Bradley P Jacob
bradjac at REGENT.EDU
Wed Aug 15 17:28:02 PDT 2001
It seems to me that there is enormous importance in what Jim Maule refers to
as the "contractual issue" -- specifically, the fact that the student (in
the real case, not the hypos) told the admissions folks up front that she
was religiously prohibited from engaging in certain conduct, and the school
officials, rather than telling her, "sorry, honey, but if you won't say f***
or go on stage naked, you can't participate in this program," instead
admitted her, took her tuition money, and began an ongoing campaign to force
her to violate her conscience. If a law school applicant with a 175 LSAT
told the admissions committee, "I'm sorry, but my religion would prohibit me
from arguing either orally on an exam in favor of abortion" (or against
affirmative action, or whatever position you choose), and the school said
"no problem" and admitted him/her anyway, and then you have a situation more
analogous to the "fascinating case."
From: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
[mailto:RELIGIONLAW at listserv.ucla.edu]On Behalf Of Robert Justin Lipkin
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 4:16 PM
To: RELIGIONLAW at listserv.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Fascinating case
This latest turn in the discussion suggests that ordinary law school
(humanities, science, etc.) exams might be cognizable as "compelled speech."
Is that even conceivable? Thanks.
Widener University School of Law
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Religionlaw