solitary sentences in the 1991 and 1992 policies, the group continued to disclaim any single religious or moral position as a general matter and actively eschewed teaching any lesson on sexuality. It also continued to define “morally straight” and “clean” in the Boy Scout and Scoutmaster Handbooks without any reference to homosexuality. As noted earlier, nothing in our cases suggests that a group can prevail on a right to expressive association if it, effectively, speaks out of both sides of its mouth. A State’s anti-discrimination law does not impose a “serious burden” or a “substantial restraint” upon the group’s “shared goals” if the group itself is unable to identify its own stance with any clarity.

IV

The majority pretermits this entire analysis. It finds that BSA in fact “ ‘teach[es] that homosexual conduct is not morally straight.’ ” Ante, at 651. This conclusion, remarkably, rests entirely on statements in BSA’s briefs. See ibid, (citing Brief for Petitioners 39; Reply Brief for Petitioners 5). Moreover, the majority insists that we must “give deference to an association’s assertions regarding the nature of its expression” and “we must also give deference to an association’s view of what would impair its expression.” Ante, at *686653. So long as the record “contains written evidence” to support a group’s bare assertion, “[w]e need not inquire farther.” Ante, at 651. Once the organization “asserts” that it engages in particular expression, ibid., “[w]e cannot doubt” the truth of that assertion, ante, at 653.

This is an astounding view of the law. I am unaware of any previous instance in which our analysis of the scope of a constitutional right was determined by looking at what a litigant asserts in his or her brief and inquiring no further. It is even more astonishing in the First Amendment area, because, as the majority itself acknowledges, “we are obligated to independently review the factual record.” Ante, at 648-649. It is an odd form of independent review that consists of deferring entirely to whatever a litigant claims. But the majority insists that our inquiry must be “limited,” ante, at 650, because “it is not the role of the courts to reject a group’s expressed values because they disagree with those values or find them internally inconsistent,” ante, at 651. See also Brief for Petitioners 25 (“[T]he Constitution protects [BSA’s] ability to control its own message”).

But nothing in our cases calls for this Court to do any such thing. An organization can adopt the message of its choice, and it is not this Court’s place to disagree with it. But we must inquire whether the group is, in fact, expressing a message (whatever it may be) and whether that message (if one is expressed) is significantly affected by a State’s antidis-crimination law. More critically, that inquiry requires our independent analysis, rather than deference to a group’s litigating posture. Reflection on the subject dictates that such an inquiry is required.

Surely there are instances in which an organization that truly aims to foster a belief at odds with the purposes of a State’s antidiscrimination laws will have a First Amendment right to association that precludes forced compliance with those laws. But that right is not a freedom to discriminate at will, nor is it a right to maintain an exclusionary member*687ship policy simply out of fear of what the public reaction would be if the group’s membership were opened up. It is an implicit right designed to protect the enumerated rights of the First Amendment, not a license to act on any discriminatory impulse. To prevail in asserting a right of expressive association as a defense to a charge of violating an anti-discrimination law, the organization must at least show it has adopted and advocated an unequivocal position inconsistent with a position advocated or epitomized by the person whom the organization seeks to exclude. If this Court were to defer to whatever position an organization is prepared to assert in its briefs, there would be no way to mark the proper boundary between genuine exercises of the right to associate, on the one hand, and sham claims that are simply attempts to insulate nonexpressive private discrimination, on the other hand. Shielding a litigant’s elaim from judicial scrutiny would, in turn, render civil rights legislation a nullity, and turn this important constitutional right into a farce. Accordingly, the Court’s prescription of total deference will not do. In this respect, Justice Frankfurter’s words seem particularly apt:

“Elaborately to argue against this contention is to dignify a elaim devoid of constitutional substance. Of course a State may leave abstention from such discrimi-nations to the conscience of individuals. On the other hand, a State may choose to put its authority behind one of the cherished aims of American feeling by forbidding indulgence in racial or religious prejudice to another’s hurt. To use the Fourteenth Amendment as a sword against such State power would stultify that Amendment. Certainly the insistence by individuals on their private prejudices as to race, color or creed, in relations like those now before us, ought not to have a higher constitutional sanction than the determination of a State to extend the area of nondiscrimination beyond that which the Constitution itself exacts.” Railway *688Mail Assn. v. Corsi, 826 U. S. 88, 98 (1945) (concurring opinion).

There is, of course, a valid concern that a court’s independent review may run the risk of paying too little heed to an organization’s sincerely held views. But unless one is prepared to turn the right to associate into a free pass out of antidiscrimination laws, an independent inquiry is a necessity. Though the group must show that its expressive activities will be substantially burdened by the State’s law, if that law truly has a significant effect on a group’s speech, even the subtle speaker will be able to identify that impact.

In this ease, no such concern is warranted. It is .entirely clear that BSA in fact expresses no clear, unequivocal message burdened by New Jersey’s law.

V

Even if BSA’s right to associate argument fails, it nonetheless might have a First Amendment right to refrain from including debate and dialogue about homosexuality as part of its mission to instill values in Scouts. It can, for example, advise Scouts who are entering adulthood and have questions about sex to talk “with your parents, religious leaders, teachers, or Scoutmaster,” and, in turn, it can direct Scoutmasters who are asked such questions “not undertake to instruct Scouts, in any formalized manner, in the subject of sex and family life” because “it is not construed to be Seout-ing’s proper area.” See supra, at 669-670. Dale’s right to advocate certain beliefs in a public forum or in a private debate does not include a right to advocate these ideas when he is working as a Scoutmaster. And BSA cannot be compelled to include a message about homosexuality among the values it actually chooses to teach its Scouts, if it would prefer to remain silent on that subject.

In. West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 624 (1943), we recognized that the government may not “require] affirmation of a belief and an attitude of mind,” nor *689“force an American citizen publicly to profess any statement of belief,” even if doing so does not require the person to “forego any contrary convictions of their own.” Id., at 633-634. “[0]ne important manifestation of the principle of free speech is that one who chooses to speak may also decide ‘what not to say.’ ” Hurley, 515 U. S., at 573. Though the majority mistakenly treats this statement as going to the right to associate, it actually refers to a free speech claim. See id., at 564-565, 580-581 (noting distinction between free speech and right to associate claims). As with the right to associate claim, though, the court is obligated to engage in an independent inquiry into whether the mere inclusion of homosexuals would actually force BSA to proclaim a message it does not want to send. Id., at 567.

In its briefs, BSA implies, even if it does not directly argue, that Dale would use his Scoutmaster position as a “bully pulpit” to convey immoral messages to his troop, and therefore his inclusion in the group would compel BSA to include a message it does not want to impart. Brief for Petitioners 21-22. Even though the majority does not endorse that argument, I think it is important to explain why it lacks merit, before considering the argument the majority does accept.

BSA has not contended, nor does the record support, that Dale had ever advocated a view on homosexuality to his troop before his membership was revoked. Accordingly, BSA’s revocation could only have been based on an assumption that he would do so in the future. But the only information BSA had at the time it revoked Dale’s membership was a newspaper article describing a seminar at Rutgers University on the topic of homosexual teenagers that Dale attended. The relevant passage reads:

“James Dale, 19, co-president of the Rutgers University Lesbian Gay Alliance with Shariee Richardson, also 19, said he lived a double life while in high school, pretending to be straight while attending a military academy.

*690“He remembers dating girls and even laughing at homophobic jokes while at school, only admitting his homosexuality during his second year at Rutgers.

“‘I was looking for a role model, someone who was gay and accepting of me/ Dale said, adding he wasn’t just seeking sexual experiences, but a community that would take him in and provide him with a support network and friends.” App. 517.

Nothing in that article, however, even remotely suggests that Dale would advocate any views on homosexuality to his troop. The Scoutmaster Handbook instructs Dale, like all Scoutmasters, that sexual issues are not their “proper area,” and there is no evidence that Dale had any intention of violating this rule. Indeed, from all accounts Dale was a model Boy Scout and Assistant Scoutmaster up until the day his membership was revoked, and there is no reason to believe that he would suddenly disobey the directives of BSA because of anything he said in the newspaper article.

To be sure, the article did say that Dale was co-president of the Lesbian/Gay Alliance at Rutgers University, and that group presumably engages in advocacy regarding homosexual issues. But surely many members of BSA engage in expressive activities outside of their troop, and surely BSA does not want all of that expression to be carried on inside the troop. For example, a Scoutmaster may be a member of a religious group that encourages its followers to convert others to its faith. Or a Scoutmaster may belong to a political party that encourages its members to advance its views among family and friends.16 Yet BSA does not think it is appropriate for Scoutmasters to proselytize a particular faith to unwilling Scouts or to attempt to convert them from one *691religion to another.17 Nor does BSA think it appropriate for Scouts or Scoutmasters to bring politics into the troop.18 From all accounts, then, BSA does not discourage or forbid outside expressive activity, but relies on compliance with its policies and trusts Scouts and Scoutmasters alike not to bring unwanted views into the organization. Of course, a disobedient member who flouts BSA’s policy may be expelled. But there is no basis for BSA to presume that a homosexual will be unable to comply with BSA’s policy not to discuss sexual matters any more than it would presume that politically or religiously active members could not resist the urge to proselytize or politicize during troop meetings.19 As BSA itself puts it, its rights are “not implicated unless a prospective leader presents himself as a role model ineon-*692sistent with Boy Seouting’s understanding of the Scout Oath and Law.” Brief for Petitioners 6 (emphases added).20

The majority, though, does not rest its conclusion on the claim that Dale will use his position as a bully pulpit. Rather, it contends that Dale’s mere presence among the Boy Scouts will itself force the group to convey a message about homosexuality — even if Dale has no intention of doing so. The majority holds that “[t]he presence of an avowed homosexual and gay rights activist in an assistant scoutmaster’s uniform sends a distine[t] . . . message,” and, accordingly, BSA is entitled to exclude that message. Ante, at 655-656. In particular, “Dale’s presence in the Boy Scouts would, at the very least, force the organization to send a message, both to the youth members and the world, that the Boy Scouts accepts homosexual conduct as a legitimate form of be*693havior.” Ante, at 653; see also Brief for Petitioners 24 (“By donning the uniform of an adult leader in Scouting, he would 'celebrate [his] identity’ as an openly gay Scout leader”).

The majority’s argument relies exclusively on Hurley v. Irish-Americcm Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, Inc., 515 U. S. 557 (1995). In that case, petitioners John Hurley and the South Boston Allied War Veterans Council ran a privately operated St. Patrick’s Day parade. Respondent, an organization known as “GLIB,” represented a contingent of gays, lesbians, and bisexuals who sought to march in the petitioners’ parade “as a way to express pride in their Irish heritage as openly gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals.” Id., at 561. When the parade organizers refused GLIB’s admission, GLIB brought suit under Massachusetts’ antidiscrimination law. That statute, like New Jersey’s law, prohibited discrimination on account of sexual orientation in any place of public accommodation, which the state courts interpreted to include the parade. Petitioners argued that forcing them to include GLIB in their parade would violate their free speech rights.

We agreed. We first pointed out that the St. Patrick’s Day - parade — like most every parade — is an inherently expressive undertaking. Id., at 568-570. Next, we reaffirmed that the government may not compel anyone to proclaim a belief with which he or she disagrees. Id., at 573-574. We then found that GLIB’s marching in the parade would be an expressive act suggesting the view “that people of their sexual orientations have as much claim to unqualified social acceptance as heterosexuals.” Id., at 574. Finally, we held that GLIB’s participation in the parade “would likely be pei’-eeived” as the parade organizers’ own speech — or at least as a view which they approved — because of a parade organizer’s customary control over who marches in the parade. Id., at 575. Though Hurley has a superficial similarity to the present ease, a close inspection reveals a wide gulf between that case and the one before us today.

*694First, it was critical to our analysis that GLIB was actually conveying a message by participating in the parade — otherwise, the parade organizers could hardly claim that they were being forced to include any unwanted message at all. Our conclusion that GLIB was conveying a message was inextricably tied to the fact that GLIB wanted to march in a parade, as well as the manner in which it intended to march. We noted the “inherent expressiveness of marching [in a parade] to make a point,” id., at 568, and in particular that GLIB was formed for the purpose of making a particular point about gay pride, id., at 561, 570. More specifically, GLIB “distributed a fact sheet describing the members’ intentions” and, in a previous parade, had “marched behind a shamrock-strewn banner with the simple inscription ‘Irish American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston.’” Id., at 570. “[A] contingent marching behind the organization’s banner,” we said, would clearly convey a message. Id., at 574. Indeed, we expressly distinguished between the members of GLIB, who marched as a unit to express their views about their own sexual orientation, on the one hand, and homosexuals who might participate as individuals in the parade without intending to express anything about their sexuality by doing so. Id., at 572-573.

Second, we found it relevant that GLIB’s message “would likely be perceived” as the parade organizers’ own speech. Id., at 575. That was so because “[p]arades and demonstrations ... are not understood to be so neutrally presented or selectively viewed” as, say, a broadcast by a cable operator, who is usually considered to be “merely ‘a conduit’ for the speech” produced by others. Id., at 575-576. Rather, parade organizers are usually understood to make the “customary determination about a unit admitted to the parade.” Id., at 575. ■

Dale’s inclusion in the Boy Scouts is nothing like the case in Hurley. His participation sends no cognizable message to the Scouts or to the world. Unlike GLIB, Dale did not *695carry a banner or a sign; he did not distribute any factsheet; and he expressed no intent to send any message. If there is any kind of message being sent, then, it is by the mere act of joining the Boy Scouts. Such an act does not constitute an instance of symbolic speech under the First Amendment.21

It is true, of course, that some acts are so imbued with symbolic meaning that they qualify as “speech” under the First Amendment. See United States v. O’Brien, 391 U. S. 367, 376 (1968). At the same time, however, “[w]e cannot accept the view that an apparently limitless variety of conduct can be labeled ‘speech’ whenever the person engaging in the conduct intends thereby to express an idea.” Ibid. Though participating in the Scouts could itself conceivably send a message on some level, it is not the kind of act that we have recognized as speech. See Dallas v. Stanglin, 490 U. S. 19, 24-25 (1989).22 Indeed, if merely joining a group did constitute symbolic speech; and such speech were attributable to the group being joined; and that group has the right to exclude that speech (and hence, the right to exclude that person from joining), then the right of free speech effectively becomes a limitless right to exclude for every organization, whether or not it engages in any expressive activities. That cannot be, and never has been, the law.

*696The only apparent explanation for the majority’s holding, then, is that homosexuals are simply so different from the rest of society that their presence alone — unlike any other individual’s — should be singled out for special First Amendment treatment. Under the majority’s reasoning, an openly gay male is irreversibly affixed with the label “homosexual.” That label, even though unseen, communicates a message that permits his exclusion wherever he goes. His openness is the sole and sufficient justification for his ostracism. Though unintended, reliance on such a justification is tantamount to a constitutionally prescribed symbol of inferiority.23 As counsel for BSA remarked, Dale “put a banner‘around his neck when he ... got himself into the newspaper.... He created a reputation.... He can’t take that banner off. He put it on himself and, indeed, he has continued to put it on himself.” See Tr. of Oral Arg. 25.

Another difference between this ease and Hurley lies in the fact that Hurley involved the parade organizers’ claim to determine the content of the message they wish to give at a particular time and place. The standards governing such a claim are simply different from the standards that govern BSA’s claim of a right of expressive association. Generally, a private person or a private organization has a right to refuse to broadcast a message with which it disagrees, and a right to refuse to contradict or garble its own specific statement at any given place or time by including the messages of others. An expressive association claim, however, normally involves the avowal and advocacy of a consistent position on some issue over time. This is why a different kind of scrutiny must be given to an expressive association claim, lest the right of expressive association simply turn into a right to discriminate whenever some group can think of an expressive object that would seem to be inconsistent with the ad*697mission of some person as a member or at odds with the appointment of a person to a leadership position in the group.

Furthermore, it is not likely that BSA would be understood to send any message, either to Scouts or to the world, simply by admitting someone as a member. Over the years, BSA has generously welcomed over 87 million young Americans into its ranks. In 1992 over one million adults were active BSA members. 160 N. J. 562, 571, 734 A. 2d 1196, 1200 (1999). The notion that an organization of that size and enormous prestige implicitly endorses the views that each of those adults may express in a non-Seouting context is simply mind boggling. Indeed, in this case there is no evidence that the young Scouts in Dale’s troop, or members of their families, were even aware of his sexual orientation, either before or after his public statements at Rutgers University.24 It is equally farfetched to assert that Dale’s open declaration of his homosexuality, reported in a local newspaper, will effectively force BSA to send a message to anyone simply because it allows Dale to be an Assistant Scoutmaster. For an Olympic gold medal winner or a Wimbledon tennis champion, being “openly gay” perhaps communicates a message — for example, that openness about one’s sexual orientation is more virtuous than concealment; that a homosexual person can be a capable and virtuous person who should be judged like anyone else; and that homosexuality is not immoral— but it certainly does not follow that they necessarily send a message on behalf of the organizations that sponsor the activities in which they excel. The fact that such persons participate in these organizations is not usually construed to convey a message on behalf of those organizations any more than does the inclusion of women, African-Americans, reli*698gious minorities, or any other discrete group.25 Surely the organizations are not forced by antidiscrimination laws to take any position on the legitimacy of any individual’s private beliefs or private conduct.

The State of New Jersey has decided that people who are open and frank about their sexual orientation are entitled to equal access to employment as schoolteachers, police officers, librarians, athletic coaches, and a host of other jobs filled by citizens who serve as role models for children and adults alike. Dozens of Scout units throughout the State are sponsored by public agencies, such as schools and fire departments, that employ such role models. BSA’s affiliation with numerous public agencies that comply with New Jersey’s law against discrimination cannot be understood to convey any particular message endorsing or condoning the activities of all these people.26

*699VI

Unfavorable opinions about homosexuals “have ancient roots.” Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U. S. 186, 192 (1986). Like equally atavistic opinions about certain racial groups, those roots have been nourished by sectarian doctrine. Id., at 196-197 (Burger, C. J., concurring); Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1,3 (1967).27 See also Mathews v. Lucas, 421U. S. 495,520 (1976) (Stevens, J., dissenting) (“Habit, rather than analysis, makes it seem acceptable and natural to distinguish between male and female, alien and citizen, legitimate and illegitimate; for too much of our history there was the same inertia in distinguishing between black, and white”). Over the years, however, interaction with real people, rather than mere adherence to traditional ways of thinking about members of unfamiliar classes, have modified those opinions. A few examples: The American Psychiatric Association’s and the American Psychological Association’s removal of “homosexuality” from their lists of mental disorders;28 a move toward greater understanding within some religious communities;29 Justice Blaekmun’s classic opinion in Bowers;30 *700Georgia’s invalidation of the statute upheld in Bowers;31 and New Jersey’s enactment of the provision at issue in this ease. Indeed, the past month alone has witnessed some remarkable changes in attitudes about homosexuals.32

That such prejudices are still prevalent and that they have caused serious and tangible harm to countless members of the class New Jersey seeks to protect are established matters of fact that neither the Boy Scouts nor the Court disputes. That harm can only be aggravated by the creation of a constitutional shield for a policy that is itself the product of a habitual way of thinking about strangers. As Justice Brandéis so wisely advised, “we must be ever on our guard, lest we erect our prejudices into legal principles.”

If we would guide by the light of reason, we must let our minds be bold. I respectfully dissent.

Justice Souter,

with whom Justice Ginsburg and Justice Breyer join, dissenting.

I join Justice Stevens’s dissent but add this further word on the significance of Part VI of his opinion. There, Justice Stevens describes the changing attitudes toward gay people and notes a parallel with the decline of stereotypical thinking about race and gender. The legitimacy of New *701Jersey’s interest in forbidding discrimination on all these bases by those furnishing public accommodations is, as Justice Stevens indicates, acknowledged by many to be beyond question. The fact that we are cognizant of this laudable decline in stereotypical thinking on homosexuality should not, however, be taken to control the resolution of this case.

Boy Scouts of America (BSA) is entitled, consistently with its own tenets and the open doors of American courts, to raise a federal constitutional basis for resisting the application of New Jersey’s law. BSA has done that and has chosen to defend against enforcement of the state public accommodations law on the ground that the First Amendment protects expressive association: individuals have a right to join together to advocate opinions free from government interference. See Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U. S. 609, 622 (1984). BSA has disclaimed any argument that Dale’s past or future actions, as distinct from his unapologetie declaration of sexual orientation, would justify his exclusion from BSA. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 12-13.

The right of expressive association does not, of course, turn on the popularity of the views advanced by a group that claims protection. Whether the group appears to this Court to be in the vanguard or rearguard of social thinking is irrelevant to the group’s rights. I conclude that BSA has not made out an expressive association claim, therefore, not because of what BSA may espouse, but because of its failure to make sexual orientation the subject of any unequivocal advocacy, using the channels it customarily employs to state its message. As Justice Stevens explains, no group can claim a right of expressive association without identifying a clear position to be advocated over time in an unequivocal way. To require less, and to allow exemption from a public accommodations statute based on any individual’s difference from an alleged group ideal, however expressed and however inconsistently claimed, would convert the right of expres*702sive association into an easy trump of any antidiscrimination law.*

If, on the other hand, an expressive association claim has met the conditions Justice Stevens describes as necessary, there may well be circumstances in which the antidiscrimination law must yield, as he says. It is certainly possible for an individual to become so identified with a position as to epitomize it publicly. When that position is at odds with a group’s advocated position, applying an antidiscrimination statute to require the group’s acceptance of the individual in a position of group leadership could so modify or muddle or frustrate the group’s advocacy as to violate the expressive assoeiational right. While it is not our business here to rule on any such hypothetical, it is at least clear that our estimate of the progressive character of the group’s position will be irrelevant to the First Amendment analysis if such a case comes to us for decision.

*51Chief Justice Roberts

delivered the opinion of the Court.

When law schools began restricting the access of military recruiters to their students because of disagreement with the Government’s policy on homosexuals in the military, Congress responded by enacting the Solomon Amendment. See 10 U. S. C. § 983 (2000 ed. and Supp. IV). That provision specifies that if any part of an institution of higher education denies military recruiters access equal to that provided other recruiters, the entire institution would lose certain federal funds. The law schools responded by suing, alleging that the Solomon Amendment infringed their First Amendment freedoms of speech and association. The District Court disagreed but was reversed by a divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which ordered the District Court to enter a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the Solomon Amendment. We granted certiorari.

*52I

Respondent Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, Inc. (FAIR), is an association of law schools and law faculties. App. 5. Its declared mission is “to promote academic freedom, support educational institutions in opposing discrimination and vindicate the rights of institutions of higher education.” Id., at 6. FAIR members have adopted policies expressing their opposition to discrimination based on, among other factors, sexual orientation. Id., at 18. They would like to restrict military recruiting on their campuses because they object to the policy Congress has adopted with respect to homosexuals in the military. See 10 U. S. C. §654.1 The Solomon Amendment, however, forces institutions to choose between enforcing their nondiscrimination policy against military recruiters in this way and continuing to receive specified federal funding.

In 2003, FAIR sought a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the Solomon Amendment, which at that time— it has since been amended — prevented the Department of Defense (DOD) from providing specified federal funds to any institution of higher education “that either prohibits, or in effect prevents” military recruiters “from gaining entry to campuses.” § 983(b).2 FAIR considered the DOD’s inter*53pretation of this provision particularly objectionable. Although the statute required only “entry to campuses,” the Government — after the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 — adopted an informal policy of “ ‘requiring] universities to provide military recruiters access to students equal in quality and scope to that provided to other recruiters.’” 291 F. Supp. 2d 269, 283 (NJ 2003). Prior to the adoption of this policy, some law schools sought to promote their nondiscrimination policies while still complying with the Solomon Amendment by having military recruiters interview on the undergraduate campus. Id., at 282. But under the equal access policy, military recruiters had to be permitted to interview at the law schools, if other recruiters did so.

FAIR argued that this forced inclusion and equal treatment of military recruiters violated the law schools’ First Amendment freedoms of speech and association. According to FAIR, the Solomon Amendment was unconstitutional because it forced law schools to choose between exercising their First Amendment right to decide whether to disseminate or accommodate a military recruiter’s message, and ensuring the availability of federal funding for their universities.

The District Court denied the preliminary injunction on the ground that FAIR had failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits of its First Amendment claims. The District Court held that inclusion “of an unwanted periodic visitor” did not “significantly affect the law schools’ ability to express their particular message or viewpoint.” Id., at 304. The District Court based its decision in large part on the determination that recruiting is conduct and not speech, concluding that any expressive aspect of recruiting “is entirely ancillary to its dominant economic purpose.” Id., at 308. The District Court held that Congress could regulate this expressive aspect of the conduct under the test set forth in United States v. O’Brien, 391 U. S. 367 (1968). 291 F. Supp. 2d, at 311-314.

*54In rejecting FAIR’S constitutional claims, the District Court disagreed with “the DOD’s proposed interpretation that the statute requires law schools to ‘provide military recruiters access to students that is at least equal in quality and scope to the access provided other potential employers.’ ” Id., at 321. In response to the District Court’s concerns, Congress codified the DOD’s informal policy. See H. R. Rep. No. 108-443, pt. 1, p. 6 (2004) (discussing the District Court’s decision in this case and stating that the amended statute “would address the court’s opinion and codify the equal access standard”). The Solomon Amendment now prevents an institution from receiving certain federal funding if it prohibits military recruiters “from gaining access to campuses, or access to students ... on campuses, for purposes of military recruiting in a manner that is at least equal in quality and scope to the access to campuses and to students that is provided to any other employer.” 10 U. S. C. § 983(b) (2000 ed., Supp. IV).3

FAIR appealed the District Court’s judgment, arguing that the recently amended Solomon Amendment was unconstitutional for the same reasons as the earlier version. A divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit agreed. 390 F. 3d 219 (2004). According to the Third Circuit, the Solomon Amendment violated the unconstitutional conditions doctrine because it forced a law school to choose between surrendering First Amendment rights and losing federal funding for its university. Id., at 229-243. Unlike *55the District Court, the Court of Appeals did not think that the O’Brien analysis applied because the Solomon Amendment, in its view, regulated speech and not simply expressive conduct. 390 F. 3d, at 243-244. The Third Circuit nonetheless determined that if the regulated activities were properly treated as expressive conduct rather than speech, the Solomon Amendment was also unconstitutional under O’Brien. 390 F. 3d, at 244-246. As a result, the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for the District Court to enter a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the Solomon Amendment. Id., at 246. A dissenting judge would have applied O’Brien and affirmed. 390 F. 3d, at 260-262 (opinion of Aldisert, J.).

We granted certiorari. 544 U. S. 1017 (2005).

II

The Solomon Amendment denies federal funding to an institution of higher education that “has a policy or practice ... that either prohibits, or in effect prevents” the military “from gaining access to campuses, or access to students . . . on campuses, for purposes of military recruiting in a manner that is at least equal in quality and scope to the access to campuses and to students that is provided to any other employer.” 10 U. S. C. § 983(b) (2000 ed., Supp. IV). The statute provides an exception for an institution with “a longstanding policy of pacifism based on historical religious affiliation.” § 983(c)(2) (2000 ed.). The Government and FAIR agree on what this statute requires: In order for a law school and its university to receive federal funding, the law school must offer military recruiters the same access to its campus and students that it provides to the nonmilitary recruiter receiving the most favorable access.

Certain law professors participating as amici, however, argue that the Government and FAIR misinterpret the statute. See Brief for William Alford et al. as Amici Curiae *5610-18; Brief for 56 Columbia Law School Faculty Members as Amici Curiae 6-15. According to these amici, the Solomon Amendment’s equal access requirement is satisfied when an institution applies to military recruiters the same policy it applies to all other recruiters. On this reading, a school excluding military recruiters would comply with the Solomon Amendment so long as it also excluded any other employer that violates its nondiscrimination policy.

In its reply brief, the Government claims that this question is not before the Court because it was neither included in the questions presented nor raised by FAIR. Reply Brief for Petitioners 20, n. 4. But our review may, in our discretion, encompass questions “‘fairly included’” within the question presented, Yee v. Escondido, 503 U. S. 519, 535 (1992), and there can be little doubt that granting certiorari to determine whether a statute is constitutional fairly includes the question of what that statute says. Nor must we accept an interpretation of a statute simply because it is agreed to by the parties. After all, “[o]ur task is to construe what Congress has enacted.” Duncan v. Walker, 533 U. S. 167, 172 (2001). We think it appropriate in the present ease to consider whether institutions can comply with the Solomon Amendment by applying a general nondiscrimination policy to exclude military recruiters.

We conclude that they cannot and that the Government and FAIR correctly interpret the Solomon Amendment. The statute requires the Secretary of Defense to compare the military’s “access to campuses” and “access to students” to “the access to campuses and to students that is provided to any other employer(Emphasis added.) The statute does not call for an inquiry into why or how the “other employer” secured its access. Under amici’s reading, a military recruiter has the same “access” to campuses and students as, say, a law firm when the law firm is permitted on campus to interview students and the military is not. We *57do not think that the military recruiter has received equal “access” in this situation — regardless of whether the disparate treatment is attributable to the military’s failure to comply with the school’s nondiscrimination policy.

The Solomon Amendment does not focus on the content of a school’s recruiting policy, as the amici would have it. Instead, it looks to the result achieved by the policy and compares the “access . . . provided” military recruiters to that provided other recruiters. Applying the same policy to all recruiters is therefore insufficient to comply with the statute if it results in a greater level of access for other recruiters than for the military. Law schools must ensure that their recruiting policy operates in such a way that military recruiters are given access to students at least equal to that “provided to any other employer.” (Emphasis added.)

Not only does the text support this view, but this interpretation is necessary to give effect to the Solomon Amendment’s recent revision. Under the prior version, the statute required “entry” without specifying how military recruiters should be treated once on campus. 10 U. S. C. § 983(b) (2000 ed.). The District Court thought that the DOD policy, which required equal access to students once recruiters were on campus, was unwarranted based on the text of the statute. 291 F. Supp. 2d, at 321. Congress responded directly to this decision by codifying the DOD policy. Under amici’s interpretation, this legislative change had no effect — law schools could still restrict military access, so long as they do so under a generally applicable nondiscrimination policy. Worse yet, the legislative change made it easier for schools to keep military recruiters out altogether: Under the prior version, simple access could not be denied, but under the amended version, access could be denied altogether, so long as a nonmilitary recruiter would also be denied access. That is rather clearly not what Congress had in mind in codifying the DOD policy. We refuse to interpret the Solomon *58Amendment in a way that negates its recent revision, and indeed would render it a largely meaningless exercise.

We therefore read the Solomon Amendment the way both the Government and FAIR interpret it. It is insufficient for a law school to treat the military as it treats all other employers who violate its nondiscrimination policy. Under the statute, military recruiters must be given the same access as recruiters who comply with the policy.

Ill

The Constitution grants Congress the power to “provide for the common Defence,” “[t]o raise and support Armies,” and “[t]o provide and maintain a Navy.” Art. I, §8, els. 1, 12-13. Congress’ power in this area “is broad and sweeping,” O’Brien, 391 U. S., at 377, and there is no dispute in this case that it includes the authority to require campus access for military recruiters. That is, of course, unless Congress exceeds constitutional limitations on its power in enacting such legislation. See Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U. S. 57, 67 (1981). But the fact that legislation that raises armies is subject to First Amendment constraints does not mean that we ignore the purpose of this legislation when determining its constitutionality; as we recognized in Rostker, “judicial deference ... is at its apogee” when Congress legislates under its authority to raise and support armies. Id., at 70.

Although Congress has broad authority to legislate on matters of military recruiting, it nonetheless chose to secure campus access for military recruiters indirectly, through its Spending Clause power. The Solomon Amendment gives universities a choice: Either allow military recruiters the same access to students afforded any other recruiter or forgo certain federal funds. Congress’ decision to proceed indirectly does not reduce the deference given to Congress in the area of military affairs. Congress’ choice to promote its goal by creating a funding condition deserves at least as def*59erential treatment as if Congress had imposed a mandate on universities.

Congress’ power to regulate military recruiting under the Solomon Amendment is arguably greater because universities are free to decline the federal funds. In Grove City College v. Bell, 465 U. S. 555, 575-576 (1984), we rejected a private college’s claim that conditioning federal funds on its compliance with Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 violated the First Amendment. We thought this argument “warranted] only brief consideration” because “Congress is free to attach reasonable and unambiguous conditions to federal financial assistance that educational institutions are not obligated to accept.” Id., at 575. We concluded that no First Amendment violation had occurred— without reviewing the substance of the First Amendment claims — because Grove City could decline the Government’s funds. Id., at 575-576.

Other decisions, however, recognize a limit on Congress’ ability to place conditions on the receipt of funds. We recently held that “The government may not deny a benefit to a person on a basis that infringes his constitutionally protected ... freedom of speech even if he has no entitlement to that benefit.’ ” United States v. American Library Assn., Inc., 539 U. S. 194, 210 (2003) (quoting Board of Comm’rs, Wabaunsee Cty. v. Umbehr, 518 U. S. 668, 674 (1996) (some internal quotation marks omitted)). Under this principle, known as the unconstitutional conditions doctrine, the Solomon Amendment would be unconstitutional if Congress could not directly require universities to provide military recruiters equal access to their students.

This case does not require us to determine when a condition placed on university funding goes beyond the “reasonable” choice offered in Grove City and becomes an unconstitutional condition. It is clear that a funding condition cannot be unconstitutional if it could be constitutionally im*60posed directly. See Speiser v. Randall, 357 U. S. 513, 526 (1958). Because the First Amendment would not prevent Congress from directly imposing the Solomon Amendment’s access requirement, the statute does not place an unconstitutional condition on the receipt of federal funds,

A

The Solomon Amendment neither limits what law schools may say nor requires them to say anything. Law schools remain free under the statute to express whatever views they may have on the military’s congressionally mandated employment policy, all the while retaining eligibility for federal funds. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 25 (Solicitor General acknowledging that law schools “could put signs on the bulletin board next to the door, they could engage in speech, they could help organize student protests”). As a general matter, the Solomon Amendment regulates conduct, not speech. It affects what law schools must do — afford equal access to military recruiters — not what they may or may not say.

Nevertheless, the Third Circuit concluded that the Solomon Amendment violates law schools’ freedom of speech in a number of ways. First, in assisting military recruiters, law schools provide some services, such as sending e-mails and distributing flyers, that clearly involve speech. The Court of Appeals held that in supplying these services law schools are unconstitutionally compelled to speak the Government’s message. Second, military recruiters are, to some extent, speaking while they are on campus. The Court of Appeals held that, by forcing law schools to permit the military on campus to express its message, the Solomon Amendment unconstitutionally requires law schools to host or accommodate the military’s speech. Third, although the Court of Appeals thought that the Solomon Amendment regulated speech, it held in the alternative that, if the statute regulates conduct, this conduct is expressive and regulating *61it unconstitutionally infringes law schools’ right to engage in expressive conduct. We consider each issue in turn.4

1

Some of this Court’s leading First Amendment precedents have established the principle that freedom of speech prohibits the government from telling people what they must say. In West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 624, 642 (1943), we held unconstitutional a state law requiring schoolchildren to recite the Pledge of Allegiance and to salute the flag. And in Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U. S. 705, 717 (1977), we held unconstitutional another that required New Hampshire motorists to display the state motto — “Live Free or Die” — on their license plates.

The Solomon Amendment does not require any similar expression by law schools. Nonetheless, recruiting assistance provided by the schools often includes elements of speech. For example, schools may send e-mails or post notices on bulletin boards on an employer’s behalf. See, e. g., App. 169-170; Brief for NALP (National Association for Law Placement) et al. as Amici Curiae 11. Law schools offering such services to other recruiters must also send e-mails and post notices on behalf of the military to comply with the Sol*62omon Amendment. As FAIR points out, these compelled statements of fact (“The U. S. Army recruiter will meet interested students in Room 123 at 11 a.m.”), like compelled statements of opinion, are subject to First Amendment scrutiny. See Brief for Respondents 25 (citing Riley v. National Federation of Blind of N. C., Inc., 487 U. S. 781, 797-798 (1988)).

This sort of recruiting assistance, however, is a far cry from the compelled speech in Barnette and Wooley. The Solomon Amendment, unlike the laws at issue in those cases, does not dictate the content of the speech at all, which is only “compelled” if, and to the extent, the school provides such speech for other recruiters. There is nothing in this case approaching a Government-mandated pledge or motto that the school must endorse.

The compelled speech to which the law schools point is plainly incidental to the Solomon Amendment’s regulation of conduct, and “it has never been deemed an abridgment of freedom of speech or press to make a course of conduct illegal merely because the conduct was in part initiated, evidenced, or carried out by means of language, either spoken, written, or printed.” Giboney v. Empire Storage & Ice Co., 336 U. S. 490, 502 (1949). Congress, for example, can prohibit employers from discriminating in hiring on the basis of race. The fact that this will require an employer to take down a sign reading “White Applicants Only” hardly means that the law should be analyzed as one regulating the employer’s speech rather than conduct. See R. A. V. v. St. Paul, 505 U. S. 377, 389 (1992) (“[W]ords can in some circumstances violate laws directed not against speech but against conduct”). Compelling a law school that sends scheduling e-mails for other recruiters to send one for a military recruiter is simply not the same as forcing a student to pledge allegiance, or forcing a Jehovah’s Witness to display the motto “Live Free or Die,” and it trivializes the freedom protected in Barnette and Wooley to suggest that it is.

*632

Our compelled-speech cases are not limited to the situation in which an individual must personally speak the government’s message. We have also in a number of instances limited the government’s ability to force one speaker to host or accommodate another speaker’s message. See Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, Inc., 515 U. S. 557, 566 (1995) (state law cannot require a parade to include a group whose message the parade’s organizer does not wish to send); Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. v. Public Util. Comm’n of Cal., 475 U. S. 1, 20-21 (1986) (plurality opinion); accord, id., at 25 (Marshall, J., concurring in judgment) (state agency cannot require a utility company to include a third-party newsletter in its billing envelope); Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U. S. 241, 258 (1974) (right-of-reply statute violates editors’ right to determine the content of their newspapers). Relying on these precedents, the Third Circuit concluded that the Solomon Amendment unconstitutionally compels law schools to accommodate the military’s message “[b]y requiring schools to include military recruiters in the interviews and recruiting receptions the schools arrange.” 390 F. 3d, at 240.

The compelled-speech violation in each of our prior cases, however, resulted from the fact that the complaining speaker’s own message was affected by the speech it was forced to accommodate. The expressive nature of a parade was central to our holding in Hurley. 515 U. S., at 568 (“Parades are ... a form of expression, not just motion, and the inherent expressiveness of marching to make a point explains our cases involving protest marches’’). We concluded that because “every participating unit affects the message conveyed by the [parade’s] private organizers,” a law dictating that a particular group must be included in the parade “alter[s] the expressive content of th[e] parade.” Id., at 572-573. As a result, we held that the State’s public accommodation law, as applied to a private parade, “violates the fundamental rule *64of protection under the First Amendment, that a speaker has the autonomy to choose the content of his own message.” Id., at 573.

The compelled-speech violations in Tornillo and Pacific Gas also resulted from interference with a speaker’s desired message. In Tornillo, we recognized that “the compelled printing of a reply ... tak[es] up space that could be devoted to other material the newspaper may have preferred to print,” 418 U. S., at 256, and therefore concluded that this right-of-reply statute infringed the newspaper editors’ freedom of speech by altering the message the paper wished to express, id., at 258. The same is true in Pacific Gas. There, the utility company regularly included its newsletter, which we concluded was protected speech, in its billing envelope. 475 U. S., at 8-9. Thus, when the state agency ordered the utility to send a third-party newsletter four times a year, it interfered with the utility’s ability to communicate its own message in its newsletter. A plurality of the Court likened this to the situation in Tornillo and held that the forced inclusion of the other newsletter interfered with the utility’s own message. 475 U. S., at 16-18.

In this case, accommodating the military’s message does not affect the law schools’ speech, because the schools are not speaking when they host interviews and recruiting receptions. Unlike a parade organizer’s choice of parade contingents, a law school’s decision to allow recruiters on campus is not inherently expressive. Law schools facilitate recruiting to assist their students in obtaining jobs. A law school’s recruiting services lack the expressive quality of a parade, a newsletter, or the editorial page of a newspaper; its accommodation of a military recruiter’s message is not compelled speech because the accommodation does not sufficiently interfere with any message of the school.

The schools respond that if they treat military and nonmilitary recruiters alike in order to comply with the Solomon Amendment, they could be viewed as sending the *65message that they see nothing wrong with the military’s policies, when they do. We rejected a similar argument in PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U. S. 74 (1980). In that case, we upheld a state law requiring a shopping center owner to allow certain expressive activities by others on its property. We explained that there was little likelihood that the views of those engaging in the expressive activities would be identified with the owner, who remained free to disassociate himself from those views and who was “not . . . being compelled to affirm [a] belief in any govern-mentally prescribed position or view.” Id., at 88.

The same is true here. Nothing about recruiting suggests that law schools agree with any speech by recruiters, and nothing in the Solomon Amendment restricts what the law schools may say about the military’s policies. We have held that high school students can appreciate the difference between speech a school sponsors and speech the school permits because legally required to do so, pursuant to an equal access policy. Board of Ed. of Westside Community Schools (Dist. 66) v. Mergens, 496 U. S. 226, 250 (1990) (plurality opinion); accord, id., at 268 (Marshall, J., concurring in judgment); see also Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U. S. 819, 841 (1995) (attribution concern “not a plausible fear”). Surely students have not lost that ability by the time they get to law school.

3

Having rejected the view that the Solomon Amendment impermissibly regulates speech, we must still consider whether the expressive nature of the conduct regulated by the statute brings that conduct within the First Amendment’s protection. In O’Brien, we recognized that some forms of “‘symbolic speech’” were deserving of First Amendment protection. 391 U. S., at 376. But we rejected the view that “conduct can be labeled ‘speech’ whenever the person engaging in the conduct intends thereby to express *66an idea.” Ibid. Instead, we have extended First Amendment protection only to conduct that is inherently expressive. In Texas v. Johnson, 491 U. S. 397, 406 (1989), for example, we applied O’Brien and held that burning the American flag was sufficiently expressive to warrant First Amendment protection.

Unlike flag burning, the conduct regulated by the Solomon Amendment is not inherently expressive. Prior to the adoption of the Solomon Amendment’s equal access requirement, law schools “expressed” their disagreement with the military by treating military recruiters differently from other recruiters. But these actions were expressive only because the law schools accompanied their conduct with speech explaining it. For example, the point of requiring military interviews to be conducted on the undergraduate campus is not “overwhelmingly apparent.” Johnson, supra, at 406. An observer who sees military recruiters interviewing away from the law school has no way of knowing whether the law school is expressing its disapproval of the military, all the law school’s interview rooms are full, or the military recruiters decided for reasons of their own that they would rather interview someplace else.

The expressive component of a law school’s actions is not created by the conduct itself but by the speech that accompanies it. The fact that such explanatory speech is necessary is strong evidence that the conduct at issue here is not so inherently expressive that it warrants protection under O’Brien. If combining speech and conduct were enough to create expressive conduct, a regulated party could always transform conduct into “speech” simply by talking about it. For instance, if an individual announces that he intends to express his disapproval of the Internal Revenue Service by refusing to pay his income taxes, we would have to apply O’Brien to determine whether the Tax Code violates the First Amendment. Neither O’Brien nor its progeny supports such a result.

*67Although the Third Circuit also concluded that O’Brien does not apply, it held in the alternative that the Solomon Amendment does not pass muster under O’Brien because the Government failed to produce evidence establishing that the Solomon Amendment was necessary and effective. 390 F. 3d, at 245. The Court of Appeals surmised that “the military has ample resources to recruit through alternative means,” suggesting “loan repayment programs” and “television and radio advertisements.” Id., at 234-235. As a result, the Government — according to the Third Circuit— failed to establish that the ‘statute’s burden on speech is no greater than essential to furthering its interest in military recruiting. Id., at 245.

We disagree with the Court of Appeals’ reasoning and result. We have held that “an incidental burden on speech is no greater than is essential, and therefore is permissible under O’Brien, so long as the neutral regulation promotes a substantial government interest that would be achieved less effectively absent the regulation.” United States v. Albertini, 472 U. S. 675, 689 (1985). The Solomon Amendment clearly satisfies this requirement. Military recruiting promotes the substantial Government interest in raising and supporting the Armed Forces — an objective that would be achieved less effectively if the military were forced to recruit on less favorable terms than other employers. The Court of Appeals’ proposed alternative methods of recruiting are beside the point. The issue is not whether other means of raising an army and providing for a navy might be adequate. See id., at 689 (regulations are not “invalid simply because there is some imaginable alternative that might be less burdensome on speech”). That is a judgment for Congress, not the courts. See U. S. Const., Art. I, §8, els. 12-13; Rostker, 453 U. S., at 64-65. It suffices that the means chosen by Congress add to the effectiveness of military recruitment. Accordingly, even if the Solomon Amendment were regarded *68as regulating expressive conduct, it would not violate the First Amendment under O’Brien.

B

The Solomon Amendment does not violate law schools’ freedom of speech, but the First Amendment’s protection extends beyond the right to speak. We have recognized a First Amendment right to associate for the purpose of speaking, which we have termed a “right of expressive association.” See, e. g., Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U. S. 640, 644 (2000). The reason we have extended First Amendment protection in this way is clear: The right to speak is often exercised most effectively by combining one’s voice with the voices of others. See Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U. S. 609, 622 (1984). If the government were free to restrict individuals’ ability to join together and speak, it could essentially silence views that the First Amendment is intended to protect. Ibid.

FAIR argues that the Solomon Amendment violates law schools’ freedom of expressive association. According to FAIR, law schools’, ability to express their message that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is wrong is significantly affected by the presence of military recruiters on campus and the schools’ obligation to assist them. Relying heavily on our decision in Dale, the Court of Appeals agreed. 390 F. 3d, at 230-235.

In Dale, we held that the Boy Scouts’ freedom of expressive association was violated by New Jersey’s public accommodations law, which required the organization to accept a homosexual as a scoutmaster. After determining that the Boy Scouts was an expressive association, that “the forced inclusion of Dale would significantly affect its expression,” and that the State’s interests did not justify this intrusion, we concluded that the Boy Scouts’ First Amendment rights were violated. 530 U. S., at 655-659.

*69The Solomon Amendment, however, does not similarly affect a law school’s associational rights. To comply with the statute, law schools must allow military recruiters on campus and assist them in whatever way the school chooses to assist other employers. Law schools therefore “associate” with military recruiters in the sense that they interact with them. But recruiters are not part of the law school. Recruiters are, by definition, outsiders who come onto campus for the limited purpose of trying to hire students — not to become members of the school’s expressive association. This distinction is critical. Unlike the public accommodations law in Dale, the Solomon Amendment does not force a law school “ To accept members it does not desire.’ ” Id., at 648 (quoting Roberts, supra, at 623). The law schools say that allowing military recruiters equal access impairs their own expression by requiring them to associate with the recruiters, but just as saying conduct is undertaken for expressive purposes cannot make it symbolic speech, see supra, at 66, so too a speaker cannot “erect a shield” against laws requiring access “simply by asserting” that mere association “would impair its message.” 530 U. S., at 653.

FAIR correctly notes that the freedom of expressive association protects more than just a group’s membership decisions. For example, we have held laws unconstitutional that require disclosure of membership lists for groups seeking anonymity, Brown v. Socialist Workers ’74 Campaign Comm. (Ohio), 459 U. S. 87, 101-102 (1982), or impose penalties or withhold benefits based on membership in a disfavored group, Healy v. James, 408 U. S. 169, 180-184 (1972). Although these laws did not directly interfere with an organization’s composition, they made group membership less attractive, raising the same First Amendment concerns about affecting the group’s ability to express its message.

The Solomon Amendment has no similar effect on a law school’s associational rights. Students and faculty are free *70to associate to voice their disapproval of the military’s message; nothing about the statute affects the composition of the group by making group membership less desirable. The Solomon Amendment therefore does not violate a law school’s First Amendment rights. A military recruiter’s mere presence on campus does not violate a law school’s right to associate, regardless of how repugnant the law school considers the recruiter’s message.

* * *

In this case, FAIR has attempted to stretch a number of First Amendment doctrines well beyond the sort of activities these doctrines protect. The law schools object to having to treat military recruiters like other recruiters, but that regulation of conduct does not violate the First Amendment. To the extent that the Solomon Amendment incidentally affects expression, the law schools’ effort to cast themselves as just like the schoolchildren in Barnette, the parade organizers in Hurley, and the Boy Scouts in Dale plainly overstates the expressive nature of their activity and the impact of the Solomon Amendment on it, while exaggerating the reach of our First Amendment precedents.

Because Congress could require law" schools to provide equal access to military recruiters without violating the schools’ freedoms of speech or association, the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the Solomon Amendment likely violates the First Amendment. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Third Circuit and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

Justice Alito took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.