RE: UW Service requirement
It seems to me that if the government said "Community service must consist of feeding the poor," or "feeding the poor, advocating for the environment, or trying to prevent violence," that would be like Rust. But when the government allows a vast range of ideological advocacy, chosen by the student, as "community service," but excludes religious advocacy, that seems much more like Rosenberger (to the extent that it's like any of these cases). > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Robin Charlow > Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2004 2:50 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: UW Service requirement > > > Isn't this situation analogous to Rust? The government > "subsidizes" the speech it prefers, in Rust by paying the > speaker only to convey its approved messages, here by > awarding academic credit only for its approved activities. > Whether it's right or wrong to consider religious service > community service, the government, at least under Rust, gets > to make that choice, no? Rust did also say that the > university is a "traditional sphere of free expression so > fundamental . . . that the Government's ability to control > speech within that sphere by means of conditions attached to > the expenditure of Government funds is restricted by the > vagueness and overbreadth doctrines", but it's not clear how > that proviso would apply here. > > >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 11/10/2004 5:25:16 PM >>> > Well, it does come back to the disagreement, but it > highlights yet another problem with the "OK to discriminate > against religion" school. Such discrimination often involves > the government saying that some viewpoints -- religious ones > -- are not a "community service," while other viewpoints -- > secular political ones -- are. It seems to me to be an > impermissible judgment for the government to make, as to > student speech. Perhaps there should be some more protection > for religious speakers than just nondiscrimination (though > I'm skeptical about that). But surely there should be at > least that protection. > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steven Jamar > Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2004 2:06 PM > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > Subject: Re: UW Service requirement > > > Comes back to the disagreement mentioned by someone else > earlier -- religion is a special case in all respects. > Non-discrimination is not sufficient. > > On Wednesday, November 10, 2004, at 04:06 PM, Volokh, Eugene wrote: > > > Hmm; can a university really say that converting people > to a belief about gun control, or animal rights, or > environmentalism is a "community service," but a belief about > following some religious moral code, and some religious route > to salvation is not? Is the government entitled to value > persuasion to some such viewpoints more than persuasion to > other such viewpoints? > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steven Jamar > Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2004 1:01 PM > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > Subject: Re: UW Service requirement > > Well, one might be a community service and the other not. > Providing a forum for and presentation of political > discussion and viewpoints is not the same as doing that for a > particular religion. > > Steve > > On Wednesday, November 10, 2004, at 03:41 PM, Volokh, Eugene wrote: > > Seems to me hard to see how a university can give > "community service" credit for student speech advocating > controversial political viewpoints (presumably viewpoints of > the student's own choice), but deny credit for student speech > advocating controversial religious viewpoints. I recognize > that the university might take the view that persuading > people to support gun control is a community service, but > persuading people to accept Jesus is not -- but I don't think > it can discriminate among student causes based on that viewpoint. > > Eugene > > -- > Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017 > Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-8428 > 2900 Van Ness Street NW mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Washington, DC 20008 http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamar > > Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth > and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and > steal; but lay up for yourselves treasures
RE: UW Service requirement
Isn't this situation analogous to Rust? The government "subsidizes" the speech it prefers, in Rust by paying the speaker only to convey its approved messages, here by awarding academic credit only for its approved activities. Whether it's right or wrong to consider religious service community service, the government, at least under Rust, gets to make that choice, no? Rust did also say that the university is a "traditional sphere of free expression so fundamental . . . that the Government's ability to control speech within that sphere by means of conditions attached to the expenditure of Government funds is restricted by the vagueness and overbreadth doctrines", but it's not clear how that proviso would apply here. >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 11/10/2004 5:25:16 PM >>> Well, it does come back to the disagreement, but it highlights yet another problem with the "OK to discriminate against religion" school. Such discrimination often involves the government saying that some viewpoints -- religious ones -- are not a "community service," while other viewpoints -- secular political ones -- are. It seems to me to be an impermissible judgment for the government to make, as to student speech. Perhaps there should be some more protection for religious speakers than just nondiscrimination (though I'm skeptical about that). But surely there should be at least that protection. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steven Jamar Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2004 2:06 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: UW Service requirement Comes back to the disagreement mentioned by someone else earlier -- religion is a special case in all respects. Non-discrimination is not sufficient. On Wednesday, November 10, 2004, at 04:06 PM, Volokh, Eugene wrote: Hmm; can a university really say that converting people to a belief about gun control, or animal rights, or environmentalism is a "community service," but a belief about following some religious moral code, and some religious route to salvation is not? Is the government entitled to value persuasion to some such viewpoints more than persuasion to other such viewpoints? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steven Jamar Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2004 1:01 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: UW Service requirement Well, one might be a community service and the other not. Providing a forum for and presentation of political discussion and viewpoints is not the same as doing that for a particular religion. Steve On Wednesday, November 10, 2004, at 03:41 PM, Volokh, Eugene wrote: Seems to me hard to see how a university can give "community service" credit for student speech advocating controversial political viewpoints (presumably viewpoints of the student's own choice), but deny credit for student speech advocating controversial religious viewpoints. I recognize that the university might take the view that persuading people to support gun control is a community service, but persuading people to accept Jesus is not -- but I don't think it can discriminate among student causes based on that viewpoint. Eugene -- Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017 Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-8428 2900 Van Ness Street NW mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Washington, DC 20008 http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamar Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal; but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal. For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. Matthew 6:19-21 ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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. -- Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017 Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-8567 2900 Van Ness Street NW mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Washington, DC 20008 http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamar/ "There are obviously two educations. One should teach us how to make a living and the other how to live." James Truslow Adams ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http:/
Re: UW Service requirement
Discrimination must be allowed in some circumstances. Indeed it is required in some circumstances. For example, you can require students to recite a poem, but not the Apostle's Creed each day. That is discrimination on the basis of content. There is, constitutionally, a distinction between the secular and the religious. Steve On Wednesday, November 10, 2004, at 05:25 PM, Volokh, Eugene wrote: Well, it does come back to the disagreement, but it highlights yet another problem with the "OK to discriminate against religion" school. Such discrimination often involves the government saying that some viewpoints -- religious ones -- are not a "community service," while other viewpoints -- secular political ones -- are. It seems to me to be an impermissible judgment for the government to make, as to student speech. Perhaps there should be some more protection for religious speakers than just nondiscrimination (though I'm skeptical about that). But surely there should be at least that protection. -- Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017 Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-8567 2900 Van Ness Street NW mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Washington, DC 20008 http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamar/ "A life directed chiefly toward the fulfillment of personal desires sooner or later always leads to bitter disappointment." Albert Einstein ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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.
RE: UW Service requirement
Title: Message Well, it does come back to the disagreement, but it highlights yet another problem with the "OK to discriminate against religion" school. Such discrimination often involves the government saying that some viewpoints -- religious ones -- are not a "community service," while other viewpoints -- secular political ones -- are. It seems to me to be an impermissible judgment for the government to make, as to student speech. Perhaps there should be some more protection for religious speakers than just nondiscrimination (though I'm skeptical about that). But surely there should be at least that protection. -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steven JamarSent: Wednesday, November 10, 2004 2:06 PMTo: Law & Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: Re: UW Service requirement Comes back to the disagreement mentioned by someone else earlier -- religion is a special case in all respects. Non-discrimination is not sufficient. On Wednesday, November 10, 2004, at 04:06 PM, Volokh, Eugene wrote: Hmm; can a university really say that converting people to a belief about gun control, or animal rights, or environmentalism is a "community service," but a belief about following some religious moral code, and some religious route to salvation is not? Is the government entitled to value persuasion to some such viewpoints more than persuasion to other such viewpoints? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steven Jamar Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2004 1:01 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: UW Service requirement Well, one might be a community service and the other not. Providing a forum for and presentation of political discussion and viewpoints is not the same as doing that for a particular religion. Steve On Wednesday, November 10, 2004, at 03:41 PM, Volokh, Eugene wrote: Seems to me hard to see how a university can give "community service" credit for student speech advocating controversial political viewpoints (presumably viewpoints of the student's own choice), but deny credit for student speech advocating controversial religious viewpoints. I recognize that the university might take the view that persuading people to support gun control is a community service, but persuading people to accept Jesus is not -- but I don't think it can discriminate among student causes based on that viewpoint. Eugene -- Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017 Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-8428 2900 Van Ness Street NW mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Washington, DC 20008 http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamar Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal; but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal. For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. Matthew 6:19-21 ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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. -- Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017 Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-8567 2900 Van Ness Street NW mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Washington, DC 20008 http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamar/ "There are obviously two educations. One should teach us how to make a living and the other how to live." James Truslow Adams ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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.
Re: UW Service requirement
Comes back to the disagreement mentioned by someone else earlier -- religion is a special case in all respects. Non-discrimination is not sufficient. On Wednesday, November 10, 2004, at 04:06 PM, Volokh, Eugene wrote: Hmm; can a university really say that converting people to a belief about gun control, or animal rights, or environmentalism is a "community service," but a belief about following some religious moral code, and some religious route to salvation is not? Is the government entitled to value persuasion to some such viewpoints more than persuasion to other such viewpoints? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steven Jamar Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2004 1:01 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: UW Service requirement Well, one might be a community service and the other not. Providing a forum for and presentation of political discussion and viewpoints is not the same as doing that for a particular religion. Steve On Wednesday, November 10, 2004, at 03:41 PM, Volokh, Eugene wrote: Seems to me hard to see how a university can give "community service" credit for student speech advocating controversial political viewpoints (presumably viewpoints of the student's own choice), but deny credit for student speech advocating controversial religious viewpoints. I recognize that the university might take the view that persuading people to support gun control is a community service, but persuading people to accept Jesus is not -- but I don't think it can discriminate among student causes based on that viewpoint. Eugene -- Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017 Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-8428 2900 Van Ness Street NW mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Washington, DC 20008 http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamar Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal; but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal. For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. Matthew 6:19-21 ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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. -- Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017 Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-8567 2900 Van Ness Street NW mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Washington, DC 20008 http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamar/ "There are obviously two educations. One should teach us how to make a living and the other how to live." James Truslow Adams ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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.
Re: UW Service requirement
I recall that in the briefing of the Lamb's Chapel case, the State of New York argued that religious uses of school facilities did not come within a catch-all provision of "other uses of benefit to the community." The State pressed the point this way: "The community-service/private-interest distinction in public school uses embodied in section 414 is the mostfundamentally reasonable distinction that can be made concerning access to public properties, and especially public schools, that are not by tradition opened for public speech. Unlike the community purposes for which authority is designated in the statute, religion is an 'individual experience' [] that is 'inviolately private.' [] Religion 'must be a private matter for the individual.' [] Religious advocacy, like petitioners' effort to persuade community residents to 'instill[] 'Christian values' in the children 'from an early age,' [] serves the community only in the eyes of its adherents and yields a benefit only to those who already believe." Brief for Respondent Attorney General at 24. At oral argument, Justice Scalia expressed bemusement at the State's assertion, and admittedly unfairly made counsel for Center Moriches Union Free School District sweat just a bit: "QUESTION: This -- this may be a little unfair because it's really not brief, but you -- you are here representing both respondents, I -- I gather, in this argument, and the Attorney General of New York, in his brief defending the -- the New York rule says that -- I'm quoting, "Religious advocacy serves the community only in the eyes of its adherents and yields a benefit only to those who already believe.""Does New York State -- I grew up in New York State and in those days they -- they used to have a tax exemption for religious property. Is that still there?"MR. HOEFLING: Yes, Your Honor, it still is."QUESTION: But they've changed their view, apparently, that --"MR. HOEFLING: Well, Your Honor --"QUESTION: You see -- it used to be thought that -- that religion -- it didn't matter what religion, but it -- some code of morality always went with it and it was thought that, you know, what was called a God-fearing person might be less likely to mug me and rape my sister. That apparently is not the [*49] view of New York anymore."MR. HOEFLING: Well, I'm not sure that that's -- that --"QUESTION: Has this new regime worked very well?"(Laughter.)"MR. HOEFLING: I think that might be a question better posed to politicians who have been elected in the State of New York than myself, Your Honor."We -- we submit that -- that particular sentence that's in the attorney general's brief is not necessarily something that -- that I personally would subscribe to. That does not -- that does not mean, however, that there is some type of Constitutional compulsion to open the school district to a religious speaker simply because there is some moral force which religious speakers bring with them that otherwise betters the community. Transcript of Oral Argument in Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches, at 48-49. Scalia's remarks at the time, the AG's brief prompting them, both reminded me of how vastly society is today than it was in the 1960's when I was a child. I remember hearing public service announcement produced by Religion in Public Life and Ad Council that urged us to visit our houses of worship. By the time we got to Lamb's Chapel and now with this proposal, we have arrived at a point were scorn is not the only rational response to those who doubt the community service value of religious service. As Justice Scalia asked, "How is the new regime?" Jim "The Inmates Want to Be in Charge" Henderson Senior Counsel ACLJ ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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.
RE: UW Service requirement
Title: Message This strikes me as a very difficult argument for UW to make, since it was a permitted "service" in the past and the policy is now changing, with "religious advocacy" being specifically targeted and "political advocacy" specifically permitted. -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steven JamarSent: Wednesday, November 10, 2004 3:01 PMTo: Law & Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: Re: UW Service requirementWell, one might be a community service and the other not. Providing a forum for and presentation of political discussion and viewpoints is not the same as doing that for a particular religion.SteveOn Wednesday, November 10, 2004, at 03:41 PM, Volokh, Eugene wrote: Seems to me hard to see how a university can give "community service" credit for student speech advocating controversial political viewpoints (presumably viewpoints of the student's own choice), but deny credit for student speech advocating controversial religious viewpoints. I recognize that the university might take the view that persuading people to support gun control is a community service, but persuading people to accept Jesus is not -- but I don't think it can discriminate among student causes based on that viewpoint. Eugene-- Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-84282900 Van Ness Street NW mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Washington, DC 20008 http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamarLay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal; but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal. For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. Matthew 6:19-21 ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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.
RE: UW Service requirement
Title: Message Hmm; can a university really say that converting people to a belief about gun control, or animal rights, or environmentalism is a "community service," but a belief about following some religious moral code, and some religious route to salvation is not? Is the government entitled to value persuasion to some such viewpoints more than persuasion to other such viewpoints? -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steven JamarSent: Wednesday, November 10, 2004 1:01 PMTo: Law & Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: Re: UW Service requirement Well, one might be a community service and the other not. Providing a forum for and presentation of political discussion and viewpoints is not the same as doing that for a particular religion. Steve On Wednesday, November 10, 2004, at 03:41 PM, Volokh, Eugene wrote: Seems to me hard to see how a university can give "community service" credit for student speech advocating controversial political viewpoints (presumably viewpoints of the student's own choice), but deny credit for student speech advocating controversial religious viewpoints. I recognize that the university might take the view that persuading people to support gun control is a community service, but persuading people to accept Jesus is not -- but I don't think it can discriminate among student causes based on that viewpoint. Eugene -- Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017 Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-8428 2900 Van Ness Street NW mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Washington, DC 20008 http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamar Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal; but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal. For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. Matthew 6:19-21 ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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.
Re: UW Service requirement
Well, one might be a community service and the other not. Providing a forum for and presentation of political discussion and viewpoints is not the same as doing that for a particular religion. Steve On Wednesday, November 10, 2004, at 03:41 PM, Volokh, Eugene wrote: Seems to me hard to see how a university can give "community service" credit for student speech advocating controversial political viewpoints (presumably viewpoints of the student's own choice), but deny credit for student speech advocating controversial religious viewpoints. I recognize that the university might take the view that persuading people to support gun control is a community service, but persuading people to accept Jesus is not -- but I don't think it can discriminate among student causes based on that viewpoint. Eugene -- Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017 Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-8428 2900 Van Ness Street NW mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Washington, DC 20008 http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamar Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal; but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal. For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. Matthew 6:19-21 ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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.
RE: UW Service requirement
Title: Message Seems to me hard to see how a university can give "community service" credit for student speech advocating controversial political viewpoints (presumably viewpoints of the student's own choice), but deny credit for student speech advocating controversial religious viewpoints. I recognize that the university might take the view that persuading people to support gun control is a community service, but persuading people to accept Jesus is not -- but I don't think it can discriminate among student causes based on that viewpoint. Eugene -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ann AlthouseSent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 7:48 AMTo: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Subject: UW Service requirement Listmembers might be interested in this proposal being contemplated today at the UW:http://www.dailycardinal.com/news/2004/11/09/Opinion/Inconsistent.Service.Learning-798003.shtml One of the requirements necessary to graduate with an undergraduate degree from the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire is the completion of a service learning requirement. Students must perform 30 hours of service to the community in order to develop, according to the guidelines to service learning released by the Eau Claire faculty senate, "a sense of civic/social responsibility even though they may also be focused on career preparation." Students have been allowed to perform any type of service they wanted to in the past provided it somehow related to the subject matter they were studying.That is about to change. Today, the Eau Claire faculty senate will discuss a proposal that would make it so students could not perform any sort of religious practice in order to fulfill their service learning requirement.The proposal would make it so that any volunteer work on behalf of a religious institution, such as missionary work or teaching at a religious school, would not be counted toward a student's service learning requirement. Secular work in a religious setting, such as work for religious charities like Habitat for Humanity, would still be allowed.On its surface, this proposal makes sense. A public university cannot give the appearance that it prefers one religion over another. "We are a state institution," said Associate Vice Chancellor Steven Tallant. "If we award credit for engaging in [a religion's] activities, we are endorsing that religion."The proposed policy change is, however, inconsistent. While religious advocacy does not count toward the requirement, other types of advocacy, including political solicitation, will continue to be worth service learning credit. ...Ann AlthouseUniversity of Wisconsin Law SchoolMadison, WI 53706(608)242-2444http://althouse.blogspot.com/ ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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.
