Here is the synopsis of our sample research paper on WIDMAR ET AL. v. VINCENT ET AL.. Have the paper e-mailed to you 24/7/365.
Essay / Research Paper Abstract
A 5 page overview of this Supreme Court Case reviewing the question of whether state university facilities can be used by students for religious purposes. Additional case law is included to illustrate the intricacies that are involved in this decision. Bibliography lists 5 sources.
Page Count:
5 pages (~225 words per page)
File: AM2_PPwidmar.rtf
Buy This Term Paper »
Unformatted sample text from the term paper:
AL. was decided in the U.S. Supreme Court December 8, 1981. The case considered the question of whether state university facilities can be used by students for religious purposes.
An evangelical Christian student group, a group known as Cornerstone, had held on-campus meetings at the University of Missouri at Kansas City between 1973 and 1977. The meetings
typically attracted about 125 students and included religious discussion as well as worship. In 1077, however, the University decided that University resources were no longer available for religious worship
or teaching. Eleven student challenged this decision in Federal District Court contended that it violated their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights, specifically their rights to free speech and free
exercise of religion. The Court rejected that challenge finding that not only could the State "not provide facilities for religious use without giving prohibited support to an institution of
religion" but that "religious speech entitled to less protection than other types of expression". When this decision was appealed, however, the Court of Appeals found that the University prohibition
was in effect a "content-based discrimination against religious speech". The Supreme Court affirmed that the students had a right to free
speech and contended that because the University had an established policy of accommodating student meetings, their decision to exclude one group of students was discriminatory. The Court found that:
"The Constitution forbids a State to enforce certain exclusions from a forum generally open to
the public, even if it was not required to create the forum in the first place"
...