Bowman v. U.S.

[Rick Duncan]

Art Spitzer asks some great questions:

"I'm
not sure where I come out on this, but does your position mean that if
Big State U. sets up a Department of Peace Studies it also has to set
up a Department of War Studies?  If an alumnus donates money to create
a chair for the study of democratic institutions, the university can't
accept those funds unless it also finds funds for a chair for the study
of totalitarian institutions?  If there's a scholarship for a student
majoring in dispute resolution, there must also be a scholarship for a
student majoring in dispute fomentation?   Why are these examples of
private speech rather than of government subsidy for the speech (and
only the speech) it wishes to promote?"


I think that the govt can say whatever it wants to say when it is the speaker. Thus, the University of Nebraska can set up a Dept of Peace if that is what it wishes to do. Its curriculum is its own speech, so it can adopt a particular viewpoint if that is what it wishes to do.

Moreover, the govt could probably fund a scholarship only for certain subjects (as opposed to certain viewpoints)--such as a scholarship for nursing majors or education majors. This would probably best be considered a non-public forum in which content restrictions are permitted, but viewpoint restrictions are prohibited. 

The problem in Davey was that Washington created a general scholarship covering all majors including theology majors and excluded only one viewpoint--devotional theology majors (those majoring in theology from a believing perspective as opposed to an agnostic perspective). This amounts to viewpoint discrimination in a forum for private educative speech--this is not a Rust govt speech case, it is more like a Rosenberger case in which govt is seeking to facilitate the private speech of citizens who have qualified for a generally available scholarship on the basis of objective characteristics (GPA and family income). Thus, viewpoint discrimination is forbidden.

 It is the clear viewpoint discrimination that make the hypos I pose seem so clearly unconstitutional--a scholarship for all students except those who major in gender studies from a feminist perspective, or except those who major in economics from a socialist perspective. Would anyone on the list uphold such viewpoint restrictions on scholarships?

Rehnquist's unreasoned Fr Sp dictum in Davey, a Fr Ex case, should not preclude the issue from being considered in a future case in which the Fr Sp issue is part of the question presented. The test suites I propose make Rehnquist's non-analysis in Davey cry out for full and fair reconsideration.


Rick Duncan 
Welpton Professor of Law 
University of Nebraska College of Law 
Lincoln, NE 68583-0902





      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20090504/ec8a39d8/attachment.htm>