Student reprimanded for religious absences

[Volokh, Eugene]

    I'm puzzled by how this argument would be reconciled with
traditional strict scrutiny analysis, which is what the Indiana
Constitution seems to call for.  Is it really the case that expelling
students for missing 8 days of school is *necessary* to accomplish the
compelling state interest in providing an adequate education to
students?  The case for accommodation here seems much stronger than,
say, in Wisconsin v. Yoder (though I realize that there are distinctions
between the two cases).
 
    Or is the argument that strict scrutiny should not apply in K-12
education?
 
    Eugene

-----Original Message-----
From: religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Steven Jamar
Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 3:53 PM
To: paul-finkelman at utulsa.edu; Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Student reprimanded for religious absences


Surely education is a compelling state interest and requiring attendance
as a part of that and setting an attendance policy is within the
discretion of the school board. This is a decision not for the courts. 
At some point there needs to be some accommodation. But it cannot be an
accommodation that requires missing a full week of school each year. 
Should the school district amend its rules and provide greater
accommodation for students of various religious backgrounds? Surely.
Should courts step in and make it a matter of constitutional right? I
would tread that ground very, very cautiously. 
 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20041123/d473aa2d/attachment.htm