Good points, as usual, from Eugene. I have no qualms with them. On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 9:27 PM, Volokh, Eugene <vol...@law.ucla.edu> wrote:
> Again, I wonder whether sex-separate swimming really > “screams inconsistent with every case on the books.” Consider, for > instance, *United States v. Virginia*, where Justice Ginsburg’s majority > opinion stated that “Admitting women to VMI would undoubtedly require > alterations necessary to afford members of each sex privacy from the other > sex in living arrangements,” n.19 – not just in bathrooms, I take it, but > also in barracks / roommate arrangements and the like. Indeed, the opinion > left open the possibility that single-sex education may generally be > constitutional (except when it denies women access to “unique” colleges > such as VMI, so that the separateness is not equal), n.7. Would we draw > “an interesting parallel to racism” here, or would we conclude that sex is > different enough from race, especially when it comes to “privacy”? And, if > so, why would accommodation of slightly different notions of sex-based > privacy – such as those applicable to swimming rather than to “living > arrangements” – necessarily be excluded? > > > > Eugene > > > > *From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto: > religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Michael Worley > *Sent:* Thursday, June 02, 2016 8:17 PM > *To:* Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> > *Subject:* Re: "Religious diversity" as a compelling interest for > discrimination in universities? > > > > More than fair; I think I more meant the pool context than the university > context. > > > > Separately, this is an interesting parallel to racism. The Court > correctly determined with respect to race that separate but equal is > awful. In the religious context, for some faiths, can separation be what > they prefer, even in places that are government-run? > > > > A religious idea that women in certain faiths get "equal protection" when > they swim separately screams inconsistent with every case on the books > (except *Korematsu*, sadly), but in the area of religious diversity, > isn't the state to be admired for encouraging the expression of beliefs > different than the consensus? The state couldn't impose that belief, to be > sure, but isn't it to be admired for it? > > > > On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 9:08 PM, Volokh, Eugene <vol...@law.ucla.edu> > wrote: > > So that universities could give admission preferences to, > say, evangelical Christians, if they conclude that they are > underrepresented among students or on the faculty? To the more devout of > all faiths, if it thinks they are underrepresented? I think race-based > admissions preferences (the programs which are most often defended using > “racial diversity” arguments) are troublesome enough; religion-based > preferences strike me as even worse. > > > > Eugene > > > > *From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto: > religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Michael Worley > *Sent:* Thursday, June 02, 2016 6:01 PM > *To:* Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> > *Subject:* Re: thoughts on constitutionality of single-sex hours for > public pool? > > > > It is one thing to say religious minorities have no right to shape the law > so public facilities match their religious sentiments. It is another thing > to suggest that our constitution requires public facilities to not serve > religious minorities. > > Is not encouraging religious diversity a compelling interest, under the > equal protection clause, just like encouraging racial diversity is for law > schools? > > > _______________________________________________ > 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. > > > > > > -- > > Michael Worley > > J.D., Brigham Young University > > _______________________________________________ > 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. > -- Michael Worley J.D., Brigham Young University
_______________________________________________ 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.
