Roberts and Bork

Over at the Volokh Conspiracy blog, Juan Non-Volokh has an interesting post comparing the Roberts nomination to the Bork nomination. Here it is:

Deja Vu All Over Again?

This all seems familiar. The Senate Judiciary Committee is preparing to hold hearings on a prospective Supreme Court justice nominated by a conservative, tax-cutting president with sagging approval ratings who is derided as unintelligent by his critics. The nominee, a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, has impeccable credentials and an impressive intellect, but nonetheless is opposed by various liberal interest groups warning he could turn back the clock on civil liberties and equal protection.

Like the politics, aspects of today's music scene have a distinctive 1980s feel. There has been a marked resurgence in 1980s-style alternative pop music in bands like The Killers, The Bravery, Franz Ferdinand, The Stills, VHS or Beta, Razorlight, and Kasabian, among others. These bands were heavily influenced by 80s acts like The Cure, New Order, Echo & the Bunnymen, and the Smiths. There was even a massive transcontinental benefit concert featuring classic band reunions and Duran Duran is on tour. How much more '80s can you get?

Of course, the parallel is less-than perfect. Among (many) other things, Republicans control the Senate, the Cold War is over, no one buys Michael Jackson albums anymore, and I think we're safe from thin leather ties and ozone-depleting hairstyles. I also expect Judge Roberts will be confirmed, perhaps proving that history never really repeats itself.

Thank You

I just wanted to thank you guys for a great class. I have never enjoyed the classroom dialogue as much as I have this summer. Indeed, participation was so generally excellent that I can not single out one or two students for special recognition. Thus, when grading exams, I will modify the curve upwards (by one grade point) to reflect the general excellence of your hard work this session.

Thanks again. And have a great one week summer vacation!

Rick Duncan

Hentoff Chapter

How should the Constitution apply to a case like that of the religious students who refused to read Studs Terkels' excellent, but raw book, Working? Should the school be required under the First Amendment to allow the dissenters to read a substitute book? Or should the courts leave this decision to school authorities and the school board (and ultimately to the political process)?

If you were a school district attorney, what would you advise your client to do? Why?

Must Student Religious Groups Allow Nonadherents To Be Members?

Consider this press release announcing a settlement of a constitustional rights lawsuite brought by the Christian Legal Society against Washburn University:

PRESS Release

January 18, 2005

WASHBURN UNIVERSITY CHANGES STUDENT ORGANIZATION POLICIES TO RECOGNIZE RELIGIOUS GROUPS’ RIGHT TO BE RELIGIOUS
Grants Exemption From “Nondiscrimination” Policy

TOPEKA, KS – Washburn University’s Board of Regents voted on Friday, January 14 to amend its Student Organization Policy to no longer require the Christian Legal Society (CLS) chapter and other recognized religious groups to abide by the university’s standard “Nondiscrimination” Policy. The policy would have forced the CLS chapter and other campus religious groups to accept members and officers who oppose their Christian beliefs.

CLS' Center for Law & Religious Freedom and local attorney Craig Shultz filed a lawsuit against the university in September 2004 after the Washburn Student Bar Association (WSBA) revoked the CLS chapter’s funding. The WSBA de-funded the CLS chapter in response to the charge of religious discrimination a Washburn law student filed against the chapter.

The law student, a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, had led a CLS Bible study earlier in the fall 2004 semester and taught doctrine inconsistent with CLS’s statement of faith. As a result, chapter leaders informed him that he would no longer be asked to lead CLS-sponsored Bible studies. Although the student admitted he could not agree with the statement of faith, he nonetheless demanded that the WSBA revoke the CLS chapter’s funding on the ground the chapter violated the university’s nondiscrimination policy.

Following the lead of other major universities, such as Ohio State, the Washburn Board of Regents voted on January 14 to revise the policy to allow religious student groups to adopt nondiscrimination language in their organizational constitutions that is consistent with their members’ sincerely held religious beliefs. The policy now reads, “Organizations must comply with the University's EEO policy and applicable federal, state and local laws in all their activities… [except that] organizations formed to foster or affirm the sincerely held religious beliefs of their members may adopt a nondiscrimination statement that is consistent with those beliefs.” However, such religious organizations “must comply with the University's EEO policy in all other respects."

“Christian Legal Society and other campus faith movements are thankful that Washburn’s leadership has recognized their right to retain their distinctively religious character in leader and member selection and in sharing their message to the broader university community,” said CLS Center Chief Litigation Counsel Steven H. Aden. “Washburn’s thoughtful approach to this controversy, and its respectful and expeditious decision to affirm the First Amendment rights of its religious students, should be applauded and held up as an example to other universities who are likewise seeking to balance equality for all students with true religious diversity.”

The Christian Legal Society, founded in 1961, is the national membership organization of Christian attorneys, judges, law professors and law students, as well as supportive laypeople in all fifty states. They are organized in more than 1100 cities into attorney chapters, law student chapters, and fellowships throughout the United States.

What are your thoughts? Should student groups be allowed to exclude as members and/or leaders students who don't share the expressive purposes of the organization? Or should all student groups be required to grant membership to all who apply for membership? May the NAACP exclude from membership applicants who hold racist beliefs, such as an applicant who is also a member of the KKK? How would it hurt the abilty of the NAACP to express its message of racial equality and tolerance if it was discovered that one of its discussion leaders was a member of the KKK? Would, say, Billy Graham be a convincing spokesman for the Student Atheists Society?