BULLETIN
#10 Fall 1992

l TAFOL PRESIDENT CONDUCTS "LAW SCHOOL CLASS" AT CONCEPTUAL      CONFERENCES IN WILLIAMSBURG
l THIRD CIRCUIT HEARS ORAL ARGUMENT ON STEIRER CHALLENGE TO      MANDATORY COMMUNITY SERVICE FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS
l ACTIVITIES OF DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS
l BACK ISSUES OF TAFOL PUBLICATIONS AVAILABLE

#10 Fall 1992 Page 1

TAFOL PRESIDENT CONDUCTS "LAW SCHOOL CLASS" AT CONCEPTUAL CONFERENCES IN WILLIAMSBURG

TAFOL President Steve Plafker discussed the influential case, New York Times v. Sullivan, at Conceptual Conferences' Williamsburg seminar this past summer. In Sullivan, the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment requires a "rule that prohibits a public official from recovering damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves that the statement was made with 'actual malice,'---that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." In coming to this conclusion, the Court interpreted its prior cases along with the Alien and Sedition Laws (in particular, the Sedition Act of 1798) to mean that a public figure must be prepared to be maligned falsely.

Steve ran the session like a mock law school class. The audience was asked questions designed to elicit the legal principles involved and to determine whether the case was rightly decided. After a review of the case's procedural history through the Alabama courts, the "class" discussed problems with the Court's reasoning and history. The discussion dealt largely with whether the history of the Alien and Sedition Laws led to the result claimed by the Supreme Court. Steve pointed out that the history was not clear and that the Court had ignored a number of sources and considerations that went contrary to its conclusion.

Steve also expressed gratification with the significant number of Williamsburg attendees who decided to become members of TAFOL. Some of these new members made contributions exceeding the $20 yearly dues.


THIRD CIRCUIT HEARS ORAL ARGUMENT ON STEIRER CHALLENGE TO MANDATORY COMMUNITY SERVICE FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS

A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit heard oral argument on November 3, 1992, in the case of Steirer v. Bethlehem Area School District. As reported in the last Bulletin, TAFOL filed its first amicus curiae ("friend of the court") brief in that case. The purpose of the amicus brief was to provide additional support for the brief filed by the plaintiffs' own lawyer; parties filing amicus briefs ordinarily do not participate in oral argument. The plaintiffs are students and parents who object to a program that denies a high school diploma to any student who refuses to provide 60 hours of unpaid community service. The requirement is being attacked as violating two basic constitutional guarantees: freedom of speech and association under the First Amendment, and freedom from involuntary servitude under the Thirteenth Amendment.

The plaintiffs' lawyer who participated in oral argument informs TAFOL that the panel of judges showed sensitivity to the moral issues at stake. One judge's questions explicitly identified the mandatory community service requirement as part of the "political correctness" movement. In other questioning, the judges wondered aloud where a line could be drawn beyond which mandatory service could not proceed: could students be forced to pick tomatoes during the school day on the premise that it would benefit them to get in touch with the soil? On the other hand, the judges accepted the premise that public schools have some right to force students to engage in undesired activities. Thus, one judge recalled that when he was in high school, he had to swim as part of a physical education course, and he hated it. Can a line be drawn, the judge wondered, between permissible education and the impermissible inculcation of moral values?

As TAFOL noted in its amicus brief, recent Supreme Court decisions threaten to render courts "powerless to arrest the gradual accretion of power in the hands of school boards. Logically, the only complete cure for this dilemma would be

#10 Fall 1992 Page 2

to shut down the public schools and allow parents to use the tax savings to send their children to private schools. If all schools were private and all parents free to choose the schools that their children would attend, the problem of compulsory exposure to unwanted ideas would not arise." Unfortunately, the Steirer case does not present the issue of whether the public schools should survive. However, it does provide an opportunity for the courts to draw a line beyond which public school boards may not go in converting defenseless students to their own moral ideals. At best, a victory in Steirer would buy some time; however, a final victory will come only when education is no longer considered to be a government enterprise.

The Third Circuit's decision in Steirer will probably be issued in early 1993.


ACTIVITIES OF DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS

• Michael Mazzone has written an amicus brief on the issue of mandatory IOLTA (Interest on Lawyers' Trust Funds) laws. IOLTA laws seize the interest income earned on clients' money in temporary lawyer's trust accounts and then disperse that income to "public interest" legal groups. Although a federal appellate court refused to accept the amicus brief in a pending IOLTA case, Michael is willing to make the brief available to interested attorneys who may wish to challenge IOLTA laws in other states. Attorneys or others may also wish to submit the brief, or portions thereof, as legal articles, editorial pieces, or letters to the editor, to legal periodicals or other publications in their area.

Michael, who also filed a hard-hitting intervenor's brief in the Gomez mandatory pro bono case pending in Texas, was recently elected Vice President of TAFOL. He also chairs TAFOL's amicus curiae committee. Michael can be contacted [Omitted].

Arline Mann spoke at The Jefferson School's one-day New York Seminar on October 24, 1992. Her talk, "The Remarkable Rationality of the Common Law, " had also been given at The Jefferson School's two-week conference in California in 1991. The talk presented an overview of the common law and addresses such issues as fraud, the value of precedent, and selected topics in contracts and evidence. An audio tape of the talk is available through Second Renaissance Books, [ Omitted---now at The Ayn Rand Bookstore: http://www.aynrandbookstore.com/ see “law”].

• Tom Bowden published a pamphlet entitled The Enemies of Christopher Columbus, which examines the philosophically false, historically inaccurate, but "politically correct" criticisms of Columbus that have tarnished his reputation as an heroic discoverer. The Ayn Rand Institute distributed more than a thousand copies of the pamphlet to Objectivist campus clubs in the United States and abroad in conjunction with the Columbus Day holiday. The pamphlet is also available through Second Renaissance Books.


BACK ISSUES OF TAFOL PUBLICATIONS AVAILABLE

[Web editor’s note: all issues are now on this web site and no paper copies can be provided.]
__________________________________

Copyright © 1992 The Association for Objective Law. All rights reserved. The Association for Objective Law is a Missouri non-profit corporation whose purpose is to advance Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand, as the basis of a proper legal system.