Justice Stevens' proposed distinction in Good News

[A.E. Brownstein]

But what if there was a general ban on "advocacy" groups using school
facilities. Doesn't the Court's decision in Cornelius suggest that
discriminating against "advocacy" groups is viewpoint neutral. I bet the
Boy Scouts were allowed to participate in the federal workplace charity
drive that was allowed to exclude the NAACP Legal Defense Fund in Cornelius.

Alan Brownstein
UC Davis


At 09:30 AM 06/11/2001 -0700, you wrote:

>         Justice Stevens proposes the following distinction in Good News:
>
>         "Distinguishing speech from a religious viewpoint, on the one
> hand, from religious proselytizing, on the other, is comparable to
> distinguishing meetings to discuss political issues from meetings whose
> principal purpose is to recruit new members to join a political
> organization.  If a school decides to authorize after school discussions
> of current events in its classrooms, it may not exclude people from
> expressing their views simply because it dislikes their particular
> political opinions.  But must it therefore allow organized political
> groups-for example, the Democratic Party, the Libertarian Party, or the
> Ku Klux Klan-to hold meetings, the principal purpose of which is not to
> discuss the current-events topic from their own unique point of view but
> rather to recruit others to join their respective groups?  I think
> not.  Such recruiting meetings may introduce divisiveness and tend to
> separate young children into cliques that undermine the school's
> educational mission.  Cf. Lehman v. Shaker Heights, 418 U.S. 298 (1974)
> (upholding a city's refusal to allow 'political advertising' on public
> transportation)."
>
>         Now it seems to me that a good deal of political advocacy is
> aimed at "recruit[ing] new members to join a political movement," or
> "recruit[ing] new members to join the part of society who believes in
> idea X," with "join" being used in the sense of "accepting in one's own
> mind, and echoing in one's future discussions with others, the belief
> systems of a broader group."  Is Justice Stevens trying to draw a
> distinction between such informal recruitment and recruitment to actually
> become official members of a group?  And if this is so, why is inviting
> people to become Christians more like inviting people to become members
> of the Libertarian Party and less like inviting people to become
> believers in libertarian ideals?
>
>         (Of course, there's also the separate point that to my knowledge
> the school district never set up the general "no advocacy of joining
> groups" rule that Justice Stevens points to -- it at most set up the rule
> "no advocacy of joining religious groups," if indeed the school's rule
> can be characterized that way.)
>
>         Eugene