Subject: RE: Federalist Society Voucher Conference: "Strings" Panel Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 17:59:20 -0500 From: "Smith, Rebecca K." To: "'stoke001@umn.edu'" , "'charles.e.rice.1@nd.edu'" , "'dscott@charterschoolaw.com'" CC: "'lleo@fed-soc.org'" , "'jwalker@fed-soc.org'" You may all have the Ninth Circuit's decision today in Newdow v. US Congress (attached below) holding that non-compulsory, teacher-led recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance with the phrase "under God" in public school violates the Establishment Clause. I think it would be interesting for our panel to unpack the decision a bit in the "strings" context: Once the mandate issues (and at least until the 9th Circuit "corrects" its panel or the Court accepts cert.!), must private schools in the States of the Ninth Circuit that accept voucher money also redact "under God" from their recitations of the Pledge? <<0016423[1].pdf>> > -----Original Message----- > From: Smith, Rebecca K. > Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 3:31 PM > To: 'stoke001@umn.edu'; 'charles.e.rice.1@nd.edu'; > 'dscott@charterschoolaw.com' > Cc: 'lleo@fed-soc.org'; 'jwalker@fed-soc.org' > Subject: RE: Federalist Society Voucher Conference: "Strings" Panel > > > Gentlemen: > > I just got off the phone with David Scott, a veteran of charter school > management, who will be joining our panel and providing a pro-public > school, "center-left" perspective---including sharing his knowledge of > lessons learned about "strings" in the charter school context. > > Given that each speaker has a slightly different focus, and the input I've > received from each speaker, I think it makes sense to have each panelist > present a "medium-length unified presentation" up front---10-15 > minutes---followed by interaction between the speakers and questions from > the audience. Although there naturally will be some overlap with the > Zelman panel, and it is important to put the debate in context, we should > be mindful to focus the panel on the "next wave" of the debate----the > extent to which vouchers can and should come with strings and what this > means for private schools that accept vouchers. I welcome your thoughts > and look forward to seeing you at the Thursday night speakers' dinner and > finalizing plans then. > > Best regards, > > Becky > > P.S. Please fax or e-mail your resume or biography to me so I can > properly introduce you. Thanks much! > > Rebecca K. Smith > Sidley Austin Brown & Wood LLP > 1501 K Street, N.W. > Washington, D.C. 20005 > (202) 736-8663 (direct) > (202) 736-8711 (facsimile) > rksmith@sidley.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: stoke001 [SMTP:stoke001@maroon.tc.umn.edu] > Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 3:19 PM > To: 'stoke001@umn.edu'; 'charles.e.rice.1@nd.edu'; Smith, > Rebecca K. > Cc: 'lleo@fed-soc.org' > Subject: Re: Federalist Society Voucher Conference: "Strings" > Panel > > Dear Rebecca (and Professor Rice): > > It might be easiest to do this via group email chatting (like this). > > > 1. I am pretty flexible, but would prefer not to have a series of > three > round-robins on the subtopics. For example, I ffel not at all > competent to talk about what states have done, and much more > comfortable talking about what they could in theory do, and what in > theory they ought not to be able to do. > > 2. I would favor giving each of us the chance to make our own > medium-length unified presentation, then respond briefly to each > other (not really "rebuttal" but it might have a bit of that > give-and- > take feel to it). > > 3. My understanding is that Professor Rice fears that vouchers > would produce strings, and that I think they ought not. These are > slight caricatures, but if C's bottom line is that vouchers are > dangerous, then we do have a good debate-exchange: I think > vouchers are wonderful and that the problem of strings-attached > can and should be dealt with through other types of legal avenues. > (And I *do* share his fear that vouchers are potentially dangerous). > > > 4. Here, in *very* brief form, is what I would say: There are four > big > constitutional questions about vouchers: 1. Whether the > Establishment Clause permits inclusion of religious schools (the > Zelman issue); 2. Whether the Free Speech and Free Exercise > clauses *require* inclusion of religious schools in such programs (I > > think they do); 3. Whether government may load up such > programs with regulatory strings? (My position will be that > government's constitutional power to regulate private schools is not > > in any significant way dependent on whether the schools are > recipient of student vouchers -- though it is likely that gov't will > push > the extent of its regulatory power harder in these cases.) and 4. > [Not yet on the horizon] whether vouchers are constitutionally > *mandatory*. The focus will be on Question 3, but I would like to > put it in the context of the whole menu. > > Thoughts? > > Michael Stokes Paulsen > University of Minnesota Law School > > > From: "Smith, Rebecca K." > To: "'stoke001@umn.edu'" , > "'charles.e.rice.1@nd.edu'" > Copies to: "'lleo@fed-soc.org'" > Subject: Federalist Society Voucher Conference: > "Strings" Panel > Date sent: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 09:57:49 -0500 > > > Dear Professors Paulsen and Rice: > > > > I am delighted to be moderating your panel discussion on "Strings" > at > > the Federalist Society's School Vouchers conference next Friday > > (6/28). > > > > I thought it would be useful for us to confer to discuss how best > to > > organize the presentations and for me to get your thoughts on how > I > > can best facilitate (and stay out of the way of!) a lively > exchange. > > Are you free sometime this week---perhaps Thurs. or Fri. > morning---for > > a quick chat? I will initiate the call and conference in > everyone. > > > > As the program suggests, there are three general sub-topics for > > discussion during the one-and-a-half hours allotted for the panel: > > > > > (1) The "historical" experience: What "strings" already have > been > > placed on schools that accept vouchers? > > > > (2) The legal and normative questions: When may government > > properly impose limitations on the curriculum, staff, or > management of > > a school that accepts voucher money? and > > > > (3) The future-looking and "practical" questions: How can > > religious schools maintain their autonomy despite these "strings"? > > > > At the outset of the panel, I will introduce you. Could e-mail or > fax > > to me the biography you customarily use for such occasions? > > > > As to the format of the discussion, Leonard and I think it would > work > > well for each of you give about 7-10 minutes of remarks on each of > the > > sub-topics followed by a period of exchange, repeating this cycle > > through all of the sub-topics. That will leave ample time for > > questions and answers at the end. > > > > Are there other areas you also would like to cover? For example, > I > > think it would be useful to include some discussion of state-law > > "strings"---this might be included in both sub-topics (1) (what > States > > have done) and (2) (what States are entitled to do). > > > > I welcome your thoughts and look forward to working with you on > this > > conference, > > > > Becky > > > > Rebecca K. Smith > > Sidley Austin Brown & Wood LLP > > 1501 K Street, N.W. > > Washington, D.C. 20005 > > (202) 736-8663 (direct) > > (202) 736-8711 (facsimile) > > rksmith@sidley.com > > > > > > "" made the following > > annotations on 06/18/02 09:57:51 > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -------- > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -------------------------------------- > > > > This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that > is > > privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended > recipient, > > please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us > > immediately. > > > > > ====================================================================== > > ======== > > > > > > "" made the following annotations on 06/26/02 17:59:51 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately. ============================================================================== --------------------------------------------------------------------- Name: 0016423[1].pdf 0016423[1].pdf Type: Acrobat (application/pdf) Encoding: base64