Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: THURSDAY, March 2, 1995 TAG: 9503020062
SECTION: NATIONAL/INTERNATIONAL PAGE: A-7 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: Associated Press
DATELINE: WASHINGTON LENGTH: Medium
The court must decide whether the University of Virginia complied with the constitutionally required separation of government and religion or singled out a student-run Christian magazine unfairly.
The university refused to give the magazine money from a student activities fund - supported by $14 each semester from each full-time student - because the magazine was deemed a religious activity.
Numerous student groups, but not all, receive money from the fund.
The university does not deny student-fund money to all religious-affiliated groups, just those engaged in ``religious activity,'' argued its attorney, law Professor John Jeffries.
Likewise, he said, the 20,000-student school does not deny money to groups expressing political views, just groups that try to get a certain candidate elected.
``We are not picking out a religious view and trying to suppress it,'' Jeffries argued.
But University of Chicago law Professor Michael McConnell, arguing for the three students who in 1990 founded Wide Awake to express a Christian viewpoint for campus life, said the university's denial of funding amounted to discrimination against religious speech.
The school, in an awkward attempt to avoid advocating an religion, is actually violating the students' free-speech rights, McConnell contended.
``The point is that the University of Virginia may not skew the marketplace of ideas in favor of one viewpoint,'' he said.
During intense questioning, the justices appeared most concerned with how the university could draw a line between religious-affiliated groups writing on a wide range of issues and those specifically engaged in ``religious activities.''
Justice Anthony Kennedy wanted to know what would happen if a newspaper receiving student-fee money held a contest to pick the best columnist, and that columnist decided to write about religion.
When Jeffries said he thought the university would have to keep funding the paper, Kennedy asked: ``Well then, what is the difference'' that justifies denying Wide Awake such financial aid?
Justice David Souter asked Jeffries: ``It may be tough to distinguish one from another. But it would be a distinction the university would honor, wouldn't it?''
And Justice Antonin Scalia asked Jeffries: ``Do you take the position that any discussion of religious views is proselytizing?'' Jeffries' answer was cut off by other questions from the justices.
The court's decision, expected by late June, also could affect efforts to have government subsidize, through vouchers, students who choose to attend religiously affiliated private schools.
by CNB