E-mail:
Jack Balkin: jackbalkin at yahoo.com
Bruce Ackerman bruce.ackerman at yale.edu
Ian Ayres ian.ayres at yale.edu
Corey Brettschneider corey_brettschneider at brown.edu
Mary Dudziak mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu
Joey Fishkin joey.fishkin at gmail.com
Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu
Abbe Gluck abbe.gluck at yale.edu
Mark Graber mgraber at law.umaryland.edu
Stephen Griffin sgriffin at tulane.edu
Jonathan Hafetz jonathan.hafetz at shu.edu
Jeremy Kessler jkessler at law.columbia.edu
Andrew Koppelman akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu
Marty Lederman msl46 at law.georgetown.edu
Sanford Levinson slevinson at law.utexas.edu
David Luban david.luban at gmail.com
Gerard Magliocca gmaglioc at iupui.edu
Jason Mazzone mazzonej at illinois.edu
Linda McClain lmcclain at bu.edu
John Mikhail mikhail at law.georgetown.edu
Frank Pasquale pasquale.frank at gmail.com
Nate Persily npersily at gmail.com
Michael Stokes Paulsen michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com
Deborah Pearlstein dpearlst at yu.edu
Rick Pildes rick.pildes at nyu.edu
David Pozen dpozen at law.columbia.edu
Richard Primus raprimus at umich.edu
K. Sabeel Rahmansabeel.rahman at brooklaw.edu
Alice Ristroph alice.ristroph at shu.edu
Neil Siegel siegel at law.duke.edu
David Super david.super at law.georgetown.edu
Brian Tamanaha btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu
Nelson Tebbe nelson.tebbe at brooklaw.edu
Mark Tushnet mtushnet at law.harvard.edu
Adam Winkler winkler at ucla.edu
The Emerging First Amendment Right to Mistreat Students
Andrew Koppelman
Under the long-settled tradition of
religious liberty, religious people may not demand a right to invade and direct
the public sphere, to alter the delivery of state functions in order to force
their views upon nonadherents.Yet in two
prominent cases, Kennedy v. Bremerton in the Supreme Court and Meriwether v. Hartop in the Sixth
Circuit, courts have held that publicly employed teachers may exercise their
First Amendment rights of free speech and religion even when doing so mistreats
students.
In both cases, despite a long-established
rule of deference to public employers’ need to control their own operations –
and despite mighty efforts to accommodate difficult employees - public schools
lost the capacity to protect students from misbehaving teachers.In each, the school proposed a solution that
would give appropriate weight to each side’s most urgent interests.Not good enough, the court decreed: the
religious side must be granted an absolute and uncompromising victory.It was oblivious to the countervailing
interest.The language of privacy and
autonomy was deployed to enable the religious to wield state authority and harm
their students.
These are only two cases.But they come from high federal courts, one
from the Supreme Court, and their similarity of approach, and resemblance to
other recent treatments of religious liberty by the Court, is a reasonable
basis for alarm.
I develop this argument
in an article, “The Emerging First Amendment Right to Mistreat Students,” newly
published in the Case Western Law Review.