I'm traveling and couldn't reply to people who followed up
by sorin69 (2024-01-03 20:36:29)

In reply to: There is a real challenge on point 3  posted by fontoknow


on my initial post. I do apologize for the firewall. But Kbyrnes helped enormously by filling in background on the Kalven report (I also welcome his invocation of the revered figure of Frank O'Malley, on whom I have written -- in the Back Room I think).

Yes, defining what's settled and therefore inadmissible isn't self-evident. I've done some teaching on issues related to the First Amendment's religion clauses (free exercise, no establishment), and it's still very much a fraught area: religious liberty issues are a favorite way for conservatives to maintain a toehold in the public square. And they often have a good case. I don't have the material in front of me at the moment, but a good example of what the law at least regarded as settled is the case involving Bob Jones University's prohibition against interracial dating (this goes back to the l983 Supreme Court case in which BJU lost its tax exempt status because the Court ruled that the government had an overriding interest in ending discrimination in higher education and that the free exercise clause did not obtain). In that limited sphere, the issue is legally settled. The question can naturally be asked whether by analogy a school that forbade same-sex marriage would also end up becoming sanctioned.