(no subject)

[Brownstein, Alan]

As Doug suggests, it is extremely unlikely that allowing the parent or
grandparent minister to speak would violate the Establishment Clause.
But if we are talking about a classroom program, as a free speech
matter, I think there is a powerful presumption that teachers do not
create a forum by inviting guest speakers into the classroom to speak to
students. The teacher's decision about who may speak to the class would
either be unreviewable under Arkansas Public Television v. Forbes or
upheld, as long as it served a legitimate pedagogical purpose, under
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier. It may be that the very broad invitation to
guests in this case is sufficient to distinguish this situation from the
more common guest speaker or guest panel situation. But from a
conventional free speech perspective, school and teacher discretion in
conducting classroom programs can not easily be challenged - even when
their decisions are viewpoint discriminatory.

 

Alan Brownstein

 

 

 

 

________________________________

From: religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Douglas Laycock
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 8:18 AM
To: religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: (no subject)

 

I don't know the Peck case.  But there are cases holding that religious
viewpoints cannot be excluded from genuine free speech opportunities.
Widmar v. Vincent (1981); Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free
School District (1993); Rosenberger v. Rector of Univ. of Virginia
(1995); Pinette v. Capital Square Board (1995); Good News Club v.
Milford Central School District (2001).  

None of those involve a captive audience, and your claim is stronger if
Career Day is a sort of fair with parents and grandparents from
different careers spread around the gym; the school has more of an
argument if each parent or grandparent makes a presentation to the
class.  But I would think that it is not a very strong argument unless
religion comes to dominate the forum.

Quoting Richard James <Rjames at udel.edu>:

> In response to the March 26 posting below (although it?s not really a 
> response, because I was the ?correspondent?) it might also be the 
> case that Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah 508 
> U.S. 520, 530 (1993) has more bearing on the issue, as the decision 
> holds that: "The first amendment forbids an official purpose to 
> disapprove of...religion in general." My goal is to try to provide a 
> constructive response to the school that will enable them to stay out 
> of hot water in the future by mitigating this kind of knee-jerk 
> response to the issue at hand.
>
>> Can a school restrict participation in school->sponsored "career 
>> day"type events due to concerns >about "chuch/state separation"? Our 
>> daughter had intended >to invite her grandmother, a minister, to a 
>> firstgrade >career day to which the school had issued a broad 
>> >invitation. Today I was told by the principal that the >attendance 
>> of a minister would be a violation of >separation. I think that 
>> schools are understandable hyper->cautious about this issue, but do 
>> you think that Peck v. >Baldwinsville has any bearing on this? It 
>> might be thought >that participation by student's invitees is an 
>> aspect of >free speech and that therefore the school is engaged >in 
>> 'viewpoint discrimination' of the
>> kind identified in Peck.
>
>
> Richard James
>


Douglas Laycock
Yale Kamisar Collegiate Professor of Law
University of Michigan Law School
625 S. State St.
Ann Arbor, MI  48109-1215
  734-647-9713

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20070403/e3b0e8fe/attachment.htm