Val asked today why J. Stevens concurred rather than dissented in Widmar. The answer I gave (which had to do with subject matter, as opposed to viewpoint, restrictions in designated fora) was close, but not right. Here's the crucial missing part of the concurrence:

>>As I have said, I believe that the University may exercise a measure of control over the agenda for student use of school facilities, preferring some subjects over others, without needing to identify so-called "compelling state interests." Quite obviously, however, the University could not allow a group of Republicans or Presbyterians to meet while denying Democrats or Mormons the same privilege. 6 It seems apparent that the policy under attack would allow groups of young philosophers to meet to discuss their skepticism that a Supreme Being exists, or a group of political scientists to meet to debate the accuracy of the view that religion is the "opium of the people." If school facilities may be used to discuss anticlerical doctrine, it seems to me that comparable use by a group desiring to express a belief in God must also be permitted. The fact that their expression of faith includes ceremonial conduct is not, in my opinion, a sufficient reason for suppressing their discussion entirely.

Accordingly, although I do not endorse the Court's reasoning, I concur in its judgment.<<

Lately we have been covering materials and ideas I've never been comfortable covering in this depth in any L&R class before. While it may seem a bit overwhelming, I hope you will accept this coverage as the honor to you it is intended to be. You are a remarkable group and I'm so pleased that you will be lawyers.

Jack

First, your analysis of the problem in class was simply terrific.  It made me wonder who was teaching you this stuff because I'm not that good.  Congratulations on making lawyerly sense out of difficult materials.

Here are the final assignments.  In one way, we sort of ease into the end of the course because these cultural materials, while sure to generate discussions, are not conceptually or technically difficult:

November 4^th – 471- 483. Troy, Kathy, Leslie.

November 6^th – 483-510. Also Marsh and Wiseman Videos. Val, Will.

November 10^th – 510-546. Also Lynch and Van Orden Videos. Crystal, Rhonda, Lauren.

November 11^th – 546-560. Andy, Kas.

 

November 13^th – 561-574 and assigned law review article. Mary Sue, Phillip.

November 17^th – 622 - 634. Renee, Richard, Mary Beth.

November 18^th – 634-665. No team assigned.

 

December 1^st– Government Speech cond. No new assignment. Heather. Also, beginning exam preparation.

December 2^nd – Exam Preparation.

Please remember to view the video of Locke v. Davey in preparation of class tomorrow.  I will be extremely interested in hearing your comments on this.  First time I have used it and I want to see what it does to the discussion of the case.  Thanks.

Jack Sammons

Dear Law and Religion Student,

You are going to see a message for you regarding multi-media content for this course and you'll also see a new link to multi-media content on your law school portal. I'll tell you more about this in class today. Feel free, however, to try out any of the cases now and let me know what you think. You might want to start with Lee v. Weismann since you are so familiar with the facts. If you'd like to pursue any of these for any reason, I also have available full versions of most of the interviews. Those cannot be uploaded to our server, but you can check them out for twenty-four hours from the library.

Regards,

Jack Sammons

I forgot to mention in class today that your topics for the papers were due.  If you are doing a paper -- and I've already spoken with most who are -- please send me an e-mail with your topic and I'll get back to you right away.

This is, please remember, not a committment.  You can get started and back out at any time for any reason.

Jack Sammons

 

 

Law and Religion Students:  Associate Dean Johnson tells me that we may have too many students for the assigned classroom, Seminar E.  Until we find out the final enrollment number, however, it is best for us to remain in Seminar E.  I just wanted to warn you that it might be a tight fit on Tuesday.   Thanks and sorry for the inconvenience.   Jack Sammons 

Welcome to Law & Religion!  There is no reading assignment for our first class on August 25th.  I will describe the course and course rules to you and give you several recent examples of the types of issues we will be addressing.  See you next Tuesday.  Jack Sammons