A university in the US which had defined religious discrimination purely as the oppression of non-Christians by Christians has removed this definition from its website after more than two dozen Christian students protested.

The University of California at Davis had defined religious discrimination in the United States as “institutionalised oppressions toward those who are not Christian.”

The definition appeared in an online glossary to a “Principles of Community” diversity statement to which students and students groups were asked to pledge their commitment.

The Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund, a pro-religious freedom legal aid group, says one of its lawyers notified UC Davis Chancellor Linda P.B. Katehi on Wednesday that the language violated the constitutional rights of Christian students.

Campus spokeswoman Julia Ann Easley says the university removed the glossary the same day. The schools Office of Campus Community Relations estimates the definition had been around for six or seven years.

More than two dozen Christian students filed a formal complaint over the policy.

David French, senior counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, said that the definition amounted to “radical political correctness run amok”.

He said it was absurd to single out Christians as oppressors and non-Christians as the only oppressed people on campus.

A spokesperson for UC-Davis directed comments about “The Principles of Community” to Raheem Reed, an associate executive vice chancellor. Reed did not return numerous phone calls.

“Christians deserve the same protections against religious discrimination as any other students on a public university campus,” French told Fox News Radio. “The idea that a university would discriminate against Christians is a very old story, unfortunately, and one that we see played out every day.”

Alan Brownstein, a law professor at UC-Davis, said the campus has a generally open and tolerant view of religion. “It’s a university campus,” he said. “There is robust debate and people will disagree on just about everything.”

Brownstein, who is a nationally known constitutional scholar, said any legal challenges to the policy would depend on whether or not it’s a binding document.

“Clearly, if you had an enforceable regulatory policy that said, ‘we will discipline Christians who oppress non-Christians, but we will not impose the same kind of disciplinary sanctions on non-Christians who engage in the same kind of harassing behavior against Christians,’ that would be unacceptable and subject to legal challenge.”

Regardless, Brownstein said it might have been more appropriate to use less-specific language in the policy.

“It’s always preferable to be as general as you can when you describe these kinds of unacceptable behaviors,” he said.