Well, it's not a matter of the teachers' "freedoms"; it's a question of what the state
can "say," i.e., teach. A state teacher plainly may not present a religious account
of the "true understanding of creation," but presumably a state teacher can, and often
does, present a non-religious account of what the state believes to be the true
understanding of creation. Sandy appears to view faculty classroom speech at a state
university as the equivalent of a forum for private speech; but I don't think that is
how the law treats it, either with respect to what the EC prohibits or with respect to
what sorts of discrimination the Free Speech Clause permits.
> I cannot imagine that it would violate the Constitution if a philosophy
> department presented "ethics from a Christian (or Islamic or Jewish) point of
> view" any more than it violates the Constitution to present a course in a
> department of religion on "the belief structure of Islam." I assume the problem
> (if there is one) arises when the instructor switches from third-person speech
> ("this is what Christians (Jews, Muslims, etc.) believe about the creation of
> the world" to first-person ("and I believe this is a true understanding of
> creation"). If we allow a secularist use the first-person, then I don't
> understand why a sectarian could be denied the same freedom. This is a wholly
> different question, incidentally, from whether a department is obligated to
> present views that they believe are nonsense. Thus, I believe that a biology
> department commits no wrong by failing to teach "creation science" (or whatever
> it's called these days), just as a university is under no obligation to teach
> astrology.
>
> sandy
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 15:29:51 +0000
> Subject: Re: Do philosophy departments violate the Constitution?
>
> In Mark's hypo the philosophy departments, and the teachers who speak within it,
> are state actors. The question, then, is not whether exclusion of a certain
> viewpoint from "faculty speech" would violate the free speech clause (the clause
> that UVa was held to have violated in Rosenberger); presumably it wouldn't,
> because the free speech clause does not restrict the state itself from
> expressing any views it wishes. The question, then, is whether the university
> would violate the *Establishment* Clause by *permitting* a faculty member to
> teach "Ethics from a Christian/Roman Catholic Point of View" -- and, for that
> matter, for permitting teachers more broadly to "present their own views about
> what general approach to ethics," including "ultimate issues of life," are
> "correct/most defensible."
> > I'd like to suggest a slight variant on the issues opened up by the
> > discussion of invited speakers. Consider the philosophy department in a
> > public university. It offers a number of courses in ethics, in which
> > teachers survey the field and -- importantly for the problem -- present
> > their own views about what general approach to ethics (utilitarianism,
> > Kantianism, and the like) is correct/most defensible. Many of these
> > courses spend a substantial amount of time on "ultimate issues" of life
> > (of a sort that addressed -- in a different way -- in theology
> > departments in religiously affiliated universities). [I invite people
> > to tinker with the set-up in ways that make the following question more
> > pointed.] Under Rosenberger, is the department violating the
> > Constitution if it rejects a course proposal by a fully qualified
> > instructor (Ph. D. in philosophy, with a specialization in ethics, and
> > an advanced theological degree relevant to the course proposal) to offer
>
> > a course (on the same terms as the other ethics courses are offered --
> > as an elective if they are, as a course that fulfills a departmental
> > requirement if they do) in (not "on") Christian ethics, or Roman
> > Catholic ethics, or "Ethics from a Christian/Roman Catholic Point of
> > View," or ... -- when the rejection is on the ground that the
> > perspective proposed is not within the department's definition of
> > "philosophy"?
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> > http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
> _______________________________________________
> To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
