This group called out the school over an apparent double standard and won big.

Freedom Journal reports:

See How Much A Pro-Life Group At Cal State Won In A Settlement

Pro-lifers received a major victory in California recently. A federal lawsuit brought by a pro-life student group at the San Marcos campus of California State University resulted in the group receiving $240,000 in legal fees and $3,000 in damages from the university. The federal court that heard the case said the policies of the university “unconstitutionally discriminated against views the university didn’t favor.”

The Alliance Defending Freedom brought the lawsuit on behalf of the Students for Life group because it believed the university was denying to fund pro-life speakers while at the same time using fees from the student government to sponsor the Gender Equity Center and LGBQTA Pride Center.

The center was reportedly receiving almost $300,000 every year from mandatory fees students are required to pay the student government, and those funds came with no restrictions. Other student groups such as the SFL, meanwhile, were only allowed to even apply for up to $500 in funding for each semester, and those funds were not allowed to be used to pay for speakers or honoraria.

A statement from the ADF read, in part:

“In the 2016-2017 academic year, the Gender Equity Center and the LGBQTA Pride Center received a combined $296,498 to fund its activities — 57 times more than all other 100 student groups combined — compared to the less than $6,000 that was actually distributed to all 100 other student groups.”

CSU agreed that it will revise its policies, as part of the settlement, so it won’t discriminate against or for any viewpoint across any of its 23 campuses statewide. The student government must also make sure it doesn’t “discriminate against any funding request based on the viewpoint to be expressed by the RSO or proposed event.” When applications for funding are either reduced or denied, the student government must provide clear reasoning for its decision as well as a “right of prompt appeal.”