Because neither the court nor Mr. Muise participated in the conversation between a GSA advisor and the ACLU, neither is in any position to describe that conversation. I spoke this morning with the legal director of the Michigan ACLU to find out what role, if any, it played in Hansen. Here is what really happened.
A GSA advisor did call the Michigan ACLU; he asked whether a student organization sponsoring its own event was free to select speakers based on their viewpoint, and more specifically, if a student organization presenting its own program on diversity was obliged to include speakers opposed to including gay, lesbian and bisexual students within the ambit of antidiscrimination policies. The ACLU response was that a student organization was free to select speakers who advanced rather than rejected its message, and noted that the school was forbidden from barring other student organizations with different viewpoints from being heard at their own functions. Michael R. Masinter 3305 College Avenue Nova Southeastern University Fort Lauderdale, Fl. 33314 Shepard Broad Law Center (954) 262-6151 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chair, ACLU of Florida Legal Panel On Tue, 20 Apr 2004, Kim Daniels wrote: > My colleague Rob Muise represents the student who challenged the school > district's action. While the ACLU was not directly involved, apparently the > GSA advisors called the Michigan ACLU asking for its support of their > exclusion of an opposing religious perspective from the panel. The > organization told the GSA advisors and some school officials that they could > exclude the Catholic view during Diversity Week's "homosexuality and > religion" panel. In particular, it apparently supported the school's > contention that inviting a one-sided group of clergy to give a presentation > to students about homosexuality and religion during instructional time did > not violate the Establishment Clause. > > FYI, it's not clear yet whether the school district will appeal. > > > Kim Daniels > Associate Counsel > Thomas More Law Center > 3475 Plymouth Rd. > Suite 100 > Ann Arbor, MI 48105-2550 > (734) 827-2001 (main office) > (301) 907-3925 (direct dial) > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > From: Michael MASINTER <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Reply-To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 17:19:40 -0400 (EDT) > > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: Re: HAnsen v. Ann Arbor Public Schools 293 FSupp2d 780 > > > > I would not assume on the basis of the single reference to a deposition > > that the ACLU saw nothing wrong with excluding some religious points of > > view; who knows 1) who the deponent talked to; 2) what he told that > > person, and 3) what that person said. > > > > The ACLU did not represent either party in Hurley; it lists Hurley as one > > of its 100 greatest hits: > > http://www.aclu.org/TakeAction/TakeAction.cfm?ID=11927&c=242 > > > > Michael R. Masinter 3305 College Avenue > > Nova Southeastern University Fort Lauderdale, Fl. 33314 > > Shepard Broad Law Center (954) 262-6151 > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chair, ACLU of Florida Legal Panel > > > > On Mon, 19 Apr 2004, AJCONGRESS wrote: > > > >> The Establishment Clause violation in cases seems so blatant-and the ACLU > >> usually so vigilant about such violations-that it is noteworthy that it > >> reportedly saw nothing wrong with excluding other religious points of view > >> from the panel.This is especially so since in the Boston parade cases,if > >> memory serves,the ACLU did not support the right of parade organizers to > >> exclude marchers expressing a gay rights point of view. > >> I agree with your criticism of the language of the opinion. > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: "Michael MASINTER" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> To: "Law & Religion issues for Law Academics" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 4:43 PM > >> Subject: Re: HAnsen v. Ann Arbor Public Schools 293 FSupp2d 780 > >> > >> > >>> I wonder about the reference below to the ACLU. The ACLU did not > >>> represent any of the parties to this litigation; the sole reference to the > >>> ACLU is reported deposition testimony of one defendant in which he is said > >>> to have claimed that he had contacted the ACLU to determine whether the > >>> first amendment required a particular course of action. 293 F. Supp. 2d > >>> at 790 n.13. > >>> > >>> I also wonder about the care that goes into judicial writing (and perhaps > >>> reasoning) that describes panelists with religious beliefs that do not > >>> condemn homosexuality as: > >>> > >>> "six pro-homosexual adult clergy and religious leaders" > >>> > >>> 293 F. Supp. 2d at 791. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Michael R. Masinter 3305 College Avenue > >>> Nova Southeastern University Fort Lauderdale, Fl. 33314 > >>> Shepard Broad Law Center (954) 262-6151 > >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chair, ACLU of Florida Legal Panel > >>> > >>> On Mon, 19 Apr 2004, AJCONGRESS wrote: > >>> > >>>> I just stumbled across the above captioned case.The Ann Arbor School > >>>> District sponsored a diversity week.It delegated to the Gay Straight > >>>> Alliance(GSA) club the responsiblity of conducting a panel on sexual > >>>> orientation as part of the offical school program.GSA decided on a > >> panel in > >>>> which 6 ministers explained why homosexuality was not forbidden by the > >>>> Bible.The GSA refused a Catholic student's request to allow a minister > >> with > >>>> an opposing point of view to participate on this panel It decison ot > >>>> exclcude different points of view was upheld by school > >>>> authorities.Apparently the ACLU also supported the club's refusal.) > >>>> The trial court found both view point discrimination and an > >> establishment of > >>>> religion in this arraingement. > >>>> I do not know if an appeal has been taken. > >>>> Marc Stern > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
