English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Written for a conference on “Barnette at 75," this essay argues that West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette addressed the fundamental challenge for modern societies– how to deal with pluralism. In response to that challenge, the case attempted to describe “the fixed star in our constellation.” But what was that “fixed star”? Two main interpretations have developed; these can be called “the neutrality interpretation” and “the integrity interpretation.” The essay argues that despite its widespread appeal, the neutrality interpretation is untenable; conversely, the integrity interpretation captures a fundamental commitment of the American constitutional project. And, as it happens, that commitment is particularly timely, albeit embattled, in our own circumstances, as the debate surrounding the Masterpiece Cakeshop controversy reflects.

“Fixed Star” or Twin Star?: The Ambiguity of Barnette