Recently, our local college campus, the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater, passed along information about a prayer vigil to honor a senior, Amy Krueger, who was killed at Fort Hood, Texas.
The Freedom from Religion Foundation, based, I think, in nearby Madison, objected to the email, on the contention that the email supposedly should have read ‘memorial service’ rather than ‘prayer vigil.’
Oh my – the objection from the Freedom From Religion Foundation is both trivial, thin-skinned, and if taken seriously would be an infringement of liberty for those participating.
A private group, of the kind that organized the event, may communicate its event without violating the Establishment Clause, university policy, or common sense.
There are any number of religious groups on campuses across America, and they should not find themselves with fewer opportunities for transmission of simple emails than secular groups.
It should not involve a violation of federal or state law to place a group in the same place as environmental activists, political clubs, or social groups of all number of views.
The particular disadvantage of those who might wish only to have a message forwarded, with the term prayer vigil, would itself bind the university to a particular message, or endorsement of one.
Failure to permit mere transmission of a third-party message would unfairly restrict religious liberty in any institution the state funded.
The expansive power to tax and build public colleges in competition with private schools gives astonishing reach to government. That power does not imply the power of government to permit transmission of a special class of messages over others. To find otherwise is to make the state a censor.
I don’t doubt the right of the State of Wisconsin to build a large and admirable university system; having built the system, the state must not be in the position of censoring third party communications.
(It may be imprudent to build so much, but it is not unlawful. It’s simply wrong to allow the state to censor.)
There will be many who will contend, once on campus, that there are messages they don’t ‘appreciate’ or don’t want to hear.
I’m sure they don’t. I’m equally sure they should not be in the position of arguing for the power to tax everyone for what they want to build, but use what they have built only for a few, with scrubbed and antiseptic messages.
Finally, there is the claim that one might consider that transmission of the notice suggested that attendance might be mandatory. It’s merely overreaching to suggest that the notice of something is a requirement to attend. There was no reason to think so in this case, and no reason to think that the dozens of emails the university sends weekly on gatherings imply compulsory attendance. A person confused over this message, in particular, would hardly be reasonable.
This forwarded notice, about this prayer vigil, on a campus of adults, facilitates speech without establishing any particular faith, or endorsing – if the word is to have any meaning – any creed. To find otherwise would impair and unfairly burden both speech and free association on campus.