I was at the oral argument in CLS v. Hastings. I think Marci's interpretation of Breyer's questions and comments is quite right. We'll know soon enough, but (from his questions, tone, and facial expression -- the latter two don't come through in a transcript -- at argument) I will be very surprised if Breyer joins an opinion that says an "all-comers" policy in this context is unconstitutional.
If social liberals join a conservative Christian group, and succeed in changing the message, conservative Christians can leave and form a new, conservative Christian group. Do list members think the socially liberal Christians will just keep hunting down and infiltrating such groups? This seems fantastical (and slightly paranoid) to me. I'm still waiting for real-life, on-campus examples of such behavior. To Art Spitzer's question -- I don't know how you can say the purpose of an "all-comers" policy is "fully served" by allowing dissenters to attend meetings, but not vote or hold office. This is a matter of degree -- the more that dissenters can exercise political influence in the group, the more the interchange within the group may be open, dynamic, and non-dogmatic. Those may not be purposes that religious congregations may prefer, but the law school can have its own, independent purposes for insisting on access to full membership for all comers. (Whether anyone at Hastings LS really thought all of this through is another question, but CLS did stipulate that "all comers" is among the relevant policies.) Ira C. Lupu F. Elwood & Eleanor Davis Professor of Law George Washington University Law School 2000 H St., NW Washington, DC 20052 (202)994-7053 My SSRN papers are here: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=181272#reg ---- Original message ---- >Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 14:45:10 -0700 (PDT) >From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu (on behalf of Rick Duncan ><nebraskalawp...@yahoo.com>) >Subject: RE: Factual Clarification re CLS >To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> > > Perhaps democrats will not attempt to take control > of the Young Republicans. > > But I think there is a good chance that socially > liberal Christians may take control of a > conservative Christian group that can't protect its > doctrinal beliefs through its membership policy. > > By the way, it is clear that the CLS allows all > comers to attend its meetings. This case is strictly > about who can control an organization's beliefs and > speech, not about who may attend meetings. > > I have read the oral argument transcript several > times. And it is clear to me that Breyer believes an > all comers membership policy is silly and completely > inconsistent with a marketplace of ideas in which > many groups with different beliefs debate and > express different ideas from very different > perspectives. > > Rick Duncan > > Rick Duncan > Welpton Professor of Law > University of Nebraska College of Law > Lincoln, NE 68583-0902 >________________ >_______________________________________________ >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.
