Bowman v. U.S.
VOLOKH at law.ucla.edu
Mon May 4 16:41:23 PDT 2009
What exactly is it about government-funded education directed at
future careers that keeps it from being "pure speech"? It presumably
wouldn't just be the government funding, since that was at issue in
Rosenberger as well. I take it the theory must be that "education" is
somehow more than just "pure speech," in constitutionally significant
ways. But why, especially when we're talking about education that
basically just involves talking, rather than science labs, football
games, and the like?
Marci Hamilton writes:
> In any event, this is not pure speech -- it is government funding
> at future careers.
More information about the Religionlaw