What exactly is it about government-funded education directed at future careers that keeps it from being "pure speech"? It presumably wouldn't just be the government funding, since that was at issue in Rosenberger as well. I take it the theory must be that "education" is somehow more than just "pure speech," in constitutionally significant ways. But why, especially when we're talking about education that basically just involves talking, rather than science labs, football games, and the like?
Marci Hamilton writes: > In any event, this is not pure speech -- it is government funding education directed > at future careers. _______________________________________________ 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.
