In Mark's hypo the philosophy departments, and the teachers who speak within it, are state actors. The question, then, is not whether exclusion of a certain viewpoint from "faculty speech" would violate the free speech clause (the clause that UVa was held to have violated in Rosenberger); presumably it wouldn't, because the free speech clause does not restrict the state itself from expressing any views it wishes. The question, then, is whether the university would violate the *Establishment* Clause by *permitting* a faculty member to teach "Ethics from a Christian/Roman Catholic Point of View" -- and, for that matter, for permitting teachers more broadly to "present their own views about what general approach to ethics," including "ultimate issues of life," are "correct/most defensible." > I'd like to suggest a slight variant on the issues opened up by the > discussion of invited speakers. Consider the philosophy department in a > public university. It offers a number of courses in ethics, in which > teachers survey the field and -- importantly for the problem -- present > their own views about what general approach to ethics (utilitarianism, > Kantianism, and the like) is correct/most defensible. Many of these > courses spend a substantial amount of time on "ultimate issues" of life > (of a sort that addressed -- in a different way -- in theology > departments in religiously affiliated universities). [I invite people > to tinker with the set-up in ways that make the following question more > pointed.] Under Rosenberger, is the department violating the > Constitution if it rejects a course proposal by a fully qualified > instructor (Ph. D. in philosophy, with a specialization in ethics, and > an advanced theological degree relevant to the course proposal) to offer
> a course (on the same terms as the other ethics courses are offered -- > as an elective if they are, as a course that fulfills a departmental > requirement if they do) in (not "on") Christian ethics, or Roman > Catholic ethics, or "Ethics from a Christian/Roman Catholic Point of > View," or ... -- when the rejection is on the ground that the > perspective proposed is not within the department's definition of > "philosophy"? > > _______________________________________________ > To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see > http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw _______________________________________________ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
