RE: Student reprimanded for religious absences

[Volokh, Eugene]

Title: Message

    I'm puzzled by how this argument would be reconciled with traditional strict scrutiny analysis, which is what the Indiana Constitution seems to call for.  Is it really the case that expelling students for missing 8 days of school is *necessary* to accomplish the compelling state interest in providing an adequate education to students?  The case for accommodation here seems much stronger than, say, in Wisconsin v. Yoder (though I realize that there are distinctions between the two cases).

 

    Or is the argument that strict scrutiny should not apply in K-12 education?

 

    Eugene

-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steven Jamar
Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 3:53 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Student reprimanded for religious absences

Surely education is a compelling state interest and requiring attendance as a part of that and setting an attendance policy is within the discretion of the school board. This is a decision not for the courts.

At some point there needs to be some accommodation. But it cannot be an accommodation that requires missing a full week of school each year.

Should the school district amend its rules and provide greater accommodation for students of various religious backgrounds? Surely. Should courts step in and make it a matter of constitutional right? I would tread that ground very, very cautiously.

 

_______________________________________________
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

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.