Rick writes "If all groups must allow everyone and anyone to participate in the formation of its beliefs, there will be no diversity of ideas in the marketplace. Just a lot of watered down, least common denominators of expression."
But this is more fantasy and fear. Students do and will self-select. The moderate feminists group will not take over the radical feminists group. The Republicans and Democrats will not co-opt each other and form the single political group of the "mushy middles." Groups can form and reform at will (most schools require only a very small number of students to form a new, recognized group.) What some on the list seem concerned about is a group's right to maintain a constant and religiously orthodox message. Congregations have every right to insist on that, and to chose members, leaders, and even attendees at worship or lectures accordingly. But state schools do not have to support a structure that protects religiously orthodox messages. The forum can have many purposes, including not only diversity (which Hastings and others will inevitably have), but the opportunity for students to join a group and challenge its orthodoxy (however infrequently that happens, because of self-selection, exit options, and mutual forbearance). It's that "right to join and challenge" purpose that the all-comers policy may advance. And that purpose -- quite legitimate in this context -- is in perfect tension with the "right to exclude" that CLS advances in this case. 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 15:28:12 -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> > > Alan asks a great question: > > "I understand that the facts of CLS v. Martinez case > are limited to voting membership and eligibility for > leadership positions. But if the foundation of the > CLS claim is that it is being required to sacrifice > its freedom of association rights to obtain access > to a designated public forum, why wouldn’t those > associational freedom rights also extend to deciding > to who may attend meetings and participate in > discussions? > > > > Just asking." > > I think the essence of expressive association is > that an expressive group speaks through its leaders, > and leaders are elected by voting members. > > Hastings has created a limited public forum for the > express purpose of creating a diverse marketplace of > ideas. Even if the all comers policy is viewpoint > neutral, Hastings reason for excluding a student > group from its forum must be reasonable in light of > the purpose of the forum. This policy is not > reasonable in light of the purpose of the forum; it > is destructive of a marketplace of ideas, of a forum > in which groups with diverse beliefs come together > to debate and express very different views about the > good life and what is true, what is good, and what > is beautiful. > > If all groups must allow everyone and anyone to > participate in the formation of its beliefs, there > will be no diversity of ideas in the marketplace. > Just a lot of watered down, least common > denominators of expression. > > Rick > > Rick Duncan > Welpton Professor of Law > University of Nebraska College of Law > Lincoln, NE 68583-0902 > > "And against the constitution I have never raised a > storm,It's the scoundrels who've corrupted it that I > want to reform" --Dick Gaughan (from the song, > Thomas Muir of Huntershill) >________________ >_______________________________________________ >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.
