I agree that many kids may be offended by being
told that they're going to go to hell. Likewise, many older Christian kids
may be offended by being told that they're anti-Semites, or
homophobes.
There are, it seems to me, several questions in play
here:
(1) To what extent may school authorities suppress the
_expression_ of certain viewpoints, on the grounds that they are potentially
offensive to non-Christians, Christians, blacks, whites, men, women, relatives
of soldiers fighting in Vietnam, patriotic Americans, patriotic citizens of
other countries, and the like,
(2) To what extent may school authorities suppress (in
content-based ways) particular ways of expressing those viewpoints, while
still allowing the same views to be expressed in other ways -- for instance,
tell students that they may not just say "Jews will go to hell," "soldiers are
baby-killers," or "Fuck Bush," but may express the same views in softer
language.
(3) To what extent may school authorities suppress unwanted
one-to-one speech to students (e.g., "The Vietnam War is evil," said to a child
whose older brother was killed in the war, when the speaker knows the child
doesn't want to hear it) but still have to tolerate one-to-many speech, to
an audience that includes potentially willing listeners, that conveys the
same message.
(I set aside here content-neutral time, place, and manner
restrictions, and restrictions on what may be said in school-run
publications.)
The current doctrine's answer is:
1 is allowed when and only when there is
evidence that fights are likely to break out over this sort of thing;
the test is thus supposed to be predictive (are kids likely to be offended
enough to start a fight?) rather than normative.
2 is more broadly allowed at least as to vulgarities expressing
nonpolitical messages (Fraser); it's not clear to what extent it's allowed
as to offensive ideological symbols and phrases.
As to 3, the Court has never spoken, though even outside the
school there seems to be somewhat more latitude for this (see, e.g., Rowan v.
Post Office Dep't).
It seems to me there are plenty of arguments for revising any of
these doctrines -- for instance, perhaps Justice Black was right in his Tinker
dissent, and schools should be given plenary authority here (especially since
even in Tinker itself there was some evidence of disruption in the sense of
offense and distraction). But it's important to recognize, it
seems to me, that any such revisions would allow schools to bar a
great deal more speech than just proselytizing (whether polite or
rude).
Eugene
-----Original Message-----Rick has a very nice and neat notin of how "offering the gospel" works that has nothign to do with the reality of public schools wher echildren tell others they wil lgo to hell. That, in my book, is indeed a form of "hate speech." My daughter has been told on more than one occasion that she must change her fairh or she will go to hell. Offering the gospel is one thing; even saying "why not come to my church and see what we do" is fine; but school children are not nearly as sophisticated as Rick.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Finkelman
Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2005 8:06 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: FYI: An Interesting "See You at the Pole" Case
Paul
Rick Duncan wrote:
I have tried to explain before that the Christian Gospel does not teach that people go to Hell because they are Jews (or Hindus or Baptists or any other religious tradition). Nor is the message that Jews (etc) are not "good enough" because they are Jews (etc.).The idea is that everyone sins (and thus no one is good enough) and that salvation is possible only by a Supreme act of mercy and grace.("For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." and "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." Romans 6:23 and 3:23).The law is clear that public school students do not shed their free speech rights at the public schoolhouse door. They have a clear right to engage in non-disruptive speech. Discussing the doctrine of salvation by faith is not hate speech. It is quite the opposite. That's why John 3:16 says "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."Indeed, to use Paul's own logic, for him to call the central beliefs of evangelical Christians hate speech (and to compare them to the KKK) is to suggest that they "are not good enough," and to suggest that government officials should punish Christian schoolchildren for talking about salvation by faith is anti-Christian hate speech (to demand that they be punished for peaceful _expression_ of their deepest religious beliefs).Proselytizing, as Mike McConnell argued brilliantly in Rosenberger, is just a dirty word for persuasion, and persuasion is at the heart of the Free Speech Clause. Christian students have as much right to proselytize their beliefs as other students have to proselytize theirs.Paul can call love hate if he wants, but the doctrines I quoted above are not hateful and students have a perfect right to express them in the schools. The public school monopoly has the power to force children who can't afford to attend private schools into the public system, but the First Amendment protects their right to be who they are and to express the beliefs that make them who they are in the schools, so long as they do so in a peaceful and non-disruptive manner.I close with a brief personal narrative. When I visited Salt Lake City a few years ago, I was proselytized by young Mormon missionaries/tour guides about their faith. I did not feel hated or disrespected because they thought my faith was not "good enough." I felt flattered because they cared enoungh about me, a stranger, to share their beliefs with me. I didn't convert, because I wasn't convinced. But it never even occurred to me to file a "hate crimes" report merely because these young women told me about their faith. Indeed, this encounter is one of my warmest memories of my trip to Utah.Paul's anger about the religious _expression_ of children makes so sense at all to me.I would take this one step further; blatant proselytizing creates a hostile atmosphere for those whose religions are being denounced and belittled. When a Christian tries to convert a Jew, the Christian is in effect telling the Jew he/she is not "good enough" and that they are going to go to hell. This is not behavior that should tolerated in public schools. Schools are not places where people are free to always express their opinions, views, goals, desires, etc. Simply time, place, manner restrictions allows school to prohibit student speech which is harmful to other students; racist speech is banned; so too should anti-semitic speech be banned. Tell a Jew she is going to go to hell is clearly anti-semitic; so too is telling some you he has the wrong religion, or a bad religion. Why Rick think such behavior is tolerable is beyond me. He a! rgues that if we make evangelical kids go to school, we have to expect they will behave in ways that are offencise to others who are not Christians or not evangelicals. So, I wonder, would he hold the same standard for the KKK? If we forced children of KKK members (or Aryan nation members) to go to public school, should we sit back and say they too can say things which are hateful towards minorities?
Paul Finkelman
Joel Sogol wrote:
I don’t think I even implied that Rick approved of the conduct – only that he views it as part of the larger price Jews must pay for sending our children to public schools. Having reread some of his posts, I still read it that way. I don’t agree. I think the schools can, and must, protect my children from the type of conduct (proselytizing) he seems to feel is protected. And I think that is what I said.
Joel L. Sogol
Attorney at Law
811 21st Avenue
Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35401
ph (205) 345-0966
fx (205) 345-0971
Ben Franklin observed that truth wins a fair fight -- which is why we have evidence rules in U.S. courts.
-----Original Message-----
-- Paul Finkelman Chapman Distinguished Professor of Law University of Tulsa College of Law 3120 East 4th Place Tulsa, OK 74104-3189 918-631-3706 (office) 918-631-2194 (fax) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
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.
Rick Duncan
Welpton Professor of Law
University of Nebraska College of Law
Lincoln, NE 68583-0902
"When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or Mordred: middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle
"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered." --The Prisoner
Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu 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.-- Paul Finkelman Chapman Distinguished Professor of Law University of Tulsa College of Law 3120 East 4th Place Tulsa, OK 74104-3189 918-631-3706 (office) 918-631-2194 (fax) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu 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.
