gnicholas parent
How would you propose doing that in a way that is consistent with the First Amendment?
The parent article is about decoupling activism from teaching. Surely religion is just a specific form of activism.
> Surely religion is just a specific form of activism.
Even if this were true (a couple billion people would probably beg to differ), the First Amendment specifically protects the free exercise of religion. So any law that attempted to prevent religious-affiliated organizations from operating a university or school would be clearly unconstitutional.
Fair enough. One's belief in creation myths, higher powers/beings, afterlives, etc... is not, per se, activism, but once you start gathering people on a regular basis to bring about societal/behavioral change (ya know, commandments, morals, laws based on religious ideas/notions/opinions, etc...), much less proselytizing, then, yeah, it's pretty much the definition (or at least the poster child) of activism.
Lovely tangent; it seems you don't have any ideas about how this could be accomplished in a way that is consistent with the First Amendment (which was the entirety of my original comment)?
What are you talking about? The whole article implies that they're gonna decouple activism from teaching. Just apply the same playbook to religion? Oh what's that? It can't be done? Ah, I see. Maybe that was the meta-point behind my whole rant after all. You wanna have religious schools? Fine. You want (non-religous) activist schools? I guess that's fine too. But the notion that we're gonna get rid of "activism" and not touch religion in teaching/education/academia strikes me as absurd.
Slap some religious labels to the activism. Now the First Amendment is saved