Any thoughts on this issue? The Indiana Free Exercise Clause
has been interpreted to require strict scrutiny, City Chapel Evangelical
Free Inc. v. City of South Bend, 744 N.E.2d 443 (Ind. 2001), though I
know of no cases that have dealt with the government's role as K-12
educator.
Factual question: Is travelling out of state necessary for the
religious observance? That is, could he have attended religious
services and remained in state, and thus not missed so much school? Did
the days missed include all the religous holiday, or were there are also
travel days or
The complete news story indicates that students do get one excused day of
religious observance; this student had already taken it.
Christine Corcos
Associate Professor of Law
Faculty Graduate Studies Program Supervisor
Paul M. Hebert Law Center, Louisiana State University
Associate Professor,
Not knowing the facts of the situation w/r to travel distance is also
problematic. For example my community here in the UP of Michigan is 5
hours away from a coservative or Orthodox synagogue (which also happens
to be in another state). To ask a family in such a situation to start
observances
I'm surely no expert on the United Church of God; but according
to http://www.ucg.org/booklets/UC/feasttabernacles.htm, it seems that
this is an 8-day event, and it does take place away from most people's
homes: The highlight of each year for members of the United Church of
God is the
True enough, but I wonder if this is something the school can
accommodate or should have to; imagine your hypothetical family decides
that it must travel every weekend to attend services five hours away,
and must arrive at least a few hours before sundown; so, starting in
October and running
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
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
But then where does the court draw the line? 8 days? 14? 20? What is the least restrictive alternative to requiring attendance? They aren't home schooling-- they are asking to be exempted from truly generally applicable neutral rules.
Steve
On Tuesday, November 23, 2004, at 06:57 PM, Volokh,
Title: Message
I sympathize with Steve's arguments. They
are in fact good arguments against strict scrutiny. But if the state
constitution has been interpreted as mandating strict scrutiny, then don't
courts have to draw such lines?
-Original Message-From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I am not altogether convinced that administrative convenience passes for
truly neutral rules.
What is the source of the fiction that 180 days makes the appropriate
length of school year.
Or that school must meet on only mondays through fridays.
Or that school during the fall-winter-spring
eliminates the pop quiz in all her classes on Friday?
Susanna Peters wrote:
The M-F schedule is likely an artifact of Sabbatarian habits (and
could be viewed as evidence of preference/accomodation for a majority
sect). Anyway, if strict scrutiny applies, would people agree that the
state seems
Quizzes are definitely a problem -- but they're also a problem
for students who take their one religious holiday that the school does
provide, as well as for students who are sick. Presumably the school
has some means of dealing with that, and the burden on the school seems
likely to be
One issue that has not been raised is this student's grades. If he can miss school without any impairment of his academic performance, then where is the compelling state interest? Frances Paterson
___
To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To
The examples we trot out show why courts try not to decide hypothetical
cases.
I am not a fan of Smith and I really think the state should be required
to accommodate reasonable requests. Just what constitutes a least
restrictive alternative does, of course, vary with the magnitude of
the
In theory at least education is more than just about grades; Consider if
this were an ABA accredited law school at a state university; many classes
have mandatory attendance requirements and students are failed or have their
grades lowered if they miss class. Imagine the law student who misses
Well, if that were the test, my kids could have attended the first day, come in for the tests, and played the rest of the time. As could about 15-20% of the students. If all we are concerned about is grades. But that is not the only learning going on in school, is it.
On Tuesday, November 23,
Eight days out of 180, that's less than the one sick day a month customary for many employed people. Yes, there is other learning that goes on in schools, but is that other learning (aside from that indicated by grades) so concentrated that missing this amount of school is likely to impair it
Ok. Shifting targets are harder to hit. Who is to decide when substantial impairment kicks in? What authority is there that that is the standard of evaluation? And why courts instead of elected officials?
And again, why should someone be allowed to skip school for a ceremony that is not needed
Putting aside the Indiana Free Exercise Clause, aren't there some
serious problems here under the ordinary federal Free Exercise Clause as
well?
As an initial matter, the principal claims that [s]tudents are
allowed [only] five days of excused absences per semester and that
20 matches
Mail list logo
