On February 5 on MOJ, Tom Berg described the soon-to-be-decided
Christian Legal Society case in this
way: “Christian Legal Society v. Martinez,
now before the Supreme Court, is a very important case about freedom of
association, free exercise of religion, and the definition of viewpoint
neutrality. It concerns whether a CLS chapter can be excluded
from a limited public forum for student organizations at a
public university because it asks leaders and voting members to affirm a
statement of faith and refrain from
extramarital sexual conduct. “ http://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2010/02/christian-legal-society-briefs-in-the-supreme-court.html
I think this description leaves out an important aspect of
the case. The parties stipulated in the Court of Appeals that the Hastings
policy was the following: the only organizations that could receive subsidies
and other benefits were those organizations open to all students in terms of
being officers or members. This policy
is viewpoint neutral – it is not aimed at content of any kind. And more
controversial, it is reasonable within the meaning of public forum doctrine
even if it is not wise (and, just as an aside, I do not think it is wise).
If Hastings is to grant subsidies to organizations in a
deliberately diverse student body, it can confine subsidies to those that are open
to all students. This is not a prohibition of discrimination or a direct denial
of freedom of association; it is a denial of a subsidy; The Boy Scouts case does
not apply.
To me, the interesting question is to determine what the
baseline is for deciding what a subsidy is in these cases. I think it clear
that a group not meeting the all comers policy should have no right to receive
funds. On the other hand, it should have access to classrooms as a matter of
right. (Hastings, I think is granting this as a matter of sufferance). Similarly, it should have an ability to
communicate through an effective means the existence of its meetings and
events. But should it have access to school bulletin boards? I think more attention
to the line between prohibition and subsidy is needed.
cross-posted at religiousleftlaw.com
Here are tips from Pope
John XXIII and from Buddhist teacher Ken
McLeod.
cross-posted at religiousleftlaw.com
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
HEALTH
| June 15, 2010
A Poor Nation, With a Health Plan
By DONALD G. McNEIL
Jr.
Ninety-two
percent of Rwanda is covered by a national health plan, and the premiums are $2
a year.
Read all about it, here.
As Rob mentioned, in his earlier post, the decision by Catholic University to hire my friend and mentor John Garvey as that institution's new president is an inspired one. John is a person of many gifts, and his vision regarding the importance (and the challenges associated with) Catholic higher education is inspiring.
This seems a good occasion for MOJ readers to buy and read -- if you haven't already -- his book, "What Are Freedoms For?". Get it here.
Stanley Fish comments on Brian Tamanaha's new book, agreeing with his central argument debunking the myth of the formalist-realist divide. This is a debate that has been central to our own discussions about the role of judges contemplated by Catholic legal theory.
Law school deans don't have much time for blogging, but Dean President Garvey is without question an honorary MoJer. A great hire for Catholic.
