Yom kippur is a nationally recognized holiday. Just because your teachers did that does not mean it is ok. If you went to public school in NJ I’m willing to bet it is against district policy and the association contract for sure. Nor does any of that speak to my questions
These are interesting questions. The First Amendment bars anyone from being compelled to speak a certain way. (The classic example is the Supreme Court's decision that no one can be punished for not reciting the Pledge of Allegiance) Are these compelled speech? The last two don't strike me as this -- cancelling classes so that students can attend or encouraging students to attend a protest -might lead students to attend a protest but don't make them do it or punish them not to do it.. The first two questions are closer: is attendance at a protest an endorsement of its cause? If it is, then it's forced speech -- but that's a big if. (In my experience, lots of students attend rallies to see what was going on but not necessarily to join in.) I once heard that Schiano (during 1.0) encouraged athletes to attend a rally (not about Israel) to learn more about the issue and be part of the larger campus community, but I don't know what his exact message was.
The New York City schools have long cancelled for Yom Kippur. The idea is that there will be so few students and teachers in attendance that it makes no sense to hold classes. The law school at Camden once cancelled for Yom Kippur -- the faculty is heavily Jewish but the student body and staff are not -- and was told by the central administration to *not* do that again.
I think the vast majority of P- University institutions recognize Yom Kippur as an observable holiday. This is very different from a political event. I will point out the most obvious difference is individuals are able to observe personally and privately and are not expected/encouraged to attend an event the professor or teacher is supporting. I point this out because my original questions have to do with infringements on the 1A rights of the student/family/taxpayer compared to the 1A right of the professor teacher.
"Expected/encouraged" (note that the two are not at all the same) is not compulsion. It would be quite different if, for instance, attending the protest would give a student points toward a higher grade or if a student not attending would have points taken off.
BTW, I don't know what you mean by "an observable holiday." The rule at Rutgers is that a student may not be disadvantaged by missing a class or an exam for religious observance. Thus an absence must be excused or a student allowed to make up an exam. That applies no matter what the religion. Indeed, it would be unconstitutional for Rutgers to differentiate among religions: to say, for instance, that observance of Christian or Jewish holidays is excused but that observance of Muslim holidays is not.
Nationally recognized holiday was the phrase I used. NJ DOE as well as many others consider this so. You need proof of this?
The phrase was in reference to recognized holidays. Yes, in reference to protecting against a disadvantage for observing. We fully agree all religions should be treated the same. This is different from political speech. In the least it will open the institution to the claim of 1A infringement when compelled.
I'm not sure I see a difference. Under the First Amendment, religions must all be treated the same, and political speech must all be treated the same. No one can be compelled to follow a religion, and no one can be compelled to follow any set of political beliefs.
We disagree here. If a professor moves a class to Sunday Catholic Church service, the non Catholics are compelled to observe. The same is true for political activities. I should be a little more specific. I see a campaign rally, protest, or encampment to be such but not attending a council meeting or congressional hearing. Take it a step further it is also forcing or compelling participation in a disruptive act which opens the door to legal issues.
We do disagree. If I go to a Catholic service (which in fact I have done), I am not being untrue to my actual religion or lack of religion if I am an atheist. I am there only as a spectator. I don't have to say the words of the service; I don't have to agree with anything in the prayerbook or in the sermon. I certainly don't have to take communion. I am, in effect, studying the service the way an anthropologist studies a foreign culture or the way a journalist covers an event. The same is true for a political event. I am there to study it only.
The NJ DOE recognizes Yom Kippur as a religious holiday? You need proof of this? As so many other educational governing boards and institutions across the nation. You need proof of this too? Look it up yourself.
There is a big difference in your choice to attend a religious service other than you believe and a public employee compelling a person to attend a religious ceremony they do not agree with. Huge difference.
I think we agree that an assignment to attend a political event is appropriate in a course in which such an assignment is relevant to the material, (An example might be the excellent undergraduate course I took in Theory of Collective Behavior -- certainly a protest or encampment is an example of collective behavior.) but not otherwise. I think you would also agree that an assignment to attend a religious service of a different religion than your own could be proper in, say, a comparative religion course.
An assignment to attend a political event is fine. An assignment or forced attendance at a political event with a specific political perspective in infringement on 1A.
I don't know exactly what you mean by a specific political perspective. All political events have a political perspective; that's what makes them political events. The Republican convention was in Philadelphia some years ago. If a professor told the class to attend one day of the convention, I doubt that would be a first amendment violation. There is, as I've suggested, a difference between being a spectator and a participant.
Yes, but what is participation? If someone goes to the protest and silently stands at the periphery observing what is going on, he or she is certainly not endorsing the proceedings. But if the professor requires students to do something that does imply endorsement, then, yes, we have a First Amendment problem. And, as I've suggested, the professor is exceeding his authority (even to assign observation) if there is no relationship between the course's subject matter and observing the demonstration.
Yes, nationally recognized holiday. Meaning it is recognized throughout the nation. Are you trying to make the point Yom Kippur is not a holiday that is recognized throughout the nation? What is the argument here?
Don't even know what the greater argument is but Yom Kippur is not recognized throughout the nation. Most schools don't have off.
This is an has always been the issue. If you’re going to protect 1A in its purist form in needs to apply to everyone.
