RFRA strict scrutiny and compelled speech in class

[Volokh, Eugene]

                Let's set aside for a moment the question of whether the
school is somehow bound by its knowledge of this student's preferences,
whether the school ought to accommodate the student as a matter of good
judgment, and whether the Free Speech Clause, per Barnette, gives the
student the right to be exempted.

                Wouldn't a state or federal RFRA, if one were applicable,
clearly support the student's claim?  Sherbert says that denial of benefits
can be a substantial burden -- presumably denial of a public university
education, or even of a good grade in a university class, would qualify.
RFRAs prescribe across-the-board strict scrutiny, with no provisos for
government as educator, employer, proprietor, and so on.  And it's hard to
see how requiring a student to say certain words in class -- or for that
matter to play some role in a moot court exercise -- is narrowly tailored to
a compelling government interest.  Or is there some defense that the school
can raise?

                Eugene


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/private/religionlaw/attachments/20010816/3d5112db/attachment.htm