I'm still not sure what it is that makes classroom speech "more"
"than just speech" for First Amendment purposes.
One suggestion in the following is the state's instrumental
motive in funding the speech -- but that's about the state's motive, not
about whether classroom teaching is or is not speech. Beyond this, say
that the situation involved not restriction on religious speech but on,
say, feminist speech or anti-war speech or environmentalist speech or
what have you. Would we say that it's OK for the government to, for
instance, refuse to allow federal funds to any programs that teach
pacifism or feminism or environmentalism, on the grounds that classroom
teaching is somehow more than just speech?
Another suggestion is that perhaps career preparation is somehow
less speech than, say, a liberal arts education. That's actually not in
play in the Bowman regulation, since it's hardly limited to career
preparation speech. But even in a case where someone is getting a
vocational education, what exactly is the basis for saying that teaching
someone how to be a minister, or how to be a schoolteacher, or how to be
an artist, or how to be a lawyer is less constitutionally protected than
other speech?
This is very important, of course, since it directly affects the
degree to which the government can impose condition on the wide range of
benefits -- from tax exemptions to student loans to whatever else --
that it offers to private universities, private schools, and other
institutions. That general free speech question arises far outside the
context of religious proselytizing. If classroom speech in private (but
indirectly government-funded) classrooms is somehow specially regulable
for First Amendment purposes, either in general or when it involves
career preparation, then that's a very important doctrine, the
boundaries of which need to be made clear.
Eugene
> -----Original Message-----
> From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-
> boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of hamilto...@aol.com
> Sent: Monday, May 04, 2009 4:51 PM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Subject: Re: Bowman v. U.S.
>
> While speech is involved in the classroom, career preparation is more
involved
> than just speech. The state is not simply handing out funds for the
sheer joy of
> learning or enriching discourse. The state funding of ministers or
rabbis for that
> matter is a direct and knowing benefit to religious institutions.
That is different
> from the abstract treatment of learning as nothing but a discourse of
speech.
> Marci
>
> ------Original Message------
> From: Volokh, Eugene
> Sender: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> ReplyTo: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Sent: May 4, 2009 7:41 PM
> Subject: RE: Bowman v. U.S.
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
