by any group to be abhorrent. As Mr. Justice Black put it most simply and clearly:

"I do not believe that it can be too often repeated that the freedoms of speech, press, petition and assembly guaranteed by the First Amendment must be accorded to the ideas we hate or sooner or later they will be denied to the ideas we cherish." Communist Party v. SACB, 367 U. S. 1, 137 (dissenting opinion) (1961).

C

As the litigation progressed in the District Court, a third rationale for President James' decision-beyond the questions of affiliation and philosophy-began to emerge. His second statement, issued after the courtordered hearing, indicates that he based rejection on a conclusion that this particular group would be a "disruptive influence at CCSC." This language was underscored in the second District Court opinion. In fact, the court concluded that the President had determined that CCSC-SDS' "prospective campus activities were likely to cause a disruptive influence at CCSC." 319 F. Supp., at 116.

If this reason, directed at the organization's activities rather than its philosophy, were factually supported by the record, this Court's prior decisions would provide a basis for considering the propriety of nonrecognition. The critical line heretofore drawn for determining the permissibility of regulation is the line between mere advocacy and advocacy "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and . . . likely to incite or produce such action." Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U. S. 444, 447 (1969) (unanimous per curiam opinion). See also Scales v. United States, 367 U. S., at 230-232; Noto v. United States, 367 U. S. 290, 298 (1961);

indicated that they shared only some of the beliefs its leaders have expressed.16 On this record it is clear that the relationship was not an adequate ground for the denial of recognition.

B

Having concluded that petitioners were affiliated with, or at least retained an affinity for, National SDS, President James attributed what he believed to be the philosophy of that organization to the local group. He characterized the petitioning group as adhering to "some of the major tenets of the national organization," including a philosophy of violence and disruption." Understandably, he found that philosophy abhorrent. In an article signed by President James in an alumni periodical, and made a part of the record below, he announced his unwillingness to "sanction an organization that openly advocates the destruction of the very ideals and freedoms upon which the academic life is founded." He further emphasized that the petitioners' "philosophies" were "counter to the official policy of the college."

The mere disagreement of the President with the group's philosophy affords no reason to deny it recognition. As repugnant as these views may have been, especially to one with President James' responsibility, the mere expression of them would not justify the denial of First Amendment rights. Whether petitioners did in fact advocate a philosophy of "destruction" thus becomes immaterial. The College, acting here as the instrumentality of the State, may not restrict speech or association simply because it finds the views expressed

16 Representatives of the group stated during the Student Affairs Committee meetings that they did not identify with all of the National's statements, but wished simply to "pick . . . certain ideas" from that organization.

17 See n. 4, supra.

governmental action imposing criminal sanctions or denying rights and privileges solely because of a citizen's association with an unpopular organization. See, e. g., United States v. Robel, 389 U. S. 258 (1967); Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 385 U. S., at 605–610; Elfbrandt v. Russell, 384 U. S. 11 (1966); Scales v. United States, 367 U. S. 203 (1961). In these cases it has been established that "guilt by association alone, without [establishing] that an individual's association poses the threat feared by the Government," is an impermissible basis upon which to deny First Amendment rights. United States v. Robel, supra, at 265. The government has the burden of establishing a knowing affiliation with an organization possessing unlawful aims and goals, and a specific intent to further those illegal aims.13

Students for a Democratic Society, as conceded by the College and the lower courts, is loosely organized, having various factions and promoting a number of diverse social and political views, only some of which call for unlawful action.14 Not only did petitioners proclaim their complete independence from this organization,15 but they also

13 In addition to the cases cited in the text above, see also Law Students Civil Rights Research Council v. Wadmond, 401 U. S. 154, 164-166 (1971); In re Stolar, 401 U. S. 23, 28 (1971); Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 U. S. 500 (1964); Noto v. United States, 367 U. S. 290, 299-300 (1961).

14 See Hearings before a Subcommittee of the House Committee on Appropriations, 92d Cong., 2d Sess., pt. 1, p. 916 (1972), in which the former Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, J. Edgar Hoover, stated that while violent factions have spun off from SDS, its present leadership is "critical of bombing and violence."

15 Petitioners asserted their independence both orally and in a written submission before the Student Affairs Committee. They restated their nonaffiliation in a formal statement filed prior to the court-ordered hearing. The only indication to the contrary is their unwillingness to eschew use of the SDS name altogether. But see n. 3, supra.

169

Opinion of the Court

ing the burden of proof-require that the judgments below be reversed. But we are unable to conclude that no basis exists upon which nonrecognition might be appropriate. Indeed, based on a reasonable reading of the ambiguous facts of this case, there appears to be at least one potentially acceptable ground for a denial of recognition. Because of this ambiguous state of the record we conclude that the case should be remanded, and, in an effort to provide guidance to the lower courts upon reconsideration, it is appropriate to discuss the several bases of President James' decision. Four possible justifications for nonrecognition, all closely related, might be derived from the record and his statements. Three of those grounds are inadequate to substantiate his decision: a fourth, however, has merit.

A

From the outset the controversy in this case has centered in large measure around the relationship, if any, between petitioners' group and the National SDS. The Student Affairs Committee meetings, as reflected in its minutes, focused considerable attention on this issue; the court-ordered hearing also was directed primarily to this question. Despite assurances from petitioners and their counsel that the local group was in fact independent of the National organization, it is evident that President James was significantly influenced by his apprehension that there was a connection. Aware of the fact that some SDS chapters had been associated with disruptive and violent campus activity, he apparently considered that affiliation itself was sufficient justification for denying recognition.12

Although this precise issue has not come before the Court heretofore, the Court has consistently disapproved

12 See n. 4, supra, for the complete text of the President's statement.

question the view of the courts below that final rejection could rest on their failure to convince the administration that their organization was unaffiliated with the National SDS. For reasons to be stated later in this opinion, we do not consider the issue of affiliation to be a controlling one. But, apart from any particular issue, once petitioners had filed an application in conformity with the requirements, the burden was upon the College administration to justify its decision of rejection. See, e. g., Law Students Civil Rights Research Council v. Wadmond, 401 U. S. 154, 162-163 (1971); United States v. O'Brien, 391 U. S. 367, 376–377 (1968); Speiser v. Randall, 357 U. S. 513 (1958). It is to be remembered that the effect of the College's denial of recognition was a form of prior restraint, denying to petitioners' organization the range of associational activities described above. While a college has a legitimate interest in preventing disruption on the campus, which under circumstances requiring the safeguarding of that interest may justify such restraint, a "heavy burden" rests on the college to demonstrate the appropriateness of that action. See Near v. Minnesota, 283 U. S. 697, 713-716 (1931); Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe, 402 U. S. 415, 418 (1971); Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U. S. 51, 57 (1965).

III

These fundamental errors-discounting the existence of a cognizable First Amendment interest and misplac

ship to "matriculated students" and may not discriminate on the basis of race, religion or nationality. The standards further state that groups may "examine and discuss all questions of interest," and they may conduct demonstrations and utilize their right of petition, but they are prohibited from interfering with the rights of other students. See n. 5, supra. Petitioners have not challenged these standards and their validity is not here in question.