As I noted in my initial post, it's of course true that the ACLU was not
directly involved in this litigation, and that "the Pioneers' beef is with
the school district, not the ACLU."
The question that prompted my response, however, was whether the ACLU
supported a tendentious view of the Establis
The point, which should have been obvious, is that on the facts presented,
the ACLU attorney got the first amendment right. The Michigan ACLU was
not counsel for the Ann Arbor Public Schools or its employees and did not
represent them in any aspect of this dispute. The Pioneers' beef is with
the
Whoops; I forgot the first rule of proofreading (Proofread before
sending) Sorry.
Michael R. Masinter 3305 College Avenue
Nova Southeastern UniversityFort Lauderdale, Fl. 33314
Shepard Broad Law Center(954) 262-6151
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Rather than provide my second-hand view of events, I went ahead and
forwarded Mr. Masinter's e-mail to Rob Muise, the Thomas More Law Center
attorney who represents the plaintiff in the Hansen case. Here's his
response:
"So what's the point? That the ACLU didn't know the facts of the case, so
t
Uh, that should be
constitutional. And it's a section 2(b)(1) case, too --
probably the most difficult subsection to justify under section
5.
- Original Message -
From: "Michael MASINTER" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Law & Religion issues for Law Academics"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200313858.pdf
Michael R. Masinter 3305 College Avenue
Nova Southeastern UniversityFort Lauderdale, Fl. 33314
Shepard Broad Law Center(954) 262-6151
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Chair, ACLU of Flori
Because neither the court nor Mr. Muise participated in the conversation
between a GSA advisor and the ACLU, neither is in any position to describe
that conversation. I spoke this morning with the legal director of the
Michigan ACLU to find out what role, if any, it played in Hansen. Here is
what
New Frontier For SDP?
--
This article was sent to you by someone who found it on SFGate.
The original article can be found on SFGate.com here:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/04/20/BAGIG67LNQ1.DTL
--
I think Eugene is correct that if the school
*sponsored* the panel it could discriminate on the
basis of viewpoint even if it advertised the panel as
a "balanced" one. But because this was a religious
panel, the school could not sponsor it without risking
an unconstitutional endorsement/coercion of
