Context matters, and the nature of discussion matters. Certainly as a matter of first impression, I do not believe a student who raises divine creation as an alternative to evolution can be disciplined (though part of my instinct is the lack of past rules. So, in absence of a school ban on proselytizing, neither can proselytizing be disciplined. My relatively uninformed views on creation science suggest the following.
1) The scientific basis of the claim are sufficiently thin as to justify a finding that the main reason for teaching it would be to establish a religion. 2) The scientic basis is just (barely) thick enough as to permit student advocacy of that position in a science class. These, I should emphasize are more intuitions, made in the spirit of friendly conversation, that strong positions. MAG >>> "Gene Summerlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 11/10/04 9:49 AM >>> Mark, That's a very good point. Of course, the school could justify the "no calling people ugly" rule based on the fact that name calling does not contribute to or advance the academic mission or environment of the school. Discussions of theology or religion, on the other hand, would seem to be more in line with the academic purpose of provoking critical thinking skills, so should that make a difference? In thinking about how a "no religous discussions" or even a "no prostelytizing" rule would work at a high school level, would it be acceptable for a school to discipline a high school student who raised divine creation as an alternative in a class room discussion of evolution? Gene Summerlin Ogborn Summerlin & Ogborn P.C. 210 Windsor Place 330 So. 10th St. Lincoln, NE 68508 (402) 434-8040 (402) 434-8044 (FAX) (402) 730-5344 (Mobile) www.osolaw.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Mark Graber Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2004 8:02 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Lesser protection for religious advocacy What about the following rule in a school. You can talk about each other's clothes and appearance, but nobody can be called ugly. Seems to be an elementary school could have that rule even though it is clearly viewpoint based discrimination. MAG >>> "Gene Summerlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 11/09/04 11:45 PM >>> To respond in a bit more detail to Mark's objection, I don't think the issue is really whether the students can proselytize per se, because the situation described here involved speech that occurred either before or after class as I understood it. Therefore, the issue is really whether the students can be prohibited from discussing religion during private conversations in non-class time. (I agree that the school could prohibit all leafleting, so long as it was not limited to certain topics). However, can the school say, "yes, you can discuss religion or theology, but not in a manner in which you attempt to convert someone else to your view." If that is the prohibition being proposed, then that seems to be clear viewpoint based discrimination on speech, and I fail to understand the First Amendment underpinnings that would justify such a restriction. Gene Summerlin Ogborn, Summerlin & Ogborn, P.C. 210 Windsor Place 330 South 10th St. Lincoln, NE 68508 402.434.8040 402.434.8044 (FAX) 402.730.5344 (Mobile) www.osolaw.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Mark Graber Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 5:39 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Lesser protection for religious advocacy Obviously overbroad. Students may clearly ask, "who is the present Pope?" The issue is whether students may proselytize. MAG >>> "Gene Summerlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 11/09/04 6:18 PM >>> Professor Newsome, Would it be constitutional, in your opinion, for a school to pass and enforce a rule which stated, "Students may not discuss any matters relating to religion or theology while on school grounds, whether such discussions occur as part of a class discussion or as part of a private conversation between students and/or faculty." Gene Summerlin Ogborn, Summerlin & Ogborn, P.C. 210 Windsor Place 330 South 10th St. Lincoln, NE 68508 402.434.8040 402.434.8044 (FAX) 402.730.5344 (Mobile) www.osolaw.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Newsom Michael Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 3:25 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Lesser protection for religious advocacy Well that is the question. Some people believe that schools should not be religious-free zones, and one of their arguments in support of that position -- apart from Protestant Empire imperatives -- is what I think is a wholly exaggerated and unwarranted view of what the Free Speech clause requires. -----Original Message----- From: Mark Graber [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 6:03 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Lesser protection for religious advocacy but schools are religious-free zones. MAG _______________________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ 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.
