Re: "Religious diversity" as a compelling interest for discrimination in universities?

Good points, as usual, from Eugene. I have no qualms with them. On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 9:27 PM, Volokh, Eugene wrote: >Again, I wonder whether sex-separate swimming really > “screams inconsistent with every case on the books.” Consider, for > instance,

RE: "Religious diversity" as a compelling interest for discrimination in universities?

Again, I wonder whether sex-separate swimming really “screams inconsistent with every case on the books.” Consider, for instance, United States v. Virginia, where Justice Ginsburg’s majority opinion stated that “Admitting women to VMI would undoubtedly require alterations

Re: "Religious diversity" as a compelling interest for discrimination in universities?

More than fair; I think I more meant the pool context than the university context. Separately, this is an interesting parallel to racism. The Court correctly determined with respect to race that separate but equal is awful. In the religious context, for some faiths, can separation be what

"Religious diversity" as a compelling interest for discrimination in universities?

So that universities could give admission preferences to, say, evangelical Christians, if they conclude that they are underrepresented among students or on the faculty? To the more devout of all faiths, if it thinks they are underrepresented? I think race-based admissions

RE: thoughts on constitutionality of single-sex hours for public pool?

Government interests in people going to the pool are at least of some importance. Pool time helps people learn to swim, which can prevent drownings; further pool time helps them improve their swimming, which can further help prevent drownings (and help people become strong

Re: thoughts on constitutionality of single-sex hours for public pool?

I have thought about these issues a little bit over the years, because a similar program is in place at Wayne State, where I teach. (Wayne State is a public university.) The gym here has a "women's only" area, removed from the main part of the gym. Now there are many women's gyms out there,

RE: thoughts on constitutionality of single-sex hours for public pool?

There are three issues here, I think. One is whether this is properly seen as a form of religious accommodation; I think Alan is quite right that it is. Just to give an example, say that a city-run basketball league at a city-run rec center had a uniform that some religious

Re: thoughts on constitutionality of single-sex hours for public pool?

I strongly suspect Alan's Adventist basketball team example involves discrimination, because no games were scheduled on Sunday. The discrimination is the burden from which relief is deserved. Religious diversity in higher education might well be a compelling interest, so CUNY might want to

Re: thoughts on constitutionality of single-sex hours for public pool?

I think it is both reasonable and valid to accommodate religious groups whose members would be unable to enjoy benefits that the majority enjoys because of conflicts with a minority faiths beliefs. No one has to attend the prom or go on discretionary field trips or play in intra mural sports.

Re: thoughts on constitutionality of single-sex hours for public pool?

It is one thing to say religious minorities have no right to shape the law so public facilities match their religious sentiments. It is another thing to suggest that our constitution requires public facilities to not serve religious minorities. Is not encouraging religious diversity a compelling

Re: thoughts on constitutionality of single-sex hours for public pool?

Paul is raising, among other questions, an entirely appropriate baseline question -- how do sexually integrated public pools burden anyone's religious freedom? No one is coerced to use them. The pools are a constitutionally gratuitous benefit, offered on conventional conditions of no sex

RE: thoughts on constitutionality of single-sex hours for public pool?

I think Prof. Finkelman and I might be talking past each other here, but I’d love to hear what others think. Eugene From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Paul Finkelman Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2016 5:37

RE: thoughts on constitutionality of single-sex hours for public pool?

I’m not at all sure that this form of sex classification is constitutional. But, as is often the case with analogies between single-sex and single-race, I don’t think the simple sex/race analogy is helpful here. I take it that few of us would think that single-sex

thoughts on constitutionality of single-sex hours for public pool?

permissible accommodation? http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/01/opinion/everybody-into-the-pool.html ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see