Steve Smith's article Barnette's Big Blunder (78 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 625
(2003)) directly addresses this question and argues pretty convincingly, as
I remember, that the passage quoted below is misguided if it is read
precisely as written. The government decide[s] what shall be orthodox in
In a message dated 9/11/2004 2:09:56 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The
government "decide[s] what shall be orthodox inpolitics" all the
time, in the sense of advancing policies and attempting toconvince the
public that they are right.
Although, I haven't
Title: Message
This is of course a
judgment call, but my sense is that many public condemnations of racism are
indeed attempts to establish racial tolerance as "canonical belief that is not
subject to challenge" (at least by reasonable, decent people who are good
Americans). The same is
In a message dated 9/11/2004 11:22:52 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yet it seems to me that government statements --
whether by the President, by Congress, by a university dean, by a government
employer, by a public K-12 school, or whoever else -- harshly
Maybe Steve Smith is right that the conjunction in the famous
sentence in Barnette should have been "and." Or maybe Justice Jackson
thought "prescribe" carried a sense of "require adherence to." But it
is clear that what he meant was that the state could not require
participation in the
I guess that Eugene has already offered my response to Professor Lipkin. It
seems to me that there are many instances in which the government or
government officials advocate political views with great force and suggest
that those who disagree are fundamentally misguided, or missing the basic
Right, my mistake -- the word in the first part of the Barnette sentence is
not declare, but prescribe, which can suggest the government forbidding
criticism of the view. More so when put together with orthodox in the
sentence, as Professor Lipkin argues; so I take his point on that score.
I do
