Bowman v. U.S.

[hamilton02 at aol.com]

While speech is involved in the classroom, career preparation is more involved than just speech.  The state is not simply handing out funds for the sheer joy of learning or enriching discourse. The state funding of ministers or rabbis for that matter is a direct and knowing benefit to  religious institutions. That is different from the abstract treatment of learning as nothing but a discourse of speech.
Marci 

------Original Message------
From: Volokh, Eugene
Sender: religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
ReplyTo: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Sent: May 4, 2009 7:41 PM
Subject: RE: Bowman v. U.S.

    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
education directed
> at future careers.

_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.


Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry