I am sure others will climb aboard here, but I think this is not what Hazelwood held. Rather, the holding centered on "school-sponsored expression" and stated that as to such expression, the school's censorship authority is limited to the following:
"It is only when the decision to censor a school-sponsored publication, theatrical production, or other vehicle of student expression has no valid educational purpose that the First Amendment is so 'directly and sharply implicated,' ...as to require judicial intervention to protect students' educational rights." Hazelwood falls into the cluster of cases (e.g. Fraser) that give schools substantial authority over things they deem within the "curriculum." The Court permits the schools to enforce civility norms here. Did you mean Pico? Or even Tinker? (Though Tinker is the high water mark of student expressive freedom, is rather old, set the "substantial disruption" brake on expression, and did not deal with religious expression per se.) The lower court cases have been quite deferential to schools' decisions to excise from the curriculum things they deem unsuitable for children. In a few cases, that has meant excision of Lysistrata and The Miller's Tale, which were thought to be sexually explicit and excessively vulgar. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Derek Gaubatz Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 10:34 AM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Alito and Religion Alan what serious questions are you referring to? It seems to me that Judge Alito's position reflects the majority view of the courts of appeals that Hazelwood requires application of strict scrutiny to viewpoint based censorship of student speech. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Alan Brownstein Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 12:12 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Alito and Religion Whether O'Connor would have decided Oliva the same way or not, Alito's opinion in this case raises some serious questions about his understanding of free speech doctrine. If I understand his opinion correctly, Alito argues that public school classrooms and students assignments are non-public forums, and, therefore, viewpoint discriminatory restrictions on student speech in either context should be reviewed under strict scrutiny. The captive audience issue Marc raises is only part of the problem. Alan Brownstein UC Davis -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marc Stern Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 7:47 AM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Alito and Religion It is not all apparent which way Justice O'Connor would have voted in the Oliva case, which involved a clash between the right of the speaker and the power of school officials to protect a captive audience against forced religious speech. Justice O'Connor has not endorsed the straight equal treatment approach to speech/establishment Clause issues endorsed for example by Justice Scalia for a plurality In Capitol Square review board. Marc Stern -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lupu Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 10:40 AM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Alito and Religion I have taken a quick look at Alito's Religion Clause opinions, and I have two observations: 1. None of them are about funding issues, so we don't know where he stands on those (i.e., where would he have been in, for example, Mitchell v. Helms?). (I think it is very difficult to extrapolate from any other issues to funding issues.) 2. I have found no opinion of Alito's on Religion Clause questions in which it is apparent that Justice O'Connor would have disagreed with him. Does anyone on the list have a different take on that comparison? Chip On 31 Oct 2005 at 9:48, Anthony Picarello wrote: > > There are even more to choose from: > -ACLU v Schundler (rejecting EC challenge to holiday display under > endorsement test) -ACLU v Wall Twp (rejecting EC challenge to holiday > display for lack of standing) -Blackhawk v PA (upholding FEC challenge > by Native American bear owner against PA > policy forbidding keeping animals in captivity) > -CH v Oliva (dissent in 6-6 split of 3d Cir en banc involving > viewpoint discrimination > challenge to prohibition on 1st grader(tm)s choice to read Beginner(tm)s > Bible story (containing no reference to God) in response to > classroom assignment to pick favorite story). > > -----Original Message----- > From:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marty > Lederman Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 9:29 AM To: Law & Religion > issues for Law Academics Subject: Alito and Religion > > As most of you probably already know, Judge Alito has written > several very interesting opinions on the religion clauses, > including, most notably, FOP v. Newark (1999), perhaps the > strongest post-Lukumireading of the Free Exercise Clause in the > courts of appeals, and Christian Evangelism Fellowship(2004), > involving whether a religious organization was constitutionally > entitled to hand out literature to elementary school students (and > whether the school district would violate the Establishment Clause > by permitting such activity). > > Ira C. ("Chip") Lupu F. Elwood & Eleanor Davis Professor of Law The George Washington University Law School 2000 H St., NW Washington D.C 20052 (202) 994-7053 [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu 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 Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu 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 Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu 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 Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu 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 Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu 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.
