Ira Lupu writes: > In a law school, there is certainly a rational basis for coming down on > the side of non-exclusivity as a condition of access to the forum and its > privileges -- among other things, all-comers increases the likelihood of > dynamic exchange of views, something a law school may legitimately value. > CLS > is not a church, and neither is Outlaw, and yet (if Hastings prevails) both > will wind up with (only) the members sympathetic to their respective > purposes. > > But isn't that purpose fully served by requiring that campus groups allow all comers to attend meetings and participate in discussions? Does voting membership or eligibility for leadership positions further serve that purpose?
And campus groups are not only discussion groups. Quite often they are action groups as well. For example, a CLS group and an Outlaw group at GWU may both want to present testimony at a DC Council hearing on a same-sex marriage bill. Art Spitzer
_______________________________________________ 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.
