Viewpoints from olympus

Columbia Law Review

Volumn 96, Issue 3, 1996, Pages 697-

  Greenawalt, Kent ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0043040784     PISSN: 00101958     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2307/1123260     Document Type: Review

References (4)

1. 115 S. Ct. 2510 (1995).
2. See id. at 2519.
3. See id. at 2523-24. For a fuller treatment of the Establishment Clause issues, see Kent Greenawalt, Quo Vadis: The Status and Prospects of "Tests" Under the Religion Clause, 1995 Sup. Ct. Rev. (forthcoming 1996).
4. Justice Souter believed that there was no viewpoint discrimination in the University's denial of funding to Wide Awake. Because the Guidelines limited not only Christian advocacy, but also Muslim, Jewish, and even agnostic and atheist advocacy, they did not skew debate by funding one position but not its competitors; rather, the Guidelines denied "funding for the entire subject matter of religious apologetics." Rosenberger, 115 S. Ct. at 2549 (Souter, J., dissenting).