Writing competition for students

[Volokh, Eugene]

        A brief appearance from the road -- I was uncertain about the spin
because I didn't pay very close attention to the message.  I've been pretty
swamped the last several days, and was particularly so when I forwarded the
message.  I suspected that there might have been a spin, which is why I
added the qualifier, but I literally took only a few seconds to very quickly
skim the message.  It's perfectly possible that the politics of the
submission was completely obvious from the post, but I just didn't get it
because I didn't read the post thoroughly.

        As a general matter, the degree of attention that I pay to messages
that I'm asked to forward (either via normal submission to the list, or
otherwise, as in the case of this message) varies tremendously with the
amount of other work that I'm doing at the time.

        Eugene

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> [mailto:RELIGIONLAW at listserv.ucla.edu]On Behalf Of LoAndEd at AOL.COM
> Sent: Friday, November 15, 2002 12:41 PM
> To: RELIGIONLAW at listserv.ucla.edu
> Subject: Re: Writing competition for students
>
>
> I, too, found it hard to believe that Eugene was uncertain
> what the "political spin" might be.  Indeed, the object of
> the contest is plain from the very way in which the question
> is phrased.
>
> Of course, there's nothing wrong with a competition that is
> skewed in such a manner, other than the impicit suggestion
> that it's a novel or unresolved question.  Imagine, instead,
> however, that the question were phrased as
> follows:
>
> "Whether title VI, title IX, and other statutes imposing
> antidiscrimination conditions within a program or activity
> that receives government benefits/funding are constitutional
> as applied to a beneficiary/recipient that has a sincere
> objection to such antidiscrimination norms -- notwithstanding
> precedents such as Bob Jones, Grove City, Regan, Rust, McRae, etc."
>
> The papers submitted in response might be quite different,
> no?  As we've discussed recently in a related context, I
> think the truly interesting and complicated constitutional
> question is the extent to which the law school
> *may* exempt "religious employers" from such
> antidiscrimination conditions.
>
> Marty Lederman
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/private/religionlaw/attachments/20021115/9d1546ea/attachment.htm