May public college officials deny use of campus facilities to religious groups

May public college officials deny use of campus

This preview shows page 6 - 8 out of 14 pages.

18. May public college officials deny use of campus facilities to religious groups for Bible study and prayer meetings?No. see # 1919. What did the Court rule in the 1981 University of Missouri (Kansas City) case?Ruled in Widmar v. Vincent, against college officials who denied use of campus facilities to a student religious group at U of Miss. College students are unlikely to be influenced by these activities. If the univ. permits other groups to use facilities it would be discriminatory to single out religious groups for exclusion.20. What did the Court rule in the 2001 case, Good News Club. et al. v. Milford, N.Y., Central School?It held 6-3 that Milford had violated the club’s free speech rights when it excluded the group from meeting after hours at the school. In denying access to the school’s limited public forum because the Good news Club was religious in nature, Milford discriminated against the group because of its viewpoint, which violated the free speech clause. 21. What did the Court rule in the Arkansas “Evolution vs. Creationism” debate (McLean v. Arkansas)?22. What did the Supreme Court rule in the four Sunday closing law cases of 1961?Sunday Closing laws. 4 cases. Braunfeld v. Brown Orthodox Jews. Other 2 cases were stores that wanted to be open 7 days a week. But the courts rule that it was an effective way to achieve a valid state objective of giving citizens a day of rest, that they were not unconstitutional. Then it was modified in 1961 with Unemployment Claims. (pg. 8)23. One of the most controversial areas is that of “parochiaid,” or state aid of various types to parochial schools. What three-part test did the Supreme Court devise in Lemon v. Kurtzman? (1.) The Statute must have a secular, rather than religious purpose.(2.) The law must be neutral. It may neither advance nor inhibit religion.(3.) Government must avoid “excessive entanglement” with religion. This, as noted, was the test that the 6
Pennsylvania and Rhode Island laws failed.24. What was the fate of the law, challenged in Lemon, authorizing partial payment (secular subjects only) of teachers’ salaries in parochial schools?The court invalidated laws subsidizing teacher salaries in church-connected schools. Although limited to those teaching “secular subjects” the court nonetheless held that such laws constituted direct aid to religion and were therefore unconstitutional. 8-1.

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture