Is That Legal?

A Saturday this year. Maybe a halftime show?

It Should go over well at Yeshiva U. It will also hit high holidays from time to time.

Well, the statute doesn't require it be a "celebration," and it doesn't seem like such a bad idea.

But where does this stop? is the problem. We may end up with a veritable saints' calendar of federally mandated "educate on X" days.

Hey, if the Fed picks up the tab, I don't know how you can get upset when they want to be in charge of ordering the wine and appetizers too.

Besides, it's only mandating that you create a limited purpose public forum. It’s not dictating what you have to say in the forum, only the topics to be covered. I’m sure you can find some group to come in and crap all over the framers and the Constitution and the U.S., or to steadfastly to refuse to acknowledge the flaws of the U.S. (or the Confederacy) or whatever else opinions you’d like to see represented, assenting or dissenting, or covered in chocolate and a red white & blue bikini and writhing on the floor. (You'd probably need an NEA grant for that, however).

Your suggestion sounds great. Eric, there's absolutely nothing I'd love to hear more than you holding forth on the importance of Federalism in education matters... perhaps Justice Scalia has a songbook on this topic... ;-)

I don’t see how this is any worse than a state specified educational curriculum, except for the fact that there is less local democratic control over the fed, than over any given state government. In a way, I actually think it’s less invidious, since those textbooks your kids read technically come from a state-approved reading list. Now *that* actually is controlling the content of what is taught.

Tell me though, would you be as bummed if it was a Kerry Administration, and the statutory requirement was to teach a day's worth of history focused on tolerance, and human rights abuses (such as the internment and the holocaust and Boer War concentration camps) throughout history?

Eric, Why is it a surprise that money received from any source might have conditions attached to it? I don't think one would see this reaction outside of academia. If the people of NC found this terribly offensive, I suppose they could choose to forego taking the Federal government money.

Better yet, get the federal government money out of education entirely. There's little reason for the feds to lavish money on tenure-controlled universities, anyway. Not really a federal issue.

Al, I would think that curriculum, if it were mandatory, a bad idea.

Al Maviva: what makes you think that the Congress which wrote the original mandate is going to sit still if faculty use (or are percieved to use; cf. David Horowitz) the events as platforms for critical comments on US politics or policies?

Mandatory? Yes, in the sense that it's mandatory for me to show up to work every day. If I don't take my employer's money, he has no power to mandate anything to me.

Don't like the statute? I'm sorry, did I miss the law that makes it mandatory for Chapel Hill to accept Federal funds?

Because they've done a pretty poor job of policing all the other federally funded politically oriented speech at UNC and a couple thousand other institutions so far, Jonathan.

What makes you think UNC is on Congress' radar screen?

And maybe I missed something. Isn't Con Law itself a federally funded (at least in part) commentary, which is often politically charged?

They can't even be bothered to enforce the Solomon Amendment, which they passed with much fanfare. Honestly, what makes you think that this would rate any comment, outside the media pundits?

Now you omit any discussion of the Constitution on the other 364 days of the year. The burden of being a con law prof (and trying to get excited about the carolene products footnote and all that jazz) has been lifted!

Since Byrd was involved in passing this statute (the former Klansman), the 3/5ths Compromise might be one of the subjects meriting some discussion.