I am a little disappointed in the article about the possible “ban” of Brother Jed from the Oval. Laura Borchers seems to off-handedly quote legal principles without actually doing any research into the matter. Granted, I have the advantage of being a law student and studying this exact question for the last nine months. I’ll spare The Lantern the string of Supreme Court citations, but I will provide a breif legal lesson.
First of all, separation of church and state is not being enforced and this is not a “time of extreme distinction between church and state.” Supreme Court case law over the last forty years has worked to effectively knock down the “wall of separation” between the institutions. The Supreme Court has moved to the principle of “viewpoint neutrality.”
For example, there are several cases spanning three decades that touch on the Brother Jed question. The Supreme Court has consistently held that when a state institution (i.e. a State University) provides a public forum, they must allow people to use the forum on a “viewpoint neutral” basis. In other words, Brother Jed cannot be banned on the basis of his religious speech.
Now, to the argument that the University might be funding Brother Jed. In one particlar case from the University of Virginia, the Supreme Court held that the University could not deny funding to a group simply because of their religious viewpoint. So, arguably, even if Brother Jed was receiving university funding, there’s nothing to be done about it.
Let’s review. First, the Supreme Court has moved from strict separation of church and state to a doctrine of viewpoint neutrality and protection of all speech. Second, the University provides a public forum for speech and debate (i.e. the Oval). Third, the University no doubt allows organizations that they fund to use the Oval for expression of their views that are not religiously based. Therefore, the University must afford the same opportunity to Brother Jed, despite his religious views and regardless of whether he receives funds from the University itself.
In short, the Supreme Court has held that viewpoint discrimination is a violation of the First Amendment, end of story. I would hope that future stories regarding complex social and legal issues will actually be researched by staff writers. At the very least, interviews should be conducted with people that are knowledgeable on the issues, not members of Student Affairs and business students.
Matt RamboSecond year law student at The Moritz College of Law
