I may have been imprecise; my point is not that UW was trying to
ban all religious speech, only that it was expressly banning a
particular kind of speech (Bible study groups, or perhaps more generally
religious study meetings) defined by its religiosity. Such
discrimination against subcategories of religious speech is
presumptively unconstitutional, it seems to me, even if it doesn't
discriminate against all religious speech.
But as to the university's fear about the student's fear, I'm
not sure I quite understand Steve's argument. I agree that a student
won't be influenced by religious views that he never hears about. But
say that a student hears that the RA is a minister in Church X, or is
prominently involved in Church X, or conducts a student group outside
his dorm room that relates to Church X. Why would the student
distinguish that from the RA's conducting Church X Bible study in his
dorm room? In either case, a student might equally say "I think
enthusiastic members of Church X have certain biases, and that makes me
reluctant to ask those members for advice." If the student, for
instance, is gay, and thinks that members of Church X strongly
disapprove of homosexuality, I take it that it's the RA's publicly known
membership in Church X that would make the student uncomfortable about
coming to the RA, regardless of how this membership becomes known.
Eugene
Steve Sanders writes:
I recognize that it makes this case seem much more troubling to
characterize the university policy as a blanket ban on all religious
speech in a person's private room. But I'm afraid we're beginning to
argue scenarios somewhat different from what's been presented.
Eugene characterizes this as "allowing the RA to engage in a wide range
of speech in his dorm room -- just not religious speech" and the
"university ... trying to govern what RAs say to their friends and
classmates -- even ones who aren't coming in for counseling -- at any
time during the day in their dorm rooms." It would be helpful to know
the source for these categorical characterizations, which seem to me to
go beyond the facts in evidence.
My own reading of what's happening -- based, I admit, on only a sketchy
newspaper story combined with my own experience on a campus -- is that
the RA makes it public knowledge that he hosts Bible study in his room
or some common area of the dorm (it's unclear which), and probably
extends an invitation to those who'd like to participate. (If these
were not openly advertised events, it's doubtful they would have come to
the University's attention as a matter of concern.) So what we have is
not just any religious speech exchanged among students in the privacy of
someone's room, but rather, more precisely, an educational program, if
not a devotional exercise, being run by the RA and (probably) advertised
within the workplace. The university's fear, as I understand it, is
that students who don't share the RA's perspectives will feel less able
to come to him, *not* because of his personal identity, beliefs, or the
religious viewpoints he might express in his dorm room, but because his
public profile as an organizer of on-site religious activities raises a
concern that he may bring perspectives to their problems that would be
inappropriate for a state actor.
_______________________________________________
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.
