NationStates Jolt Archive

Some chick in this guy's art class was babbling about "energy layers" and other metaphysical mumbo jumbo when a kid in class asked her if she believed in leprechauns as well. The granola girl said she did and they lived in a different energy level. So then they got into a little debate about her beliefs and the kid who asked about the leprechauns ended up getting expelled.

Now this seems wrong to me. You can expel students now for speaking about their religious disbelief? That's fucked up. The non-believer is hiring legal counsel and has the ACLU on his side. I hope he not only gets a nice cash award, but that he gets those involved in expelling him fired.

http://www.portlandmercury.com/portland/Content?oid=84436&category=22101

Their mantra was 'no discussing religion in school,'
... wtf?

I wish to inquire in the nature of the illicit substances that young lady was consuming.

Man, that must suck. And I thought I had it bad.

Well, the "invisible pink unicorn" argument has had a good run...

This is just sad. Expelled for joining a conversation about religion, simply pathetic.

Some chick in this guy's art class was babbling about "energy layers" and other metaphysical mumbo jumbo when a kid in class asked her if she believed in leprechauns as well. The granola girl said she did and they lived in a different energy level. So then they got into a little debate about her beliefs and the kid who asked about the leprechauns ended up getting expelled.

Now this seems wrong to me. You can expel students now for speaking about their religious disbelief? That's fucked up. The non-believer is hiring legal counsel and has the ACLU on his side. I hope he not only gets a nice cash award, but that he gets those involved in expelling him fired.

http://www.portlandmercury.com/portland/Content?oid=84436&category=22101

I'm with you on this.

What the hell?

Although his probable income on graduation is probably equal to his probable income on expulsion, given that he's an art student.

How fucking rediculous.

I hope everyone involved in this, except the boy and possibly his co-student (I doubt it's her fault) gets fired, caned and teabagged by bears.

The article goes a little deeper than that. For instance, there's this bit:
According to an emailed letter from Engeldinger, Averill had violated the student conduct policy. The decision to dismiss Averill was "not the result of a single action on your part, but a series of actions. I believe that, in several instances, your actions have been aggressive, demeaning, and threatening and that this demonstrates a pattern of inappropriate and unacceptable behavior," Engeldinger wrote.
It sounds like he had a history of being, at the very least, a pain in the ass, if not a disruptive force in the classroom. You can still disagree with the expulsion, but it doesn't sound like this incident happened in a vacuum, and may have been more combative than the student let on.

Until we hear more - it looks like the kid has been stirring trouble for a while. And that this was the - as the article says - last straw.

Bear in mind that this is almost exclusively his side of the storey and the full truth could be drastically different as to the exact nature of his rebuttal of the girls beliefs and the 'altercation'. Along with the nature of previous incidents, and his confrontation with the teacher after the incident given.

This is just sad. Expelled for joining a conversation about religion, simply pathetic.

He wasn't. He was expelled for a lot of incidents leading up to the religion thing and then being aggressive to staff after the religion thing. He's saying one thing and the school another, the truth is probably somewhere inbetween.

How fucking rediculous.

I hope everyone involved in this, except the boy and possibly his co-student (I doubt it's her fault) gets fired, caned and teabagged by bears.
Well, personally I think anyone who believes in leprechauns and 'energy layers' deserves that too.

He wasn't. He was expelled for a lot of incidents leading up to the religion thing and then being aggressive to staff after the religion thing. He's saying one thing and the school another, the truth is probably somewhere inbetween.

Ah, yes, so it seems. Nevermind then.


I wonder how the girl who initiated the conversation will be punished.

how dare anyone doubt the existance of leprechauns! taking away our scam.

The article goes a little deeper than that. For instance, there's this bit:

It sounds like he had a history of being, at the very least, a pain in the ass, if not a disruptive force in the classroom. You can still disagree with the expulsion, but it doesn't sound like this incident happened in a vacuum, and may have been more combative than the student let on.

It's easy to appear disruptive and combative when you're trying to be logical and your instructor is a Timothy Leary wannabe.

Woohoo!! ANother show of extreme stupidity!!

How fucking rediculous.

I hope everyone involved in this, except the boy and possibly his co-student (I doubt it's her fault) gets fired, caned and teabagged by bears.

Did you read the article?

The decision to dismiss Averill was "not the result of a single action on your part, but a series of actions. I believe that, in several instances, your actions have been aggressive, demeaning, and threatening and that this demonstrates a pattern of inappropriate and unacceptable behavior," Engeldinger wrote.

He was expelled because he has on a number of times acted in a threatening, aggressive and demeaning way. If someone at my school had a series of incidents of that sort of behavior behind them - for which they had been cautioned on in the past - I would hope they were expelled.

He is giving only one side of the storey along the lines of "it was just a harmless discussion..." - which NO school would even discipline someone on, let alone the student report it and the kid get punished. The school gives a very different version of events - including the kids history of behavior.

how dare anyone doubt the existance of leprechauns! taking away our scam.
Methinks we ought to burn this lad's ass o'er a pit o' fire! Smite 'im!

:( Methinks we ought to burn this lad's ass o'er a pit o' fire! Smite 'im!

This shows how much it is dangerous to be an atheist in Portland.
I think that the guy who got expelled is way better off without such a school - it is clear that the dean, the associate dean and the whole set of teachers are afflicted by a serious case of congenite, uncurable idiocy. What a bunch of "minus habens" !

:(
Sorry, I was suffering from a moment of random insanity. :D

Sorry, I was suffering from a moment of random insanity. :D

i dont suffer from insanity. i enjoy every minute of it.

how dare anyone doubt the existance of leprechauns! taking away our scam.

One of the comics in my Permanent Collection shows a very sad man sitting next to a huge cauldron of cooked cereal, and the end of a rainbow is nearby. Beside him is a leprechaun saying, "It's always been a pot of gruel. I really don't know how that pot of gold thing got started. Anyway, enjoy."

What kind of a bitch complains to a professor that someone does not share her messed up views about leprecahns?

What kind of a f****d up wierdo actually thinks you can or should punish someone because they disagree with someone's leprecahn energy level religion?

I am a religious man and have some bias against atheists but I am totally 100% for religious freedom so I think that the leprecahn hippie whacko and the professor and deans should probably be sent to North Korea and placed in a labor/death camp.

Has anyone posting in this thread actually bothered to read the news article? The story is quite clear on the reason for expulsion and it has very little to do with the conversation involving tiny green Irish faeries.

What kind of a bitch complains to a professor that someone does not share her messed up views about leprecahns?

What kind of a f****d up wierdo actually thinks you can or should punish someone because they disagree with someone's leprecahn energy level religion?

I am a religious man and have some bias against atheists but I am totally 100% for religious freedom so I think that the leprecahn hippie whacko and the professor and deans should probably be sent to North Korea and placed in a labor/death camp.

Did you read the article that states he was expelled following a series of 'incidents' where he acted in a threatening, demeaning and aggressive manner towards others and had recieved warnings on his behavior for these actions and that the expulsion was a result of his history of behavior towards other students?

Reading between the lines a little he sounds like the athiest equivalent of nutcase-christians who start screaming at people in the street that they will burn in hell for wearing a short skirt.

Has anyone posting in this thread actually bothered to read the news article? The story is quite clear on the reason for expulsion and it has very little to do with the conversation involving tiny green Irish faeries.

Yes, I read it, and if you'll notice, I made the comment that it's easy to appear combative and disruptive if you are trying very hard to be logical, and your professor is a chimpanzee on LSD.

What kind of a bitch complains to a professor that someone does not share her messed up views about leprecahns?

What kind of a f****d up wierdo actually thinks you can or should punish someone because they disagree with someone's leprecahn energy level religion?

We might want to check IF she complained (as opposed to the professor seeing it), WHY she complained if she did ("I don't believe in leprechauns" and "Only a moron like you would believe in leprechauns" being two different things) and HOW she complained ("He's being disruptive" or "He's raping me") before jumping to any conclusions. We also should check the story behind this whole shebang. Heck, we might even want to check for HER own claims of "leprechauns existing" - "They exist, only not in our layer" and "True, they don't exist, at least in this layer" being two different things.

I am a religious man and have some bias against atheists but I am totally 100% for religious freedom so I think that the leprecahn hippie whacko and the professor and deans should probably be sent to North Korea and placed in a labor/death camp.

That's... helpful.

On a side note, one that will NOT enter the merit of the concept of "layers", a truly decent occultist would not rave about her ideas like that - ESPECIALLY one that knows they're likely to fall on deaf ears.

Did you read the article that states he was expelled following a series of 'incidents' where he acted in a threatening, demeaning and aggressive manner towards others and had recieved warnings on his behavior for these actions and that the expulsion was a result of his history of behavior towards other students?

Reading between the lines a little he sounds like the athiest equivalent of nutcase-christians who start screaming at people in the street that they will burn in hell for wearing a short skirt.

It does sound like the entire incident got totally out of control. I question his first, four-day suspension. "No discussing religion in school" sounds like the sort of cop-out we hear about when kids are forbidden to play tag because being "It" might damage someone's self-esteem, or when a nine-year-old gets suspended for accidentally bring her mother's lunch to school with a knife in it. Still, he sounds like he went over the top, too, in trying to get his "sentence" reconsidered, and did end up bringing the expulsion on himself.

Yes, I read it, and if you'll notice, I made the comment that it's easy to appear combative and disruptive if you are trying very hard to be logical, and your professor is a chimpanzee on LSD.

That's - again - helpful.

The professor seems to have made no remark whatsoever on whether layers exist, work as the girl suggested and so on. And I doubt it, given that the notion of energy layers is not one that's largely divulged.

In all fairness the Portland Mercury isn't exactly known for it's unbiased reporting (it's still my favorite paper here in Stumptown).

Yes, I read it, and if you'll notice, I made the comment that it's easy to appear combative and disruptive if you are trying very hard to be logical, and your professor is a chimpanzee on LSD.

Yet you have no evidence that any of the staff involved are anything other than hard working and level headed educators.

Why do you assume that the student is in the right and the authority figure is automatically in the wrong?

In all fairness the Portland Mercury isn't exactly known for it's unbiased reporting (it's still my favorite paper here in Stumptown).

What side are you suggesting it's taking? The atheist (liberal) or the new-age (liberal)? o_O

Yet you have no evidence that any of the staff involved are anything other than hard working and level headed educators.

Why do you assume that the student is in the right and the authority figure is automatically in the wrong?

You're automatically assuming the opposite.

Someone talking about leprechauns being real is my first clue that the educator is using mind-altering substances.

Did you read the article that states he was expelled following a series of 'incidents' where he acted in a threatening, demeaning and aggressive manner towards others and had recieved warnings on his behavior for these actions and that the expulsion was a result of his history of behavior towards other students?


maybe however, this was the last straw. All he was trying to do was get himself out of trouble that he shouldn't have been in the first place. there is more to the story but that should not have been an issue.

The article goes a little deeper than that. For instance, there's this bit:

It sounds like he had a history of being, at the very least, a pain in the ass, if not a disruptive force in the classroom. You can still disagree with the expulsion, but it doesn't sound like this incident happened in a vacuum, and may have been more combative than the student let on.

I don't know. These types of things always seem like they're making up excuses after the fact. It's kind of like the art teacher who was fired for taking her students to the museum where one of them might have seen a nude sculpture. When challenged, the school started talking about a history of problems, and the worst they could come up with was, "She wore flip-flops to school one day."

The truth probably lies somewhere in between the two stories, but I'm inclined to listen to the student more than the administration on this one. Expulsion doesn't usually come suddenly unless it is for something major. If he had a history, there should have been records on file of him being on some sort of probation.


We might want to check IF she complained (as opposed to the professor seeing it), WHY she complained if she did ("I don't believe in leprechauns" and "Only a moron like you would believe in leprechauns" being two different things) and HOW she complained ("He's being disruptive" or "He's raping me") before jumping to any conclusions. We also should check the story behind this whole shebang. Heck, we might even want to check for HER own claims of "leprechauns existing" - "They exist, only not in our layer" and "True, they don't exist, at least in this layer" being two different things.

Her claims are listed in the article. She said that she did report it, but did not expect him to get in trouble, much less get expelled. Sounds to me like it wasn't really a major altercation.


It does sound like the entire incident got totally out of control. I question his first, four-day suspension. "No discussing religion in school" sounds like the sort of cop-out we hear about when kids are forbidden to play tag because being "It" might damage someone's self-esteem, or when a nine-year-old gets suspended for accidentally bring her mother's lunch to school with a knife in it. Still, he sounds like he went over the top, too, in trying to get his "sentence" reconsidered, and did end up bringing the expulsion on himself.

If you have done nothing wrong, is it unreasonable to try and prove that?

What side are you suggesting it's taking? The atheist (liberal) or the new-age (liberal)? o_O

My knee jerk reaction is to take the athiest's side. I'm just saying the Mercury isn't always the pinnacle of fair reporting.

You're automatically assuming the opposite.

Someone talking about leprechauns being real is my first clue that the educator is using mind-altering substances.

So an educator using mind altering substances makes their student believe in leprechauns? :confused:

I didn't assume the opposite, if you'd read throught he whole thread you would have seen my first post stating that the truth of the matter is probably somewhere between the two accounts, just as it is in most things in life.

Her claims are listed in the article. She said that she did report it, but did not expect him to get in trouble, much less get expelled. Sounds to me like it wasn't really a major altercation.

So, I'll assume she didn't report it as "he attacked my religious beliefs soooo violently". Even because we'd see about 50 religious conservatives topping that list, with good reason. She herself - I say that as an occultist - would not want to discuss her own beliefs further than that, so I don't think she'd want to go the whole way against him unless she had a vendetta with him that went WAY past the concept of energy layers.

Some chick in this guy's art class was babbling about "energy layers" and other metaphysical mumbo jumbo when a kid in class asked her if she believed in leprechauns as well. The granola girl said she did and they lived in a different energy level. So then they got into a little debate about her beliefs and the kid who asked about the leprechauns ended up getting expelled.

Now this seems wrong to me. You can expel students now for speaking about their religious disbelief? That's fucked up. The non-believer is hiring legal counsel and has the ACLU on his side. I hope he not only gets a nice cash award, but that he gets those involved in expelling him fired.

http://www.portlandmercury.com/portland/Content?oid=84436&category=22101

he may have been taking the mick out of her. that could be a reason for expelling him, if he repeatedly broke the rules

My knee jerk reaction is to take the athiest's side. I'm just saying the Mercury isn't always the pinnacle of fair reporting.

Meh. I'm an occultist that was an atheist for a while (some methods allow that possibility). She's a girl though, so she gets my sympathy. Occultist girls... *Dreamy look*. Well... If they're COMPETENT, which, so far, this girl didn't show much for except for basic knowledge of a not-widely-spread (even among occultists) concept.

when i was in paris an american asked me was i a leprechaun, i got angry and hit him. what i didnt know was earlier my friends told him i was a leprechaun in disguise, thats why iwas wearing a white suit instead of green.

i dont suffer from insanity. i enjoy every minute of it.
Ok, if you put it that way.... WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!! *spins in her office chair*

when i was in paris an american asked me was i a leprechaun, i got angry and hit him. what i didnt know was earlier my friends told him i was a leprechaun in disguise, thats why iwas wearing a white suit instead of green.

That's... weird. o_o

maybe however, this was the last straw. All he was trying to do was get himself out of trouble that he shouldn't have been in the first place. there is more to the story but that should not have been an issue.

Neither of us knows exactly what he said to the girl, how he said it or how he behaved. He might have been in trouble for very good reasons in threating behavior is a commom issue with him.

Also you are taking his word for how he behaved to the lecturer after the event - which could have been very hostile.

Personally I am inclined to believe the school over him as I don't beliveve the school would have taken that action as a result of a polite discussion or even some minor insults. If more evidence comes to light I will happily eat my words.

I for one welcome our leprechaun overlords.

I for one welcome our leprechaun overlords.
They seem better than any other evil overlords.

I for one welcome our leprechaun overlords.

dont you mean, underlords? they are short you know.

Neither of us knows exactly what he said to the girl, how he said it or how he behaved. He might have been in trouble for very good reasons in threating behavior is a commom issue with him.

Also you are taking his word for how he behaved to the lecturer after the event - which could have been very hostile.

Personally I am inclined to believe the school over him as I don't beliveve the school would have taken that action as a result of a polite discussion or even some minor insults. If more evidence comes to light I will happily eat my words.

But the girl said she didn't want him to get in trouble. If someone attacks your views violently then usually you'll want some sort of revenge, and a "witness of the conversation" vouched for him that it was unfair. So it probably wasn't that bad and he got expelled when he went back to correct it (although I'm inclined to believe he did it impolitely) and he should have been able to talk to them as it was over leprochans(sp?)

But the girl said she didn't want him to get in trouble. If someone attacks your views violently then usually you'll want some sort of revenge, and a "witness of the conversation" vouched for him that it was unfair. So it probably wasn't that bad and he got expelled when he went back to correct it (although I'm inclined to believe he did it impolitely) and he should have been able to talk to them as it was over lepechauns.

Fixed that sp you asked.

It could be that they had been wanting to expel him to begin with and this was just as good an excuse as any - even if the girl herself didn't want that.

Fixed that sp you asked.

It could be that they had been wanting to expel him to begin with and this was just as good an excuse as any - even if the girl herself didn't want that.


Thank you:)

Then they should have done it last time he pissed 'em off, or wait until it was something other then leprechauns.

Also you are taking his word for how he behaved to the lecturer after the event - which could have been very hostile.

Huh? There's no mention of any altercation with the teacher.

Personally I am inclined to believe the school over him as I don't beliveve the school would have taken that action as a result of a polite discussion or even some minor insults. If more evidence comes to light I will happily eat my words.

See, I'm not. I've seen a school revoke a straight-A student employee's scholarship because he was gay and dared to try and start an LGBTS group on campus. Administrations do crazy things all the time because of their own prejudices.


Then they should have done it last time he pissed 'em off, or wait until it was something other then leprechauns.

Or had him on some sort of official probation. The lack of any such record is precisely why I have a hard time taking the school's word on this one. If he was so bad that a conversation about leprechauns which offended a student (but didn't prompt her to want him to get in trouble) was the "last straw," then he should have already been on probation of some sort. Expulsion isn't exactly something you do on a whim.

Thank you:)

Then they should have done it last time he pissed 'em off, or wait until it was something other then leprechauns.

They don't always do that. :p

Or had him on some sort of official probation. The lack of any such record is precisely why I have a hard time taking the school's word on this one. If he was so bad that a conversation about leprechauns which offended a student (but didn't prompt her to want him to get in trouble) was the "last straw," then he should have already been on probation of some sort. Expulsion isn't exactly something you do on a whim.

Could he just have not told the interviewer he was on probation or would that be realised by the school? But yeah it should not have been on a whim by any means, but the kid might've been an ass that they felt they had to get rid of. He could have continually harrassed people based on their beliefs. If this was the case and he was posing a problem they went about it in the wrong way but it's a school, do you really expect better?

Could he just have not told the interviewer he was on probation or would that be realised by the school? But yeah it should not have been on a whim by any means, but the kid might've been an ass that they felt they had to get rid of. He could have continually harrassed people based on their beliefs.

If he truly had been a problem, I would expect the school, as part of their statements, to release it if he had been on official probation. If they did it and haven't released it, it is their own fault that they are receiving all the bad publicity.

If this was the case and he was posing a problem they went about it in the wrong way but it's a school, do you really expect better?

Yes.

The ACLU must be having joygasms right now, that school is going to be fucking hosed.

If he truly had been a problem, I would expect the school, as part of their statements, to release it if he had been on official probation. If they did it and haven't released it, it is their own fault that they are receiving all the bad publicity.
Their fault for sure but doesn't mean the kid's in the right


Yes.

...wow expecting a school not to expelle their students because they don't believe in leprecauns? Your standards are obviously too high.

I don't know, it's kind of bitchy and rude to get in to a debate about someone's beliefs in the middle of art class. And, for that matter, it's pretty rude and disruptive to start rambling on about your beliefs in the middle of art class.

Art class is for discussion about art and about making art, right?

I don't know, it's kind of bitchy and rude to get in to a debate about someone's beliefs in the middle of art class. And, for that matter, it's pretty rude and disruptive to start rambling on about your beliefs in the middle of art class.

Art class is for discussion about art and about making art, right?
They said it was after they had finished their art and class hadn't ended. I know a lot of people here are eager to discuss religion, this boy was the same way.

They said it was after they had finished their art and class hadn't ended. I know a lot of people here are eager to discuss religion, this boy was the same way.

You'd think that it would make sense to do so after class...that kind of discussion doesn't fit while other students are still working. I mean, that seems to be a pretty basic disciplinary idea; you don't talk in class unless you're allowed to by the teacher or professor. It's disruptive to other students, and so you shouldn't be doing it.

Of course, expulsion is pretty damn extreme in any case.

I hate to say it, but I'd be intolerant of mythological lunacy as well.

I wonder how the girl who initiated the conversation will be punished.
with luck, Leprechauns will hide her car keys.

Well, the "invisible pink unicorn" argument has had a good run...

If the unicorn is invisible, how can you tell its pink?

The thing that concerns me is the assertion that atheists are "not a protected class of people".

I thought discrimination based on religious preference was illegal in the US...

The thing that concerns me is the assertion that atheists are "not a protected class of people".

I thought discrimination based on religious preference was illegal in the US...

I think one problem is that nobody can seem to agree what exactly atheism means, so it can't even begin to be classified. I mean, you've got implicit atheists, explicit atheists, agnostic atheists, agnostics, nontheists, ignostics, apatheists, and so on that all fall under that umbrella with varying degrees of faith, belief, moral stances and philosophical positions.

Now, specific beliefs like secular humanism are rightfully classified as religions and get the same benefits and protections that other faiths get. I imagine in order to get protection for atheists, they'd have to agree on what the "Religion of Atheism" is; ironically, of course, by defining themselves according to a set of principles they fall in to the same dogmatism that they dislike about other religions.

I imagine the "Religion of Disbelief" is just plain illogical.

I don't know, it's kind of bitchy and rude to get in to a debate about someone's beliefs in the middle of art class. And, for that matter, it's pretty rude and disruptive to start rambling on about your beliefs in the middle of art class.

Art class is for discussion about art and about making art, right?

Were they disrupting the function of the class? If not, there's nothing wrong with it, unless one or the other was being cruel to the other.

I've discussed lots of things with lots of people in all kinds of places... if that was an expulsion-deserving offense, I wouldn't have made it past elementary school.

Woohoo!! ANother show of extreme stupidity!!

Do you mean this thread, or the whole situation?

Huh? There's no mention of any altercation with the teacher.

But the associate dean, Averill says, "told me she didn't want to hear from me again that day. So she reported it to the dean as rude and belligerent behavior."

At the judicial hearing, on November 17, Dean of Student Affairs Ron Engeldinger was more focused on the "rude and belligerent behavior" report from the associate dean, Averill says, than on the initial conversation about religion.

Then Engeldinger, he says, brought up the fact that Averill had had some trouble with three instructors in October.

This is his wording of the event, so he is free to play down his behavior as much as he likes - but the Dean found his behavior sufficiently bad to report him, and that this follows from previous incidents with staff with which the staff found his behavior to be comparable.


See, I'm not. I've seen a school revoke a straight-A student employee's scholarship because he was gay and dared to try and start an LGBTS group on campus. Administrations do crazy things all the time because of their own prejudices.
Maybe - but I can't see a course that does not mind it's students believing in leprachauns being too bothered about people not believing in God. As stated in the article - and admitted by the student - this follows a string of incidents where his behavior has been "aggressive, demeaning, and threatening". The quotes from the staff seem to indicate this is purely about his treatment of staff and pupils rather than his religious beliefs.


Or had him on some sort of official probation. The lack of any such record is precisely why I have a hard time taking the school's word on this one. If he was so bad that a conversation about leprechauns which offended a student (but didn't prompt her to want him to get in trouble) was the "last straw," then he should have already been on probation of some sort. Expulsion isn't exactly something you do on a whim.
It sounds like he had been warned before, on a few occasions. Remember this is almost exclusively his wording, but I would be surprised if he had not been warned on the previous times he had been disciplined that he really needs to get his act together.
Also note - he is free to return on the condition he has some sort of councilling on anger management or the like.


Looking for more on this story I found this on the same news site:

I’ve had about eight classes with Bob Averill, and I think the article “Suspension of Disbelief” does a disservice by portraying him as a victim. He was combative and hostile to anyone not sharing his opinion, (especially on God and Nintendo).He was also disruptive in class and spent the majority of class time surfing the internet instead of paying attention. Bob could be funny and nice as long as you didn’t rile him up, but he never seemed interested in being at the school. While I think expulsion is harsh, allowing him to reapply if he undergoes psychiatric evaluation is more than fair. At least some anger management. -Brett
While there is no guarentee that the guy is not writing fiction - if he was in the class and this is the case then it seems to paint him in a different light to his softly-softly approach to asking about other peoples beliefs.

While there is no guarentee that the guy is not writing fiction - if he was in the class and this is the case then it seems to paint him in a different light to his softly-softly approach to asking about other peoples beliefs.
Hell, a picture says more than a thousand words.

http://www.portlandmercury.com/binary/46622a96/news1-160.jpg

Doesn't that just scream South Park's non-conformists?

Seriously though...there's a difference between being an atheist and not believing in god, and being a pain in the arse. From the guy's looks and what I've read about him, he was the latter. You know the type - thinks he's figured the universe out and is happy to present his pretend superiority to anyone he meets.

Watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBkUWbFjdpg :p

This is his wording of the event, so he is free to play down his behavior as much as he likes - but the Dean found his behavior sufficiently bad to report him, and that this follows from previous incidents with staff with which the staff found his behavior to be comparable.

In other words, there was no altercation with the teacher. Gotcha.

Of course, I'd have to say that the dean was acting pretty badly himself. A student brings a witness - someone who is willing to give a different view of the events that said student has been suspended for - and the dean won't even hear it? Sounds to me like the dean had it out for this kid, bad behavior or not.

Maybe - but I can't see a course that does not mind it's students believing in leprachauns being too bothered about people not believing in God. As stated in the article - and admitted by the student - this follows a string of incidents where his behavior has been "aggressive, demeaning, and threatening". The quotes from the staff seem to indicate this is purely about his treatment of staff and pupils rather than his religious beliefs.

And yet, the student who complained even stated that she didn't expect him to get into trouble, so this particular incident couldn't have been all that aggressive, demeaning, or threatening.

It sounds like he had been warned before, on a few occasions.

They say that, yes. Of course, without written record of this, and of some sort of official probation, the school has harmed itself if this is true.


Hell, a picture says more than a thousand words.

Doesn't that just scream South Park's non-conformists?

LOL! He's at an ART SCHOOL. He actually looks less non-conformist than I would expect. From what I've seen of art schools, if he is non-conformist, it's because he doesn't have enough visible piercings and his hair is black, rather than some combination of bright colors.

If the unicorn is invisible, how can you tell its pink?

It is above human logic, invisable is just the term we use because what it actually is is beyond your comprehension. *nods*

I think one problem is that nobody can seem to agree what exactly atheism means, so it can't even begin to be classified. I mean, you've got implicit atheists, explicit atheists, agnostic atheists, agnostics, nontheists, ignostics, apatheists, and so on that all fall under that umbrella with varying degrees of faith, belief, moral stances and philosophical positions.

"I think one problem is that nobody can seem to agree what exactly Christianity means, so it can't even begin to be classified. I mean, you've got Catholics, Anglicans, Lutherans, Greek Orthodoxes, non-denominational Christians, Latter-Day Saints, and so on that all fall under that umbrella with varying degrees of faith, belief, moral stances and philosophical positions."

See, it goes both ways.

Now, specific beliefs like secular humanism are rightfully classified as religions and get the same benefits and protections that other faiths get. I imagine in order to get protection for atheists, they'd have to agree on what the "Religion of Atheism" is; ironically, of course, by defining themselves according to a set of principles they fall in to the same dogmatism that they dislike about other religions.

That's why you can't discriminate against religious preference, not religion. Atheism might not be a religion, but it's certainly a religious preference.

I hate to say it, but I'd be intolerant of mythological lunacy as well.

The notion of energy levels again... Regardless. If you're in class, you let it drop, usually. This girl was not attacking all atheists here, she was professing a weird belief, true, but wasn't going "...and woe be unto who disagrees" like many christians, in fact, do.

I wonder how the girl who initiated the conversation will be punished.

Considering she seemed not to want to cause any real trouble, how about no?

Some chick in this guy's art class was babbling about "energy layers" and other metaphysical mumbo jumbo when a kid in class asked her if she believed in leprechauns as well. The granola girl said she did and they lived in a different energy level. So then they got into a little debate about her beliefs and the kid who asked about the leprechauns ended up getting expelled.

Now this seems wrong to me. You can expel students now for speaking about their religious disbelief? That's fucked up. The non-believer is hiring legal counsel and has the ACLU on his side. I hope he not only gets a nice cash award, but that he gets those involved in expelling him fired.

http://www.portlandmercury.com/portland/Content?oid=84436&category=22101

Linky (http://www.oregoncommentator.com/2006/11/29/portland-atheist-expelled-from-art-school/)
Hold on now! Before you go and get the wrong idea, this ISN’T another rant about why religion is bad, or why it’s wrong. Of course, it IS bad, and it IS wrong. But this is so blindingly obvious that it no longer needs to be said. Instead, this is a direct attack on you, the religious person. The argument? That your failure to reject religion indicates you are colossally, irredeemably stupid.

[…]

I refuse to respect religious beliefs, and I refuse to respect people who hold them.

Your willful ignorance is inexcusable, and it disgusts me.

Somehow, I don't think he came across as not trying to put down their religion, reguardless of his intent...

also from the op's article...

At the judicial hearing, on November 17, Dean of Student Affairs Ron Engeldinger was more focused on the "rude and belligerent behavior" report from the associate dean, Averill says, than on the initial conversation about religion.

Then Engeldinger, he says, brought up the fact that Averill had had some trouble with three instructors in October. "The thing is, I had already had a meeting with the associate dean about [that]. We resolved the issue and I apologized to the professors involved." Averill was surprised that Engeldinger brought it up again.

...

According to an emailed letter from Engeldinger, Averill had violated the student conduct policy. The decision to dismiss Averill was "not the result of a single action on your part, but a series of actions. I believe that, in several instances, your actions have been aggressive, demeaning, and threatening and that this demonstrates a pattern of inappropriate and unacceptable behavior," Engeldinger wrote.

The student who complained on November 8 wished to remain anonymous, but her account backs up Engeldinger's letter. Her complaint was not the only reason he was sent into the Dean's office. "The teacher even told me that my complaint was the 'last straw' as SEVERAL other complaints were stated before mine."

However, she says she "did not wish for him to be expelled or get in trouble and I had no idea that it was going to happen until after the fact."

On Monday morning, November 20, Averill met with the school's president, Dr. Steven Goldman, to appeal his dismissal. "He upheld the dean's decision to throw me out," Averill says. "He offered to re-admit me if I underwent—get this—psychiatric evaluation."

looks like he was suspended not because he was an athiest, nor for commenting/discussing religion, but because of his BEHAVIOR.


let's see what the ACLU will find.

People at colleges are just too sensitive. They want their fragile beliefs to be protected from logic. If college is supposed to be about learning truth, then we need to be able to have open discussions about everything.