Re: Pamphlets in schools
Apologize for sending what I thought was a private message to the general list. I am truly sorry if anyone was offended. MAG [EMAIL PROTECTED] 11/08/04 09:11PM Well said, and the interesting feature of my example was that everyoneagreed (myself included) that Christians against Christ was undulyoffensive.MAG [EMAIL PROTECTED] 11/08/04 5:45 PM I apologize for this being a late submission on this topic, but I wasout of town all weekend.I would like to offer a few responses to some of the many points thathave been raised in this thread -- hopefully without being redundant.1. Finding the right term. I used harassment. Marty writes about discrimination. Neither one quite fits. I thought about using the term "impingement," to convey the idea that what is problematic here may notbe accurately reflected by more conventional terms of art, but I wasn'tsure that would be helpful. Tinker does talk about impinging the rights ofother students as a legitimate basis for school authorities restrictingspeech, in addition to the more widely quoted language allowing schoolauthorities to restrict disruptive speech.I don't think that this reference in Tinker is meaningless nor do I see anything in Tinker that suggests that it is limited to speech thatimplies threats of physical violence. Giving meaning to this idea may not beeasy, but I think it's use in Tinker and other cases suggests that the Court recognizes that speech in the public school context may be restrictedfor reasons that would not apply in other situations.I think schools have substantial authority to regulate discourse among students under this rubric. They can insist on civility incommunication, prohibit bullying (psychological, as well as physical), restrict sexual references -- to suggest just a few permissible, content-basedrestrictions.2. Chip Lupu asks whether targeting should make a difference. I'msurprised by the question. Whether one uses the language of harassment or impingement, targeting increases the harm to victims of unwanted speechand restricting unwanted communications to targeted individuals imposes lessof a burden on free speech interests than a broader curtailment of public discourse. Mark Scarberry's comments are helpful here.Do list members think it would be permissible to place sheets of paperwith the word "JEW" on the desks of each Jewish student?3. Targeting alone does not demonstrate impingement or justify the regulation of speech. Other factors that may be relevant to whetherspeech may be restricted in a school context include repetition, whether the targeted speech is organized (and whether it is orchestrated by adults),anonymity of the speaker, how and where the speech is communicated, theage of the children, the number of students in the targeted group, thelanguage used in the pamphlets, etc. There is a difference between a student inviting a student of a different religion to talk about theirrespective faiths for the purpose of promoting one's own religion and an organized campaign targeting children of a particular faith.4. Marty is correct, of course, that part of the problem here is the extraordinarily different perspectives that list members have regardingthe nature of this kind of communication (advocating religious conversion)when it is directed at children. (It is important to understand here that theissue is not about religious proselytizing or attempts to convert adult individuals to other faiths. It is about conversion efforts directed at children.)Most Jewish parents experience attempts to convert their children as assaults on their families that are completely beyond the pale of acceptable conduct. Religion is different than politics, not onlybecause of the role that it plays in an individual's identity, but because ofits significance in family life. Religion is part of the glue that bonds families together. It is the basis for a range of shared experiences.For a family in which religion plays some significant role, the conversion ofa child to a different faith tears that family's life apart. Thus, what Eugene describes as a "simple attempt to convert children", I would translate in several different ways. One would be "an attempt to destroythe integrity of Jewish families and to disrupt the relationship betweenmothers and fathers and their children."If a Jewish family was considering moving into a community and was toldby neighbors, "This is a seriously Christian community. If you move here,you should recognize that many of your neighbors will target your childrenfor conversion at school," I could characterize that announcement in avariety of ways -- but welcoming would not be one of them.I realize that some Christians feel religiously compelled to engage in these kinds of conversion activities. Thus, we have a situation in whichsome people in a community feel religiously compelled to directexpressive activities at the children of other
RE: Pamphlets in schools
In discussing this matter further with my client, he reported (of course without having asked first) suggesting to the school district that it should engage in an effort to explain to students why targeted leafleting of the sort we have been discussing is objectionable to some students. Is that permissible? Desirable? Subject the school to suit? Marc Stern From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Graber Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 8:17 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Pamphlets in schools Apologize for sending what I thought was a private message to the general list. I am truly sorry if anyone was offended. MAG [EMAIL PROTECTED] 11/08/04 09:11PM Well said, and the interesting feature of my example was that everyone agreed (myself included) that Christians against Christ was unduly offensive. MAG [EMAIL PROTECTED] 11/08/04 5:45 PM I apologize for this being a late submission on this topic, but I was out of town all weekend. I would like to offer a few responses to some of the many points that have been raised in this thread -- hopefully without being redundant. 1. Finding the right term. I used harassment. Marty writes about discrimination. Neither one quite fits. I thought about using the term impingement, to convey the idea that what is problematic here may not be accurately reflected by more conventional terms of art, but I wasn't sure that would be helpful. Tinker does talk about impinging the rights of other students as a legitimate basis for school authorities restricting speech, in addition to the more widely quoted language allowing school authorities to restrict disruptive speech. I don't think that this reference in Tinker is meaningless nor do I see anything in Tinker that suggests that it is limited to speech that implies threats of physical violence. Giving meaning to this idea may not be easy, but I think it's use in Tinker and other cases suggests that the Court recognizes that speech in the public school context may be restricted for reasons that would not apply in other situations. I think schools have substantial authority to regulate discourse among students under this rubric. They can insist on civility in communication, prohibit bullying (psychological, as well as physical), restrict sexual references -- to suggest just a few permissible, content-based restrictions. 2. Chip Lupu asks whether targeting should make a difference. I'm surprised by the question. Whether one uses the language of harassment or impingement, targeting increases the harm to victims of unwanted speech and restricting unwanted communications to targeted individuals imposes less of a burden on free speech interests than a broader curtailment of public discourse. Mark Scarberry's comments are helpful here. Do list members think it would be permissible to place sheets of paper with the word JEW on the desks of each Jewish student? 3. Targeting alone does not demonstrate impingement or justify the regulation of speech. Other factors that may be relevant to whether speech may be restricted in a school context include repetition, whether the targeted speech is organized (and whether it is orchestrated by adults), anonymity of the speaker, how and where the speech is communicated, the age of the children, the number of students in the targeted group, the language used in the pamphlets, etc. There is a difference between a student inviting a student of a different religion to talk about their respective faiths for the purpose of promoting one's own religion and an organized campaign targeting children of a particular faith. 4. Marty is correct, of course, that part of the problem here is the extraordinarily different perspectives that list members have regarding the nature of this kind of communication (advocating religious conversion) when it is directed at children. (It is important to understand here that the issue is not about religious proselytizing or attempts to convert adult individuals to other faiths. It is about conversion efforts directed at children.) Most Jewish parents experience attempts to convert their children as assaults on their families that are completely beyond the pale of acceptable conduct. Religion is different than politics, not only because of the role that it plays in an individual's identity, but because of its significance in family life. Religion is part of the glue that bonds families together. It is the basis for a range of shared experiences. For a family in which religion plays some significant role, the conversion of a child to a different faith tears that family's life apart. Thus, what Eugene describes as a simple attempt to convert children, I would translate in several different ways. One would be an attempt to destroy the integrity of Jewish families and to disrupt the relationship between mothers and fathers and their children
Re: Pamphlets in schools
Surely explaining why some students find it objectionable is ok -- teaching tolerance and understanding cannot be wrong. But there would be a line somewhere when the explanation becomes instruction not to do it at all that might be a problem. Steve On Tuesday, November 9, 2004, at 09:39 AM, marc stern wrote: In discussing this matter further with my client, he reported (of course without having asked first) suggesting to the school district that it should engage in an effort to explain to students why targeted leafleting of the sort we have been discussing is objectionable to some students. Is that permissible? Desirable? Subject the school to suit? Marc Stern Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017 Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-8428 2900 Van Ness Street NW mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Washington, DC 20008 http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamar Nothing worth doing is completed in our lifetime, Therefore, we are saved by hope. Nothing true or beautiful or good makes complete sense in any immediate context of history; Therefore, we are saved by faith. Nothing we do, however virtuous, can be accomplished alone. Therefore, we are saved by love. No virtuous act is quite a virtuous from the standpoint of our friend or foe as from our own; Therefore, we are saved by the final form of love which is forgiveness. Reinhold Neibuhr ___ 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.
RE: Pamphlets in schools
With respect, I'm not sure I understand Eugene's hypothetical or how it responds to my post. I recognize (from years of prior posts) that Eugene and I disagree about the distinctive nature of religion in individual identity and family life (I think religion is more distinctive than he does), but that by itself does not account for the differences between his hypo and my analysis. I'm not sure whether anyone is being targeted in his hypothetical. Certainly, members of a suspect class are not being singled out. Nor is it clear to me how criticism of the Viet Nam war disrupts the ability of family members to participate together in things like (or analogous to) regular worship services, holiday celebrations, life cycle events, the performance of rituals, and other aspects of religiously-based family life. Lots of expression in public schools might offend Jewish families. Only certain kinds of expressive activities create the risk of disrupting the family. I can think of some analogies that seem more on point (at least to me) than the one Eugene suggests. But because I believe religion is unique, none of them are exactly on point and they only become more on point to the extent that they involve religion. The daughters of devout Catholic and Evangelical Christian families could be targeted by pamphlets urging them to engage in sexual activities and to have an abortion if they became pregnant. Depending on state law, the result urged here might well be lawful, but I would have no hesitancy in supporting a school administration's decision to intervene and restrict such communications. Targeting siblings or children of members of the military engaged in the War in Iraq and urging them not to participate in family activities with their sibling/parent when their murderer relative returns home from the war might be another example. Again, I would allow school authorities to intervene. I assume Eugene would permit such activities and would argue that school administration intervention is unconstitutional. If so, we basically disagree on the scope of school administration authority in these kinds of cases. Alan Brownstein UC Davis School of Law At 06:28 PM 11/8/2004 -0800, you wrote: Well, Alan is asserting that Most Jewish parents experience attempts to convert their children as assaults on their families that are completely beyond the pale of acceptable conduct -- which is to say that expression of certain viewpoints, aimed at getting certain entirely lawful results, is unacceptable. Other people naturally think the opposite. How should First Amendment law deal with this hostility by some people (perhaps an understandable hostility) against a particular viewpoint, where the viewpoint is being expressed in high school? Would it matter if one were to find that Some parents of soldiers fighting in Vietnam experience attempts to condemn the war in which their children are risking their lives as assaults on their families that are completely beyond the pale of acceptable conduct? Is the difference empirical, in that some people may think the latter proposition is not correct? Normative, in that the first viewpoint is reasonable and worth deferring to, while the latter viewpoint is not? Eugene -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Graber Sent: Monday, November 08, 2004 6:11 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Pamphlets in schools Well said, and the interesting feature of my example was that everyone agreed (myself included) that Christians against Christ was unduly offensive. MAG [EMAIL PROTECTED] 11/08/04 5:45 PM I apologize for this being a late submission on this topic, but I was out of town all weekend. I would like to offer a few responses to some of the many points that have been raised in this thread -- hopefully without being redundant. 1. Finding the right term. I used harassment. Marty writes about discrimination. Neither one quite fits. I thought about using the term impingement, to convey the idea that what is problematic here may not be accurately reflected by more conventional terms of art, but I wasn't sure that would be helpful. Tinker does talk about impinging the rights of other students as a legitimate basis for school authorities restricting speech, in addition to the more widely quoted language allowing school authorities to restrict disruptive speech. I don't think that this reference in Tinker is meaningless nor do I see anything in Tinker that suggests that it is limited to speech that implies threats of physical violence. Giving meaning to this idea may not be easy, but I think it's use in Tinker and other cases suggests that the Court recognizes that speech in the public school context may be restricted for reasons that would not apply in other situations. I think schools have substantial authority to regulate discourse
RE: Pamphlets in schools
Well, Alan is asserting that Most Jewish parents experience attempts to convert their children as assaults on their families that are completely beyond the pale of acceptable conduct -- which is to say that expression of certain viewpoints, aimed at getting certain entirely lawful results, is unacceptable. Other people naturally think the opposite. How should First Amendment law deal with this hostility by some people (perhaps an understandable hostility) against a particular viewpoint, where the viewpoint is being expressed in high school? Would it matter if one were to find that Some parents of soldiers fighting in Vietnam experience attempts to condemn the war in which their children are risking their lives as assaults on their families that are completely beyond the pale of acceptable conduct? Is the difference empirical, in that some people may think the latter proposition is not correct? Normative, in that the first viewpoint is reasonable and worth deferring to, while the latter viewpoint is not? Eugene -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Graber Sent: Monday, November 08, 2004 6:11 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Pamphlets in schools Well said, and the interesting feature of my example was that everyone agreed (myself included) that Christians against Christ was unduly offensive. MAG [EMAIL PROTECTED] 11/08/04 5:45 PM I apologize for this being a late submission on this topic, but I was out of town all weekend. I would like to offer a few responses to some of the many points that have been raised in this thread -- hopefully without being redundant. 1. Finding the right term. I used harassment. Marty writes about discrimination. Neither one quite fits. I thought about using the term impingement, to convey the idea that what is problematic here may not be accurately reflected by more conventional terms of art, but I wasn't sure that would be helpful. Tinker does talk about impinging the rights of other students as a legitimate basis for school authorities restricting speech, in addition to the more widely quoted language allowing school authorities to restrict disruptive speech. I don't think that this reference in Tinker is meaningless nor do I see anything in Tinker that suggests that it is limited to speech that implies threats of physical violence. Giving meaning to this idea may not be easy, but I think it's use in Tinker and other cases suggests that the Court recognizes that speech in the public school context may be restricted for reasons that would not apply in other situations. I think schools have substantial authority to regulate discourse among students under this rubric. They can insist on civility in communication, prohibit bullying (psychological, as well as physical), restrict sexual references -- to suggest just a few permissible, content-based restrictions. 2. Chip Lupu asks whether targeting should make a difference. I'm surprised by the question. Whether one uses the language of harassment or impingement, targeting increases the harm to victims of unwanted speech and restricting unwanted communications to targeted individuals imposes less of a burden on free speech interests than a broader curtailment of public discourse. Mark Scarberry's comments are helpful here. Do list members think it would be permissible to place sheets of paper with the word JEW on the desks of each Jewish student? 3. Targeting alone does not demonstrate impingement or justify the regulation of speech. Other factors that may be relevant to whether speech may be restricted in a school context include repetition, whether the targeted speech is organized (and whether it is orchestrated by adults), anonymity of the speaker, how and where the speech is communicated, the age of the children, the number of students in the targeted group, the language used in the pamphlets, etc. There is a difference between a student inviting a student of a different religion to talk about their respective faiths for the purpose of promoting one's own religion and an organized campaign targeting children of a particular faith. 4. Marty is correct, of course, that part of the problem here is the extraordinarily different perspectives that list members have regarding the nature of this kind of communication (advocating religious conversion) when it is directed at children. (It is important to understand here that the issue is not about religious proselytizing or attempts to convert adult individuals to other faiths. It is about conversion efforts directed at children.) Most Jewish parents experience attempts to convert their children as assaults on their families that are completely beyond the pale of acceptable conduct. Religion
