I'm puzzled. Is Mark genuinely saying that it should be
considered harassment -- and thus presumably punishable under hostile
environment harassment law (unless Mark agrees with me that hostile
environment harassment law is unconstitutional to this extent) -- for
people to express the view that Jews should convert to Christianity, or
Christians should convert away from Christianity? If this were American
Atheists putting up a table expressing the view that religion is
irrational, and religious people should become atheists, would that be
harassment, too?
On the other hand, maybe despite the first sentence, he thinks
this doesn't "constitute[] harassment" -- or is constitutionally
protected harassment -- but simply shows that people are differentially
offended by various viewpoints. You bet. There's no doubt that many
people find criticism of Christianity to be offensive. There's also no
doubt that many people find expressions of the idea that non-Christians
(including Jews) should convert to Christianity to be offensive.
I had thought, though, that the First Amendment protected even
the expression of offensive ideas (though in K-12 schools, perhaps it
might restrict them if there's serious evidence of disruption, beyond
the level observed in Tinker). Mark, on the other hand, seems to think
that the First Amendment allows and possibly even *requires* the
suppression of such ideas in government-run schools. I find it hard to
see why; it's not the school that's endorsing (or, as to American
Atheists, disapproving of) religion. The school is simply tolerating a
viewpoint that some people find offensive. I would think that under
Tinker, that's the school's constitutional *duty*, not a constitutional
violation.
Seriously, Mark, do you really think that if an atheist high
school student decides to tell some of his classmates why religion is
wrong, and why they should stop believing -- and let's assume he does
that politely, and there is indeed no evidence of disruption (because
his classmates are decent people who don't start fighting when they hear
offensive ideas) -- then the school has a constitutional duty to
suppress the speech? Or that if he wears a "Religion is the Opium of
the Masses" T-shirt, the school must tell him to take it off? Or even
that it has the power to suppress the speech, even when the Tinker
requirements aren't satisfied?
Eugene
Mark Graber writes:
> A little story on what constitutes harassment. When I was an
> undergraduate at Dartmouth, the university allowed "Jews" for
> Jesus to set up shop in the main campus center where we
> picked up our mail. When Jewish students protested, we were
> told, we were way too sensitive.
> That night some of us formed a new group, "Christians Against
> Christ."
> We took a table in the main campus center. Within an hour,
> both groups were asked to leave. As to whether that was
> right, who knows. But it is interesting that a great many
> people who did not think Jews should be bothered by Christian
> proslytization were really bothered when some uppity Jews
> engaged in anti-Christian proslytization. It does seem
> fairly clear to me that under the Establishment Clause a
> state can say (perhaps must say, given mandatory attendence)
> that no prolytization shall go on in the schools.
_______________________________________________
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
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone
can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web
archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
