Incentivizing Civic Engagement at Public and Private Universities: Tax Exemptions, Laws, and Critical Dialogues

IF 1.3 Q1 LAW Laws Pub Date : 2024-05-22 DOI:10.3390/laws13030032
Eric Morrow, Casey Thompson, Payton Jones, Boleslaw Z. Kabala
{"title":"Incentivizing Civic Engagement at Public and Private Universities: Tax Exemptions, Laws, and Critical Dialogues","authors":"Eric Morrow, Casey Thompson, Payton Jones, Boleslaw Z. Kabala","doi":"10.3390/laws13030032","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"What are the differences in how public and private institutions of higher education, with religious schools as a subset of private colleges and universities, approach on-campus protests in a framework of civic engagement? Unfortunately, public, private, and religious schools have all restricted opportunities of speech, assembly, and protest, despite in many cases state and federal courts ruling that this is against the law. With the goal of increasing the civic capacities of students at all institutions of higher education, we propose a mechanism of partial revocation of tax exemptions at universities that do not currently uphold a robust understanding of civic engagement opportunities for all students, which will apply to any college or university receiving federal funding, consistent with the constitutional tradition of free speech still exemplified by Brandenburg v. Ohio and the “national policy” test of Bob Jones University vs. United States. In doing so, we build on the critique of exemptions in the recent work of Vincent Phillip Munoz on religious liberty. By opting only for incentives and by not even incentivizing private institutions that continue to restrict civic engagement but that do not accept federal dollars, we affirm and support a mutually beneficial ongoing dialogue among public, private, and religious schools. This dialogue, as it is sharpened and maintained in place by our recommended policies, is also consistent with pluralism as conceptualized by Jacob Levy.","PeriodicalId":30534,"journal":{"name":"Laws","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Laws","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/laws13030032","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

What are the differences in how public and private institutions of higher education, with religious schools as a subset of private colleges and universities, approach on-campus protests in a framework of civic engagement? Unfortunately, public, private, and religious schools have all restricted opportunities of speech, assembly, and protest, despite in many cases state and federal courts ruling that this is against the law. With the goal of increasing the civic capacities of students at all institutions of higher education, we propose a mechanism of partial revocation of tax exemptions at universities that do not currently uphold a robust understanding of civic engagement opportunities for all students, which will apply to any college or university receiving federal funding, consistent with the constitutional tradition of free speech still exemplified by Brandenburg v. Ohio and the “national policy” test of Bob Jones University vs. United States. In doing so, we build on the critique of exemptions in the recent work of Vincent Phillip Munoz on religious liberty. By opting only for incentives and by not even incentivizing private institutions that continue to restrict civic engagement but that do not accept federal dollars, we affirm and support a mutually beneficial ongoing dialogue among public, private, and religious schools. This dialogue, as it is sharpened and maintained in place by our recommended policies, is also consistent with pluralism as conceptualized by Jacob Levy.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
激励公立和私立大学的公民参与:免税、法律和批判性对话
公立和私立高等教育机构(宗教学校是私立高校的一个分支)在公民参与框架内处理校内抗议活动的方式有何不同?不幸的是,公立、私立和宗教学校都限制了言论、集会和抗议的机会,尽管在很多情况下州和联邦法院都裁定这样做是违法的。为了提高所有高等院校学生的公民能力,我们提出了一种机制,即对目前没有坚持为所有学生提供公民参与机会的大学取消部分免税,这将适用于任何接受联邦资助的学院或大学,并与勃兰登堡诉俄亥俄州一案中的言论自由宪法传统以及鲍勃-琼斯大学诉美国一案中的 "国家政策 "测试保持一致。在此过程中,我们借鉴了文森特-菲利普-穆诺兹(Vincent Phillip Munoz)近期关于宗教自由的著作中对豁免的批判。通过只选择激励措施,甚至不激励那些继续限制公民参与但不接受联邦资金的私立学校,我们肯定并支持公立学校、私立学校和宗教学校之间正在进行的互利对话。这种对话在我们建议的政策中得到了加强和维持,也符合雅各布-李维(Jacob Levy)所提出的多元化概念。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Laws
Laws LAW-
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
16.70%
发文量
77
审稿时长
11 weeks
期刊最新文献
Energy Security, Energy Transition, and Foreign Investments: An Evolving Complex Relationship The Right to Data Portability as a Personal Right Beyond Auto-Brewery: Why Dysbiosis and the Legalome Matter to Forensic and Legal Psychology The OECD Dispute Resolution System in Tax Controversies Reconceptualizing Policing for Cybercrime: Perspectives from Singapore
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1