NationStates Jolt Archive

School officials in Tomah, Wisconsin, are facing a lawsuit after a high school teacher there failed a student's art project because it included a cross and a reference to John 3:16. The school district argues that the student voluntarily waived his First Amendment religious freedoms when he entered the classroom.

A Wisconsin high school senior is suing his school after receiving a zero on an art project that contained Christian references and being told that he had forfeited his First Amendment rights in the classroom. The Tomah High School student included a cross and the words "John 3:16, a sign of love" in his art project. The teacher told him to remove the scripture reference or cover it up with a border. David Cortman, senior legal counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), says the student refused.

"The teacher gave him a zero for the assignment -- and for the reason, she showed him a policy that every student has to sign," says Cortman. "Now, get this: It says, 'No blood. No violence. No sex' and 'No religion.' And [she] cited that policy as 'waiving' his First Amendment rights" when he came into the class."

The student, Cortman says, was not intimidated by the teacher's apparent anti-religious bias. "This is a student with a, top of his class, 3.5, 3.6 GPA -- [he] tore it in half and said, 'This is an illegal policy,' and handed it back to them."

As the ADF attorney explains, the content discrimination by the teacher is an obvious violation of the free exercise clause of the First Amendment -- and, in fact, favors one religion over another.

"What makes the case more egregious -- and it shows where our public schools are heading -- the same teacher allowed pictures of these demonic, evil-looking beings as part of these assignments, but yet wouldn't allow a small cross and a scripture verse," says Cortman. "So if you look at the dichotomy between what the school is saying is permissible and what they are saying they should be able to censor, I think it's definitely a sad day for public schools."

The pro-family attorney says the legal wrong is compounded by the immoral message the school is sending. "What's most offensive about this case and most egregious in the actions by the school district is the fact that their policy lumps blood, violence, sex, and religion as if those four things are equal," he states.

The student is requesting an injunction declaring the "no religion" policy unconstitutional.


Linkaroni (http://www.onenewsnow.com/Education/Default.aspx?id=74297)

Who's right, the school or the student?

Also, doesn't this lead us to more fundamental question: Should schools ever be allowed to infringe upon free speech rights, especially in art class?

the school, and here's why:
"The teacher gave him a zero for the assignment -- and for the reason, she showed him a policy that every student has to sign," says Cortman. "Now, get this: It says, 'No blood. No violence. No sex' and 'No religion.' And [she] cited that policy as 'waiving' his First Amendment rights" when he came into the class."

the school, and here's why:

I guess the student is suing the school because of the waiver, not because the teacher followed the waiver.
But I still think the school is in the right. It sounded like this kid was making a piece of art that said something positive about Christianity. That's all well and good, I doubt too many people would be offended at his school. But what happens when you get the art that sticks a crucifix in a jar of urine? It's more fair to just make religion a hands-off topic, especially in a high school. (If it were a college or art school, maybe not.)
Anyway, I'm sure TCT will come by either proving everything I said was wrong, or agreeing with it and making this post completely superfluous.

But I thought Tinker v. Des Moines specifically stated that constitutional rights do not stop at the classroom door. Tinker was about the free speech clause in the 1st Amendment. Surely, just as you have free speech in school (non disruptively), you can have free exercise (non disruptively)?

Although perhaps one of NSGs resident lawyers might be better to answer this question then I.

you dont get freedom of expression in school.

so the school is right.

Unless it's disruptive, you do get free expression in a school.

To my knowledge, you do. Tinker said so, in more words. The schools have to prove that regulation of speech/expression is for the greater good. They can't just ban expression because it may have controversy. That was apparent in Tinker.

Link to Tinker v. Des Moines for those interested (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinker_v._Des_Moines_Independent_Community_School_District)

Not sure whether it makes a difference or not, but he did sign(and supposedly agreed with) that form which stated "no religion" in the art.

However, I am also not sure if the 'contract' would even be legally binding. Assuming he isn't 18 and assuming school forms are somehow held in a different light, legally.

Not sure whether it makes a difference or not, but he did sign(and supposedly agreed with) that form which stated "no religion" in the art.

However, I am also not sure if the 'contract' would even be legally binding. Assuming he isn't 18 and assuming school forms are somehow held in a different light, legally.

One of the nice things about waiving a constitutional right is that you can unwaive it at any time. That document is effectively meaningless.

Not sure whether it makes a difference or not, but he did sign(and supposedly agreed with) that form which stated "no religion" in the art.

However, I am also not sure if the 'contract' would even be legally binding. Assuming he isn't 18 and assuming school forms are somehow held in a different light, legally.

I can't recall a case where anyone ever "signed away" a first amendment right. I know that you can give up you rights under the 4th Amendment by agreeing to a search or by being arrested.

Honestly I'm not certain the school can constitutionally do that. I'd be inclined to support the kid.

If the Teacher has a rule, and she or he tells you about that rule, so long as the rule isn't harmful, or such, it has to be followed.

The Teacher, IMO, should counter sue the parents for allowing such a stupid child take her/his class.

If the Teacher has a rule, and she or he tells you about that rule, so long as the rule isn't harmful, or such, it has to be followed.

The Teacher, IMO, should counter sue the parents for allowing such a stupid child take her/his class.

Not how it works in America, my friend.

One of the nice things about waiving a constitutional right is that you can unwaive it at any time. That document is effectively meaningless.

I can't recall a case where anyone ever "signed away" a first amendment right. I know that you can give up you rights under the 4th Amendment by agreeing to a search or by being arrested.

I guess the document is worthless then.

By which I don't mean the Constitution.

I guess the document is worthless then.

By which I don't mean the Constitution.

Yeah, that document is worth a Zimbabwean dollar.

From a purely non-legally informed standpoint. The kid signed up to the rules, if he didn't like them he should've objected then. Too late now.

And a big :rolleyes: to

The student, Cortman says, was not intimidated by the teacher's apparent anti-religious bias

Yes, because enforcing rules the school set down indicates a teacher's bias>

I am inclined to support the student, and it's pretty obvious he's trying to make a point against the waiver itself.

I also think the waiver is a bit poorly worded and restricting, especially for an art class. I mean, religion, sex, and violence can be expressed in many ways in art work, not always in an obvious position. I tend to think interesting artwork ties to people's emotions and opinions, which could include to various degrees sex, religion, or violence. I mean I understand you don't want students drawing gruesome murders scenes or massive works of explicit nudity (Not that I haven't seen amazing art including these very components), but I would try to go on a case by case basis myself.

The school did have this policy documented, as long as the student was fully aware before this incident occured, the school should be in the clear.
However, such a law is absouloutly uncalled for in the first place.http://assets.jolt.co.uk/forums/images/smilies/upyours.gif
:upyours:

The school did have this policy documented, as long as the student was fully aware before this incident occured, the school should be in the clear.
However, such a law is absouloutly uncalled for in the first place.

I guess the student is suing the school because of the waiver, not because the teacher followed the waiver.
But I still think the school is in the right. It sounded like this kid was making a piece of art that said something positive about Christianity. That's all well and good, I doubt too many people would be offended at his school. But what happens when you get the art that sticks a crucifix in a jar of urine? It's more fair to just make religion a hands-off topic, especially in a high school. (If it were a college or art school, maybe not.)
Anyway, I'm sure TCT will come by either proving everything I said was wrong, or agreeing with it and making this post completely superfluous.

He should have thought ahead, he signed it.

No matter who's in the right, the kids going to get the axe. Expressing Christianity is a big no-no in public schools.

Not how it works in America, my friend.

It's not? I thought it was part of American culture to sue anyone for the smallest little sneeze :p

Anyway... it seems pretty stupid to me to get your panties all in a twist over something so small as a cross and a bible verse, and just as stupid to cry religious unfair over some projects with 'demonic' images. Just imagine how creative art class would be if any and all 'religious' symbols were banned :rolleyes:

I myself wouldn't want either of them to have legal victory, but, if I had to chose, I'd side with the student. From what I understand of the article, it's not like his project was all "REPENT SINNER OR BURN IN HELL DEATH TO THE HERITICS"

On the other hand, my stubborn I-don't-want-to-hear-about-your-beliefs athiest side doesn't want to think about another case of society bending over backwards for religious accomodation.

As the ADF attorney explains, the content discrimination by the teacher is an obvious violation of the free exercise clause of the First Amendment -- and, in fact, favors one religion over another.

"What makes the case more egregious -- and it shows where our public schools are heading -- the same teacher allowed pictures of these demonic, evil-looking beings as part of these assignments, but yet wouldn't allow a small cross and a scripture verse," says Cortman.

Just noticed this in going back over the article...
Was wondering what religion the teacher is supposedly favoring.

No matter who's in the right, the kids going to get the axe. Expressing Christianity is a big no-no in public schools.

Nooooooooooooooooooooo.....

A teacher preaching about Christianity in class is against the rules....
A student being disruptive and deciding to witness in the middle of class is against the rules.....
Generally speaking, creating a piece of art alluding to religion is NOT against the rules. Signing the waiver, though, might be a problem for him.

Neo Art: HOT CHICKS! :D

Just noticed this in going back over the article...
Was wondering what religion the teacher is supposedly favoring.

I would think they are trying to imply that the teacher, and the school, promote some kind of demon worship.

I would think they are trying to imply that the teacher, and the school, promote some kind of demon worship.

That's how I read it to... :(

Neo Art: HOT CHICKS IN CHAINS! :D

fixed :D

Freedom of speech in education is just that. No holds barred.

He should have thought ahead, he signed it.

If a waiver said "We have a right to imprison you in a glass box and occasionally pour molten titanuim rods over your genitles" it wouldnt' be legally binding. Waivers have no power if the right they intend to strip you of is illegal to remove. That is what is being discussed here.

On the other hand, my stubborn I-don't-want-to-hear-about-your-beliefs athiest side doesn't want to think about another case of society bending over backwards for religious accomodation.

Allowing people to express religious faith in the form of art is hardly bending over backwards. Thats a basic right.

If a waiver said "We have a right to imprison you in a glass box and occasionally pour molten titanuim rods over your genitles" it wouldnt' be legally binding. Waivers have no power if the right they intend to strip you of is illegal to remove. That is what is being discussed here.

Allowing people to express religious faith in the form of art is hardly bending over backwards. Thats a basic right.

The rules of the class were that the artwork would contain:
'No blood. No violence. No sex' and 'No religion.'

He knew what the rules were before/when he started the class, if he had a problem with those rules he should have either not signed the waiver and taken the class, or brought up his objection to the no religion at the beginning/before the class.
Not whined when he got a zero for not turning in an (acceptable) assignment.

The rules of the class were that the artwork would contain:


He knew what the rules were before/when he started the class, if he had a problem with those rules he should have either not signed the waiver and taken the class, or brought up his objection to the no religion at the beginning/before the class.
Not whined when he got a zero for not turning in an (acceptable) assignment.

You havn't adressed my argument. The waiver is unreasonable because of its unconsitutional nature. It doesnt matter if he signed it or not, in the same way it wouldn't matter if he'd signed the type of agreement I described. He was fully entitled to display his religious faith in the way he chose there, as it did not interfere with school discipline or the rights of others, as laid out in the Tinker case. If you signed a waiver to your right to a fair trial which was part of a credit card payment deal but you didn't have the time to go through the small print, would that be accpetable? No. You can't argue "He signed it, therfore its ok" because that is grounds to allow people to do anything. You cannot waiver certian rights, that is the nature of what we call fundimental rights. They are indivisable.

You havn't adressed my argument. The waiver is unreasonable because of its unconsitutional nature. It doesnt matter if he signed it or not, in the same way it wouldn't matter if he'd signed the type of agreement I described. He was fully entitled to display his religious faith in the way he chose there, as it did not interfere with school discipline or the rights of others, as laid out in the Tinker case. If you signed a waiver to your right to a fair trial which was part of a credit card payment deal but you didn't have the time to go through the small print, would that be accpetable? No. You can't argue "He signed it, therfore its ok" because that is grounds to allow people to do anything. You cannot waiver certian rights, that is the nature of what we call fundimental rights. They are indivisable.

Once again this (the class) was something that he did not have to do, if he had a problem with the rules he should have brought it up beforehand, not waited until he got a zero then whined about how it hurt his average.

Order of events
He signed the waiver at the beginning of the class, indicating the he was okay with/agreed to the rules.
He failed to follow the rules.
He received a zero for an assignment for failing to complete it.
He whined about how the rules shouldn't apply to him.

Once again this (the class) was something that he did not have to do, if he had a problem with the rules he should have brought it up beforehand, not waited until he got a zero then whined about how it hurt his average.

Order of events
He signed the waiver at the beginning of the class, indicating the he was okay with/agreed to the rules.
He failed to follow the rules.
He received a zero for an assignment for failing to complete it.
He whined about how the rules shouldn't apply to him.

And again, you havn't adressed my point. It doesnt matter if he didn't have to do it or if he signed it or not. The waiver is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and there is PRESCEDENT set in court that means that the school cannot simply state that something that is grantted by the constitution is against their rules unless it disrupts school disipline or harms the rights of others. This does neither. Whether or not he signed it is irrelevent. You can sign away all your rights if you like, but the contract on that paper means nothing because the contracts contents are unconstitutional. Lets apply your logic to other areas. If a drug dealer signed a contract with a mule telling them they had to transport seven kilos of cocaine from Chicago to Memphis before the 12th April, would it be illegal for the state to interviene? Or if the school had put in part of the student/school/teacher agreement that they could arbitarly arrest children and lock them in the school building over the weekend would that be ok because it was a contract. Yes, you are right, insofar as it would have been better for him to have spotted this problem before the class. But it doesn't change the fact that it is still an unconstituional waiver. The school is not allowed to do that by the constitution. Unless you can demonstrate that it can, with your own argument, then you fail. Your argument thus far has been "He signed it, he should learn to deal with it" which I've demonstrated isn't valid because what he signed waiverd consitutional rights, which cannot be waivered. So unless you have a descent argument to counter that, stop repeating yourself.

But I thought Tinker v. Des Moines specifically stated that constitutional rights do not stop at the classroom door. Tinker was about the free speech clause in the 1st Amendment. Surely, just as you have free speech in school (non disruptively), you can have free exercise (non disruptively)?

Although perhaps one of NSGs resident lawyers might be better to answer this question then I.

Depends. If something is listed in the schools handbook, it overpowers the law (this applies to constitutional law as well as standard law)
However, this is a little different as it was an in-class waiver, and not the handbook.

What is significant is that the teacher explicitly set down the guidelines for his class. He was permitted to create the artwork...he just failed for not following the rules. This is no different than me assigning my students an essay on Great Expectations, instructing them to write about Joe, Pip, or Estella. If one of my students hands in a paper discussing Biddy, then I have every right to give them a zero for not following my directions. I don't need a waiver to do that.

And again, you havn't adressed my point. It doesnt matter if he didn't have to do it or if he signed it or not. The waiver is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and there is PRESCEDENT set in court that means that the school cannot simply state that something that is grantted by the constitution is against their rules unless it disrupts school disipline or harms the rights of others. This does neither. Whether or not he signed it is irrelevent. You can sign away all your rights if you like, but the contract on that paper means nothing because the contracts contents are unconstitutional. Lets apply your logic to other areas. If a drug dealer signed a contract with a mule telling them they had to transport seven kilos of cocaine from Chicago to Memphis before the 12th April, would it be illegal for the state to interviene? Or if the school had put in part of the student/school/teacher agreement that they could arbitarly arrest children and lock them in the school building over the weekend would that be ok because it was a contract. Yes, you are right, insofar as it would have been better for him to have spotted this problem before the class. But it doesn't change the fact that it is still an unconstituional waiver. The school is not allowed to do that by the constitution. Unless you can demonstrate that it can, with your own argument, then you fail. Your argument thus far has been "He signed it, he should learn to deal with it" which I've demonstrated isn't valid because what he signed waiverd consitutional rights, which cannot be waivered. So unless you have a descent argument to counter that, stop repeating yourself.
And again, his rights weren't restricted at all. See below \/
What is significant is that the teacher explicitly set down the guidelines for his class. He was permitted to create the artwork...he just failed for not following the rules. This is no different than me assigning my students an essay on Great Expectations, instructing them to write about Joe, Pip, or Estella. If one of my students hands in a paper discussing Biddy, then I have every right to give them a zero for not following my directions. I don't need a waiver to do that.

And again, his rights weren't restricted at all. See below \/

Ah see now you have provided a descent argument and not merely repeated yourself

The issue here is not however one of intelectual content but expressive content. The example of which characters to write about is not a question of expression, because literature analysis is not the same as artisitc expression. If you enter a course about art and you wish to express your religious faith in an artistic fashion, there is nothing disruptive to school disipline about that because the function of the course is to express yourself artistically. What is in question here is the purpose of the restrcition. The purpose of the restriction in the case of your essay example of your friend is so that the essays are comparable and that the text is examined in its full specturm, as is nessecitated by the nature of the course. What exactly is the cause for restricting this style of artistic expression. There is nothing about religion that cannot be equally well expressed as say empathy or a desire to eat cheese. All such things can be expressed artistically. So the question is, does this restriction conform to the presedent set down in the case. The answer is no, since it does not threaten school discipline. Merely breaking a rule the school sets down is not breaking school discipline. The rule has to be there for a valid reason, and in this case the constituiton says that this rule has no valid reason.

EDIT

Your friends example of the essay does have a valid reason, to make the essays comparable and to make the course expand to its fullness. It is not expression to break the rules in that case. It is in this one.

Ah see now you have provided a descent argument and not merely repeated yourself

The issue as far as I am concerned is there was a rule which, by signing the waiver, he agreed to comply with. He then failed to comply with the rule, and thusly received a failing mark for that assignment.

The issue as far as the ADF (a rabidly anti-non-christian organization) (http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/main/default.aspx)
is concerned is that a christian was 'persecuted' for his beliefs.

The issue as far as I am concerned is there was a rule which, by signing the waiver, he agreed to comply with. He then failed to comply with the rule, and thusly received a failing mark for that assignment.

The issue as far as the ADF (a rabidly anti-non-christian organization) (http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/main/default.aspx)
is concerned is that a christian was 'persecuted' for his beliefs.

And the issue as far as I'm concerned is that he has a constituional right to express himself there. The rules restrictions were unconstitutional. This is the sort of thing the constitution is for. You are acting as if organisations rules are somehow the euqivilent of national soverign government laws. They arn't. You havn't explained why the rules are constitutional. The only restrictions to freedom of expression that are allowed are to keep school discipline and to protect the rights of other students. Please explain how this rule either protects discipline or the rights of other students.

I think this kid should just be slapped upside the head, then allowed to put that religious stuff in the dang art project.

Ah see now you have provided a descent argument and not merely repeated yourself

The issue here is not however one of intelectual content but expressive content. The example of which characters to write about is not a question of expression, because literature analysis is not the same as artisitc expression. If you enter a course about art and you wish to express your religious faith in an artistic fashion, there is nothing disruptive to school disipline about that because the function of the course is to express yourself artistically. What is in question here is the purpose of the restrcition. The purpose of the restriction in the case of your essay example of your friend is so that the essays are comparable and that the text is examined in its full specturm, as is nessecitated by the nature of the course. An analysis of biddy would not lessen the students interaction with the text, and the essays are graded on an individual, not class, basis. That is to say, I can assign a free topic (each student creates their own thesis) and still grade the same way I would in my given example. The puropse of my restriction is that is what I want them to focus on. The flip side of this logic is that I do NOT want them to focus on other characters.
What exactly is the cause for restricting this style of artistic expression. Exactly the same as mine. My student could easily understand Great Expectations in the same depth had they written about Biddy. I simply told them to follow my rules.
There is nothing about religion that cannot be equally well expressed as say empathy or a desire to eat cheese. All such things can be expressed artistically.Except for when a teacher says "This is how I want you to do it". The student could have written an A essay about Biddy. I didn't want an essay about Biddy, I wanted it about Joe, Pip, or Estella.
So the question is, does this restriction conform to the presedent set down in the case. The answer is no, since it does not threaten school discipline. Merely breaking a rule the school sets down is not breaking school discipline. The rule has to be there for a valid reason, and in this case the constituiton says that this rule has no valid reason.
a) school rules in the handbook do not have to have a reason, nor do they have to conform to any law.
b) this is not a school rule, but a teacher rule. The prescedent is irrelevant
Your friends example of the essay does have a valid reason, to make the essays comparable and to make the course expand to its fullness. It is not expression to break the rules in that case. It is in this one.
No. My student could fully understand the text by analyzing Biddy, and it would not influence my grading. It is an arbitrary distinction I created.

Had my student looked at Mrs Joe, he would also fail. Had this student made a violent or sexual image, he would also fail. Religion has nothing to do with it.

Depends. If something is listed in the schools handbook, it overpowers the law (this applies to constitutional law as well as standard law)
However, this is a little different as it was an in-class waiver, and not the handbook.

What is significant is that the teacher explicitly set down the guidelines for his class. He was permitted to create the artwork...he just failed for not following the rules. This is no different than me assigning my students an essay on Great Expectations, instructing them to write about Joe, Pip, or Estella. If one of my students hands in a paper discussing Biddy, then I have every right to give them a zero for not following my directions. I don't need a waiver to do that.

That isn't true, really. In Tinker, school officials said that the plaintiffs could not wear said armbands. They did. And the Supreme Court said that was wrong. Students have freedom of expression to an extent in public schools. This is they key thing that came out of the ruling. In my view, two things matter in this.

1. He was failed because he violated the waiver.

2. Religious symbolism is not in and of itself disruptive or obscene. From the art that I have seen, I cannot possibly construe how the artwork could be considered obscene or disruptive. Had they banned obscene art, that would have been OK. But they did not. They specifically banned religion from an open project that relies on the students' free thought and creativity.

Of course, we are dealing with a bit of a poisoned well here. Our only source has an obvious agenda to push. Perhaps we are missing details that would change what we know. But we don't have evidence of that. So, this is the only thing to go on. And it leads me to believe that the school overstepped its bounds regarding reasonable limitation.

I think this kid should just be slapped upside the head, then allowed to put that religious stuff in the dang art project.

He can have it there. He'll just get a 0. My student can write about Biddy, per my example. He'll also just get a 0.

Part of school, and life for that matter, is following instructions. Your boss tells you to add a set of numbers. You decide to subtract. You get fired. Too bad.

I tell you what to do. You either do it, or you get a 0. Thems the rules. Harsh? Perhaps. Brutally honest? Yep.

Censorship should have no place in an art class. A student's work should be graded strictly on its artistic merits, not its subject. The idea of censorship is antithetical to art.

If he turns in a work having to do with religion, whether a promotion of any specific faith or a condemnation of it, that should be fine and it should be graded as any other piece would. It's not as if the school is promoting religion.

You cannot "Waive" rights. The student is 100% right. I would agree with this no matter what religious reference, even it was satanic, I would agree with their rights to draw it.

He can have it there. He'll just get a 0. My student can write about Biddy, per my example. He'll also just get a 0.

Part of school, and life for that matter, is following instructions. Your boss tells you to add a set of numbers. You decide to subtract. You get fired. Too bad.

I tell you what to do. You either do it, or you get a 0. Thems the rules. Harsh? Perhaps. Brutally honest? Yep.

Oh, right.

In that case, he should be slapped upside the head and given a 0. Then told to sit in a corner and think about what havoc he almost wreaked on NSG.

http://marriedtothesea.com/031608/early-terrorist-screening.gif

An analysis of biddy would not lessen the students interaction with the text, and the essays are graded on an individual, not class, basis. That is to say, I can assign a free topic (each student creates their own thesis) and still grade the same way I would in my given example. The puropse of my restriction is that is what I want them to focus on. The flip side of this logic is that I do NOT want them to focus on other characters.
Exactly the same as mine. My student could easily understand Great Expectations in the same depth had they written about Biddy. I simply told them to follow my rules.
Except for when a teacher says "This is how I want you to do it". The student could have written an A essay about Biddy. I didn't want an essay about Biddy, I wanted it about Joe, Pip, or Estella.

The point is though is that the rule has a point, to challenge the student in a particular area. They may be very good at analysing Biddy's charachter, but they need to be able to analyse all of the charachters if they want a rounded understanding of the text. Also there is the question of fairness, IE they have to do what all the other students have to to make it comparable and the marking fair.

Also, your rule is positive, this rule is negative. You have said "Make an essay about X, Y and Z" in order to make the comparison more about technique because then everyone is analysing the same thing and thus technique is clear. This rule is negative, IE "Do not paint X, Y or Z subjects" this is not making comparison easier. If you wanted to do that, all you would need to say is "You may only paint X" thus making everyone have the same hurdle to climb. The distinction is not reasonable.

Furthermore, this is not a random piece of work, this counts towards final marks. Normally with English essay questions with regard to final marks (at least in my school and all the other schools my friends outside my own went to) you were able to select from a plethora of questions and if you did not like any of them you may pick your own and as long as it meets with the teachers aproval based on academic standing, then its fine. This rule is not about academic standing. It is an arbitary reasoning to select certian subject matters as inapropriate. It is not comparable to selecting certian characters from a book for an essay because there, the focus already has been narrowed by the book, and the charachters selected are done so that everyone faces the same boundires. These things are not aplicable to art in this case.


a) school rules in the handbook do not have to have a reason, nor do they have to conform to any law.
b) this is not a school rule, but a teacher rule. The prescedent is irrelevant.

No, it isnt. The prescendent works for individuals and institutions.


No. My student could fully understand the text by analyzing Biddy, and it would not influence my grading. It is an arbitrary distinction I created.

The student would not gain a rounded understanding if Biddy was all that was analyised. But I agree that point was not as well structured. I think it is simpler to say that art is not comparable to English literature in this particular instance. The expression is diffrent.

That isn't true, really. In Tinker, school officials said that the plaintiffs could not wear said armbands. They did. And the Supreme Court said that was wrong. Students have freedom of expression to an extent in public schools. This is they key thing that came out of the ruling. In my view, two things matter in this.Had that rule been in the handbook, however, it would have been upheld. No case has made it to the supreme court, but this has been upheld countless times in every district court. Schools have the right to determine their rules. If the handbook in the case of Tinker said "Students may not wear black arm bands", they would have lost.Students do have a right to expression to an extent, no question. I fully agree with Tinker. However, handbook rules are law in schools

1. He was failed because he violated the waiver. I tell my students I am going to assign five essays while we cover Romeo and Juliet, one for each act. To start, I hand out a sheet that has basic guidelines. On this sheet, I state "You may not write about the following topics or characters: Lady Capulet, Friar Lawrence, or the nature of love". My student, on their fifth essay, writes about the nature of love. He gets a 0.

2. Religious symbolism is not in and of itself disruptive or obscene. From the art that I have seen, I cannot possibly construe how the artwork could be considered obscene or disruptive. Had they banned obscene art, that would have been OK. But they did not. They specifically banned religion from an open project that relies on the students' free thought and creativity.
Wasn't an open project if it had restrictions, was it?
Rules were presented. He broke them.
I am the student. Rather than a pro-religion painting, I draw a picture of Jesus in hell, or something similar, that doesn't violate the other restrictions, but only the religion one. Does this change your opinion? If so, why?

Of course, we are dealing with a bit of a poisoned well here. Our only source has an obvious agenda to push. Perhaps we are missing details that would change what we know. But we don't have evidence of that. So, this is the only thing to go on. And it leads me to believe that the school overstepped its bounds regarding reasonable limitation.Probably missing a lot of info, I'm guessing.
The teacher, in my opinion, presented the students with restrictions which they agreed to. He broke them, willingly, and knew the consequences. He earned his 0.

You cannot "Waive" rights. The student is 100% right. I would agree with this no matter what religious reference, even it was satanic, I would agree with their rights to draw it.
Wrong. You waive rights by entering a school and signing that you have recieved a handbook, read, and understood it.

If the student actually had to sign a contract of some sorts, the school is right. Otherwise not.

Though I'll point out, if it was a Muslim student with an Islamic reference, the teacher and school board would cower in fear and not dare utter a word about it.

Cant we let the courts decide this one?

Linkaroni (http://www.onenewsnow.com/Education/Default.aspx?id=74297)

Who's right, the school or the student?


The school. The student signed a waiver. If he fails to follow it, then the teacher can get him for breach of contract.

And I'd flunk him too, not for legal breach of contract, but because he clearly cannot follow a subject matter. If had students who I told to write a paper on Julius Caesar but got the life story of Barney the dinosaur instead, I'd flunk them too.

Though I'll point out, if it was a Muslim student with an Islamic reference, the teacher and school board would cower in fear and not dare utter a word about it.

Source?

I don't recall anything like that happening, so you must be basing this assertion on something you have seen.

Regardless of your opinion on religion, how can you say that it hasn't had a huge effect on several artistic movements throughout history? Given that, how can you ban religious imagery in your art class and still call yourself an art teacher? How can you fail a kid for an art project given that what he made was, undeniably, art?

It doesnt matter if he didn't have to do it or if he signed it or not.

It has everything to do with whether the student could follow the subject matter. The teacher specified what was not acceptable for grading. The student deliberately created what was unacceptable. Consequently, the teacher flunked him.

He can say or express whatever the hell he wants. He also has to take the consequences of it. In this case, failure to provide what is supposed to be graded so he flunks.

As the ADF attorney explains, the content discrimination by the teacher is an obvious violation of the free exercise clause of the First Amendment -- and, in fact, favors one religion over another.
Son of a bitch. How many times must this be said? Saying "no religious material" applies to Christianity does not favor one religion over another. God damn loonies.

Regardless of your opinion on religion, how can you say that it hasn't had a huge effect on several artistic movements throughout history? Given that, how can you ban religious imagery in your art class and still call yourself an art teacher? How can you fail a kid for an art project given that what he made was, undeniably, art?

People have called arranged pieces of junk art too. I wouldn't. Art can be classified into various aspects, styles and what have you. Restricting them according to the class is nothing new.

How can you fail a kid for an art project given that what he made was, undeniably, art?

He failed to follow the guidelines as to what would be acceptable ('No blood. No violence. No sex' 'No religion.') thus he failed to do the assignment and consequently received a zero for said assignment.

The point is though is that the rule has a point, to challenge the student in a particular area. They may be very good at analysing Biddy's charachter, but they need to be able to analyse all of the charachters if they want a rounded understanding of the text. Also there is the question of fairness, IE they have to do what all the other students have to to make it comparable and the marking fair.Does it? I said that my decision was arbitrary, and there would be no difference in the students interaction with the text to discuss Biddy. I had no reason for restricting them. I just did.

Also, your rule is positive, this rule is negative. You have said "Make an essay about X, Y and Z" in order to make the comparison more about technique because then everyone is analysing the same thing and thus technique is clear. This rule is negative, IE "Do not paint X, Y or Z subjects" this is not making comparison easier. If you wanted to do that, all you would need to say is "You may only paint X" thus making everyone have the same hurdle to climb. The distinction is not reasonable.A rule of inclusion is inherently also exclusive: positive is equally negative. I could have said "You may analyze any character except Biddy and Miss Havisham". The technique for analyzing the characters is identical, regardless of whom they choose.
Similarly, the art teacher says "You may paint a portrait, landscape, or still life, but it must be done in the impressionist style". He could equally easily say "You may paint anything except a landscape, but it must be done in the impressionist style". The subject is irrelevant.

Furthermore, this is not a random piece of work, this counts towards final marks. Should have followed instructions, eh?
Normally with English essay questions with regard to final marks (at least in my school and all the other schools my friends outside my own went to) you were able to select from a plethora of questions and if you did not like any of them you may pick your own and as long as it meets with the teachers aproval based on academic standing, then its fine.I usually do that. No law that says I have to, however. I actually refuse to do that for my writing process class. And no, I have no reason besides that I feel like it.
This rule is not about academic standing. It is an arbitary reasoning to select certian subject matters as inapropriate.Welcome to rules and guidelines.
It is not comparable to selecting certian characters from a book for an essay because there, the focus already has been narrowed by the book, and the charachters selected are done so that everyone faces the same boundires. I said Biddy would give them the same level of interaction. I just chose to ignore her. Assuming that, this argument becomes invalid. And it is pretty much true too.




No, it isnt. The prescendent works for individuals and institutions. Not always. Educational law is a bit strange like that...schools can do A, but not B. Teachers can do A and sometimes B, depending.



The student would not gain a rounded understanding if Biddy was all that was analyised. But I agree that point was not as well structured. I think it is simpler to say that art is not comparable to English literature in this particular instance. The expression is diffrent.Oh, Reginold!


I DISAGREE!

*speeds away*

Son of a bitch. How many times must this be said? Saying "no religious material" applies to Christianity does not favor one religion over another. God damn loonies.
Ah, but obviously you missed this...
"What makes the case more egregious -- and it shows where our public schools are heading -- the same teacher allowed pictures of these demonic, evil-looking beings as part of these assignments, but yet wouldn't allow a small cross and a scripture verse,"

All the people who don't support the student are zeromongers that don't think a sometimes unfortunately ambiguous and old document should protect individuals from contracts willingly entered into and agreed upon. You fiends.

Cant we let the courts decide this one?
No. Welcome to NSG ;)

Regardless of your opinion on religion, how can you say that it hasn't had a huge effect on several artistic movements throughout history? Given that, how can you ban religious imagery in your art class and still call yourself an art teacher? How can you fail a kid for an art project given that what he made was, undeniably, art?

a) you can fail him for not following the rules. Same as if I told everyone to paint something in the style of Georgia O'Keefe and got a painting in the style of Monet. F.
b)influence doesn't impact what is taught in a classroom. Curriculum does.
c) you can't break the rules untill you learn to follow them.

I can't recall a case where anyone ever "signed away" a first amendment right.
NDAs.

Ah, but obviously you missed this...


"What makes the case more egregious -- and it shows where our public schools are heading -- the same teacher allowed pictures of these demonic, evil-looking beings as part of these assignments, but yet wouldn't allow a small cross and a scripture verse,"

They drew the Tellytubbies?

Had that rule been in the handbook, however, it would have been upheld. No case has made it to the supreme court, but this has been upheld countless times in every district court. Schools have the right to determine their rules. If the handbook in the case of Tinker said "Students may not wear black arm bands", they would have lost.Students do have a right to expression to an extent, no question. I fully agree with Tinker. However, handbook rules are law in schools.

If the handbook laws said they could arbitrayly detain children in the gym at weekends, would the US gov not have something to say? No. The handbook has to have good reasons for it.

I tell my students I am going to assign five essays while we cover Romeo and Juliet, one for each act. To start, I hand out a sheet that has basic guidelines. On this sheet, I state "You may not write about the following topics or characters: Lady Capulet, Friar Lawrence, or the nature of love". My student, on their fifth essay, writes about the nature of love. He gets a 0.

That is an academic restriction. This was not an academic project, it was an artistic one. Literature may be art, but literature analysis is not. The two are not comparable, stop pretending that they are.

Wasn't an open project if it had restrictions, was it?
Rules were presented. He broke them
I am the student. Rather than a pro-religion painting, I draw a picture of Jesus in hell, or something similar, that doesn't violate the other restrictions, but only the religion one. Does this change your opinion? If so, why?

No, it doesnt. But your continued ranting about "rules being rules" doesnt work. The rules must be constituitonal. That is what the constitution is for.

Ah, but obviously you missed this...
"What makes the case more egregious -- and it shows where our public schools are heading -- the same teacher allowed pictures of these demonic, evil-looking beings as part of these assignments, but yet wouldn't allow a small cross and a scripture verse,"
Which has what to do with religion? Demons, at most, are a Christian religious symbol. Go, go, Gadget Irony!

All the people who don't support the student are zeromongers that don't think a sometimes unfortunately ambiguous and old document should protect individuals from contracts willingly entered into and agreed upon. You fiends.

Exactly, how dare they?!?

They drew the Tellytubbies?

http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff315/Sarothai/Smileys/Jawdrop.gif

Exactly, how dare they?!?

But I don't really agree with you on the demonic things in the painting.

I mean, I summon demons once a week after I kill the fatted calf, but I would hardly consider them 'religious' symbols.

This was not an academic project, it was an artistic one.

Did you miss this:
Christian references in art project earn student a 'zero'

http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff315/Sarothai/Smileys/Jawdrop.gif

Could have been worse. They could have drawn a series of Rick Roll stills with the lyrics on them.

Did you miss this:

Erm, I said that it was an artisitc PROJECT not an academic one. Just replace the word one with project.

If the handbook laws said they could arbitrayly detain children in the gym at weekends, would the US gov not have something to say? No. The handbook has to have good reasons for it.
You mean Saturday detentions? Yes, I can assign them. Yes, I can do it for arbitrary reasons. No, I generally won't be questioned. And if I am, I can provide justification.


That is an academic restriction. This was not an academic project, it was an artistic one. Literature may be art, but literature analysis is not. The two are not comparable, stop pretending that they are.
Okay. I assign my students to write a story. I tell them "You are to write a short piece of fiction. It may be about anything you choose except for your family, pets, or your summer vacation. Aside from these, you are free to do as you choose". That better? Same concept still at play. Stop pretending they're different. Rules iz rules.


No, it doesnt. But your continued ranting about "rules being rules" doesnt work.Nor does yours. Welcome to debate on NSG.
The rules must be constituitonal. That is what the constitution is for.Except for in the case of Morse v. Frederick? Or Broussard v. Norfolk? Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeir? School rule trumps other laws. This has consistantly been upheld by the supreme and other federal courts, and is therefore constitutional law.


Oh, and this is hardly ranting. I can rant if you want, though I prefer not to.

Okay. I assign my students to write a story. I tell them "You are to write a short piece of fiction. It may be about anything you choose except for your family, pets, or your summer vacation. Aside from these, you are free to do as you choose". That better? Same concept still at play. Stop pretending they're different. Rules iz rules.

Even better:

I assign an art project to my students in which I instruct: "You may paint a picture about anything you want, except it cannot include any blood, violence, sex, or religion. Besides those four things, you have freedom to express yourselves creatively. Have fun."
Then some kid comes in with a painting of a Crucifix raping a beaten and bleeding woman. Guess what, that violates every single rule.
F

Linkaroni (http://www.onenewsnow.com/Education/Default.aspx?id=74297)

Who's right, the school or the student?

Also, doesn't this lead us to more fundamental question: Should schools ever be allowed to infringe upon free speech rights, especially in art class?

The student. The schools in question should bloody well KNOW better.

Erm, I said that it was an artisitc PROJECT not an academic one. Just replace the word one with project.

And a project done for school is in no way academic?

the school, and here's why:

The policy is unconstitutional. If the kids in question had been trying to force others to participate in religious rituals thats one thing, but including symbols important to them in their artwork is quite another.

I was wrong, I change my opinon. The teacher was right, please forgive me for my previous ignorance, you have changed my opinon on this article. It's no different then being told to draw a face and you drawing a chair. Forgive me please!

I'm not kidding, I really have changed my mind!

Even better:

I assign an art project to my students in which I instruct: "You may paint a picture about anything you want, except it cannot include any blood, violence, sex, or religion. Besides those four things, you have freedom to express yourselves creatively. Have fun."
Then some kid comes in with a painting of a Crucifix raping a beaten and bleeding woman. Guess what, that violates every single rule.
F

And, in all probability, a trip to guidance.

That is an academic restriction. This was not an academic project, it was an artistic one. Literature may be art, but literature analysis is not. The two are not comparable, stop pretending that they are.

I disagree.

He was assigned a project where he had to create a painting. He was then marked on what he painted.

In the same vein, if he was told, in English, to write a short story, on any topic, but then was told that the short story shouldn't include any violations of school rules, such as large amounts of violence or pornographic content, and he did, he's failed to follow the rules for the assignment as set out by the teacher grading the work.

For another parallel, if the teacher had said, no red, and he had still used red, he would have failed.

He should have thought ahead, he signed it.

According to the article it was a waiver the student was REQUIRED to sign.

I was wrong, I change my opinon. The teacher was right, please forgive me for my previous ignorance, you have changed my opinon on this article. It's no different then being told to draw a face and you drawing a chair. Forgive me please!

April Fool's Day was yesterday ;)

According to the article it was a waiver the student was REQUIRED to sign.

If he wanted to take the class he had to sign it, he could have chosen to not take the class.

He failed to follow the guidelines as to what would be acceptable ('No blood. No violence. No sex' 'No religion.') thus he failed to do the assignment and consequently received a zero for said assignment.

'No blood. No violence. No sex. No religion.' Now, which of these doesn't fit?

(Hint: Students are minors, and it's been upheld that three of these can legally be restricted from them.)

Once again this (the class) was something that he did not have to do, if he had a problem with the rules he should have brought it up beforehand, not waited until he got a zero then whined about how it hurt his average.

Order of events
He signed the waiver at the beginning of the class, indicating the he was okay with/agreed to the rules.
He failed to follow the rules.
He received a zero for an assignment for failing to complete it.
He whined about how the rules shouldn't apply to him.

Irrelevant, the rule in question is not LEGAL and therefore applies to no one regardless of signature or lack thereof.

I was wrong, I change my opinon. The teacher was right, please forgive me for my previous ignorance, you have changed my opinon on this article. It's no different then being told to draw a face and you drawing a chair. Forgive me please!

WHAT! A person changing their opinion due to rational debate?

*Checks if this is NSG*
You're forgiven.

According to the article it was a waiver the student was REQUIRED to sign.

You're required to sign a shit load of papers to attend school anywhere, this is no different. if he didn't want to sign it, he should have switched classes.

According to the article it was a waiver the student was REQUIRED to sign.

Then that should be the reason behind the outrage, not the art project.

According to the article it was a waiver the student was REQUIRED to sign.
Or he could have taken another class. Or brought the issue to the admin at that time. But he signed it. He agreed to it, whether he liked it or not.

I give my kids a form to sign that says "I will never use personal pronouns in an essay". One student says "But that is unfair". I say "Too bad. Sign it, and follow that rule or fail". The student either a) signs and follows the rule and hates me for the rest of the year, b) signs it and later goes to the admin to complain before breaking the rule c) doesn't sign and goes to the admin or d)signs, breaks the rule, and fails. The admin must then back me, as teachers are allowed to design the grading policy in their classroom.

The issue as far as the ADF (a rabidly anti-non-christian organization) (http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/main/default.aspx)
is concerned is that a christian was 'persecuted' for his beliefs.

Hell, you know I'm not a big fan of Christianity, I'm concerned that ANYONE was persecuted for his beliefs.

And, in all probability, a trip to guidance.

Or a million dollars in cash from an interested perverter..er..purveyor of the arts.

You mean Saturday detentions? Yes, I can assign them. Yes, I can do it for arbitrary reasons. No, I generally won't be questioned. And if I am, I can provide justification.

Okay. I assign my students to write a story. I tell them "You are to write a short piece of fiction. It may be about anything you choose except for your family, pets, or your summer vacation. Aside from these, you are free to do as you choose". That better? Same concept still at play. Stop pretending they're different. Rules iz rules.

While I understand what you are saying, and I think you have a valid point, I see it in a somewhat different way. It seems the waiver dealt with the entirety of class activity, rather than one assignment. While this may not seem important as it is simply a general guideline, to me it seems akin to going into a literature class and saying to the students. "We are reading many texts, and various themes may emerge in your heads. You should not discuss themes X,Y, and Z, even if they are pertinent to the text."

Now I suppose as a teacher, he or she is the boss, and most likely has good reasons for restricting certain topics, but personally as a foolish idealist, I cringe at restrictions on discussion of topics such as religion or sex. (My freshman year high school lit teacher pretty much focused solely on sexuality in the works we read.) I guess I'm mainly interested in your opinion on curriculum freedom as (I'm assuming) a teacher of literature. Sorry if this is a bit off topic, but I was curious.

a) school rules in the handbook do not have to have a reason, nor do they have to conform to any law.

Are you actually trying to make that argument? You realize that you just said it would be legal if a school had a rule in the handbook that said a student would be SHOT after three tardies?

Had that rule been in the handbook, however, it would have been upheld. No case has made it to the supreme court, but this has been upheld countless times in every district court. Schools have the right to determine their rules. If the handbook in the case of Tinker said "Students may not wear black arm bands", they would have lost.Students do have a right to expression to an extent, no question. I fully agree with Tinker. However, handbook rules are law in schools

Schools have the right to set rules within the confines of the rights of the students. By going to a public school (which I am assuming this is), you do not sign a contract like you would in any other transaction. Public schooling being both a right and a government institution, is subject to certain rules that would not normally exist for other instiutions.


I tell my students I am going to assign five essays while we cover Romeo and Juliet, one for each act. To start, I hand out a sheet that has basic guidelines. On this sheet, I state "You may not write about the following topics or characters: Lady Capulet, Friar Lawrence, or the nature of love". My student, on their fifth essay, writes about the nature of love. He gets a 0.

The two situations are not equal. Art class is not the same as english or literature class. A better equasion would be in bookwriting class where you say that the student can write about anything. It would be a protected medium. One which the government, in normal conditions, has little ability to regulate. Obviously these arn't normal conditions, but the school still has to demonstrate a reason to ban this peticular subject on an otherwise completely open subject aside from them just not liking it.

Wasn't an open project if it had restrictions, was it?
Rules were presented. He broke them.
I am the student. Rather than a pro-religion painting, I draw a picture of Jesus in hell, or something similar, that doesn't violate the other restrictions, but only the religion one. Does this change your opinion? If so, why?

Personally, I could care less what people paint. Legally, however, it would depend. Is the picture you drew considered obscene? Is it disruptive? It's all subjective, just as it should be. Schools do have the right to regulate expression, but again, they must demonstrate a reason to do so.

My thoughts are that the school did this precisely to avoid judgment calls like this. Unfortunately, they ignored the larger issue.

Irrelevant, the rule in question is not LEGAL and therefore applies to no one regardless of signature or lack thereof.
As it is not legal, as you state, it cannot be unconstitutional (which inherently implies a legal issue).
If this is non-binding and non-legal, the teacher was simply making their grading policy known. He made it known that he would not accept work that depicted blood, drugs, violence, or religion, be it in a positive or negative light. You may put it into a picture...you'll just fail.
I assign my kids a poster project on The Odyssey. I tell them I will not accept any drawings that are not colored. I get a black and white drawing that is incredibly detailed, easily worth of an A. It is still in black and white. I made my policy known, and I must adhere to it. F.

Hell, you know I'm not a big fan of Christianity, I'm concerned that ANYONE was persecuted for his beliefs.

He's not getting persecuted for his beliefs, he received a zero for failing to turn in an accepted assignment.

Wasn't an open project if it had restrictions, was it? Rules were presented. He broke them.
I am the student. Rather than a pro-religion painting, I draw a picture of Jesus in hell, or something similar, that doesn't violate the other restrictions, but only the religion one. Does this change your opinion? If so, why?


No it does not. For exactly the same reason I'm arguing that he had the right to make his religious drawings.

No it does not. For exactly the same reason I'm arguing that he had the right to make his religious drawings.

And the teacher had the right to give him a zero for failing to follow directions.

And the teacher had the right to give him a zero for failing to follow directions.

And we have the right to discuss this issue on NSG. Isn't life grand?
I think it is.

:D

If he wanted to take the class he had to sign it, he could have chosen to not take the class.

Why should he be forced to make the choice of signing away his constitutional rights or learning how to draw?

And a project done for school is in no way academic?

Not nessecarly, because academia is only one part of school. Art is not academia. Analysis of art is, this is not. Writing a paper about a play with only specific charachters is academia. Painting a picture of anything you want isn't. The restrictions were arbitary and not nessecary.

Why should he be forced to make the choice of signing away his constitutional rights or learning how to draw?

Its the American dream.

As it is not legal, as you state, it cannot be unconstitutional (which inherently implies a legal issue).
If this is non-binding and non-legal, the teacher was simply making their grading policy known.

I was not stating that the contract signed by the student was non-legally binding, I'm stating that it was not legal for the contract to be presented. That would be as in illegal, against the law, in violation of the laws of the land, actionable in court of law, etc.

And we have the right to discuss this issue on NSG. Isn't life grand?
I think it is.

:D

*gives Bann-ed an*
*F*

'No blood. No violence. No sex. No religion.' Now, which of these doesn't fit?

(Hint: Students are minors, and it's been upheld that three of these can legally be restricted from them.)

But if you take their blood away, they'll DIE.

But if you take their blood away, they'll DIE.

Which means they won't be able to complain...
Its win-win.

But if you take their blood away, they'll DIE.

But they're minors. So that's legal.

Heh.. almost typed 'miners'.
Edit: Maybe they should be miners. Teach em some discipline and respect for black lung.

But if you take their blood away, they'll DIE.

Haha, wow. Of all the responses I thought I'd get... :D

No matter who's in the right, the kids going to get the axe. Expressing Christianity is a big no-no in public schools.

:rolleyes:

Yeah, Christians are so persecuted in American Culture.

Are you actually trying to make that argument? You realize that you just said it would be legal if a school had a rule in the handbook that said a student would be SHOT after three tardies?

LOL reminds me...
I gave out a progress report, and instead of "late" it said "tardy". One of my students did not know the word and asked what tardy meant.
"It means you're a RETARD" said the kid next to him....


;) and if some cases...if only they COULD be shot. (with paintballs or tranquilizers....

And the teacher had the right to give him a zero for failing to follow directions.

I happen to agree in this case, if it is understood that all class assignments are bound by the policy then the student was not following directions for the assignment

I mean if I am told to write a paper on the revolutionary war and I choose to write it on WWII I should not expect to get a grade for that assignment.

If I am told to write a paper about all plays by Shakespeare except Romeo and Juliette and I write a paper including that play I should expect reduced/no grade

:rolleyes:

Yeah, Christians are so persecuted in American Culture.

As a young Christian man growing up in America, I must state now, though it is hard for me to admit, being male and all...well.. The Government has...

..bruised my soul ... repeatedly... and...touched...touched me.. and not in the way that God does..

LOL reminds me...
I gave out a progress report, and instead of "late" it said "tardy". One of my students did not know the word and asked what tardy meant.
"It means you're a RETARD" said the kid next to him....


;) and if some cases...if only they COULD be shot...

:eek:_http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff315/Sarothai/Smileys/Jawdrop.gif_:eek:

Snip


The two situations are not equal. Art class is not the same as english or literature class. A better equasion would be in bookwriting class where you say that the student can write about anything. It would be a protected medium. One which the government, in normal conditions, has little ability to regulate. Obviously these arn't normal conditions, but the school still has to demonstrate a reason to ban this peticular subject on an otherwise completely open subject aside from them just not liking it.
Snip

But that is not equal either because the assignment was not to "draw anything" as the guidelines had restrictions on what would be acceptable as turning in ...

One has restrictions the other does not

Assignments by their very nature often have restrictions on what will be counted for grade

Its not really anything that far out there

While I understand what you are saying, and I think you have a valid point, I see it in a somewhat different way. It seems the waiver dealt with the entirety of class activity, rather than one assignment. While this may not seem important as it is simply a general guideline, to me it seems akin to going into a literature class and saying to the students. "We are reading many texts, and various themes may emerge in your heads. You should not discuss themes X,Y, and Z, even if they are pertinent to the text." I hate to tell you this, but that is constantly done by every teacher...we just don't tell you.

Moreover, this teacher could have listed on every assignment that A, B, and C are unacceptable subjects to draw. His method was more efficient. I could write on every paper assignment "Double space. 12 pt times new roman font. 1" margins." etc. My method of passing out "Standard Paper Guidelines" at the beginning of my class saves me from doing this.

Now I suppose as a teacher, he or she is the boss, and most likely has good reasons for restricting certain topics, but personally as a foolish idealist, I cringe at restrictions on discussion of topics such as religion or sex. (My freshman year high school lit teacher pretty much focused solely on sexuality in the works we read.) I guess I'm mainly interested in your opinion on curriculum freedom as (I'm assuming) a teacher of literature. Sorry if this is a bit off topic, but I was curious.student teacher currently. I personally don't think any topic should be off limits. This is not to say, however, that some discussions are, by their nature, very delicate, and must be handled carefully. If I do not feel comfortable, I will not hold that discussion. I discuss sex freely with my freshmen. I am planning on discussing race and racism in a very up front way in the next few weeks...I'm comforable with those topics. Not all of my students will be, nor will all of their parents, and not all teachers are (my cooperating teacher, for example, is not). I must keep that in mind.

Basically, I fully support the free exchange of ideas. Some, however, must be handled carefully.

Are you actually trying to make that argument? You realize that you just said it would be legal if a school had a rule in the handbook that said a student would be SHOT after three tardies?
depends where we shoot them ;)

No, that isn't the argument I'm making. There are, of course, boundries to even the schools jurisdiction, same as there are to the governments. The one he mentioned, however, is not it.

Schools have the right to set rules within the confines of the rights of the students. By going to a public school (which I am assuming this is), you do not sign a contract like you would in any other transaction. Public schooling being both a right and a government institution, is subject to certain rules that would not normally exist for other instiutions. mmm....not quite. Students, as it stands, can have their rights restricted. This ranges from speech to expression to property. the contract you sign, whether you realize it at the time or not, is the handbook. By signing that little form that says you recieved, read, and understood it, you sign your life to it.


The two situations are not equal. Art class is not the same as english or literature class. A better equasion would be in bookwriting class where you say that the student can write about anything. It would be a protected medium. One which the government, in normal conditions, has little ability to regulate. Obviously these arn't normal conditions, but the school still has to demonstrate a reason to ban this peticular subject on an otherwise completely open subject aside from them just not liking it.
Settle v. Dickson County School Board (1995) agrees with me on an almost identical case. In this case, students were to sign up for topics for a research paper, and were to get approval before they changed. Settle initially signed on for drama, but changed (without approval) to "The Life of Jesus Christ". The teacher refused to accept it. Settle refused to change her topic, and recieved a 0. This made it to the 6th circuit court."So long as the teacher violates no positive law or school policy, the teacher has broad authority to base her grades for students on her view of the merits of the students' work....Teachers may frequently make mistakes in grading and otherwise, just as we do sometimes in deciding cases, but it is the essence of the teacher's responsibility in the classroom to draw lines and make distinctions--in a word to encourage speech germane to the topic at hand and discourage speech unlikely to shed light on the subject. Teachers therefore must be given broad discretion to give grades and conduct class discussion."
The teacher has the right to make a decision, even if she is wrong.

Actually, looking at this decision leads me to a strange point in maybe agreeing with you now that I re-read the dissent.

"Ms. Ramsey was dead wrong in her view that Brittney's paper topic was impermissible because a paper of a religious nature is impermissible in the public schools. Had Ms. Ramsey rejected the paper on the ground of it's religious content alone...Brittney's freedom of speech truly would have been violated"

Now, this is curious as a) it deals with a research project, b) the subject matter was announced to be banned far in advance with no known pressure to the admin prior to the piece being turned in and c) we don't know the teachers full rationale.

So yes, I'd say missing a little too much to say, but I suspect it leans pretty decently to being justified.

Personally, I could care less what people paint. Legally, however, it would depend. Is the picture you drew considered obscene? Is it disruptive? It's all subjective, just as it should be. Schools do have the right to regulate expression, but again, they must demonstrate a reason to do so.

My thoughts are that the school did this precisely to avoid judgment calls like this. Unfortunately, they ignored the larger issue.
I'm curious what their justification was. Doubt we'll get it from this source.

No it does not. For exactly the same reason I'm arguing that he had the right to make his religious drawings.
Good. You're still wrong :)

He knew the restriction. He did not bring it to admin, but instead handed in an assignment he knew would get a 0. Too late.

It is true that students do not check their rights at the door. They do not, however, retain all of them.
Why should he be forced to make the choice of signing away his constitutional rights or learning how to draw?He wasn't. He could have changed to a different class. He could have brought the issue to the admin. Or he could have realized that he did learn to draw. Having a 0 does not mean he can't draw...just that he didn't fulfill the requirements. His choice was between following the rules, getting the rules changed, or getting a 0.

I was not stating that the contract signed by the student was non-legally binding, I'm stating that it was not legal for the contract to be presented. That would be as in illegal, against the law, in violation of the laws of the land, actionable in court of law, etc.ahh...misunderstanding.

But if you take their blood away, they'll DIE.
Or their cell phones.
Which means they won't be able to complain...
Its win-win.
I like you :)

I like you :)

Awwwwwwww
http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff315/Sarothai/Smileys/smiley_blush.jpg
http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff315/Sarothai/Smileys/hug6.gif:fluffle:http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff315/Sarothai/Smileys/hug6.gif

This doesn't really make any sense, but keep going.

I support the school's right to choose the subject matter of the art projects. In the real art world you won't get paid much if you offend your clients. Art class should be about teaching, freedom of expression can take place outside the classroom. Most art classes don't actually teach anything, which I find annoying. Being told to do anything isn't learning, unless you have exceptional self teaching ability.

But in this case the school was wrong, because they allow devils, but not a cross, simply because the cross offends the teacher personally. This has nothing to do with failing the assignment, unless the assignment was to make fun of Christianity, which I doubt. Anti-religious bias is just mean.

Some of the comments on that article are pretty funny.
"What is happening in our schools is not an "overnight" occurence. This is the culmination of a long range plan to implement the warning that were clearly outlined by the Communists nearly 90 years ago. Either we were blind (difficult to believe) or, factions within our government were aligned with our enemy. Think about it!"

Hell, you know I'm not a big fan of Christianity, I'm concerned that ANYONE was persecuted for his beliefs.

He's not persecuted for his beliefs. He's persecuted for failing to produce a graded project that fell within the required parameters.

Tell me, if you were told to write an essay on say, Lincoln, and turned in one about your pizza deliveryman, would you say it's unfair that you flunked?

This numskull of a student did the same thing.

No, that isn't the argument I'm making. There are, of course, boundries to even the schools jurisdiction, same as there are to the governments.

So you admit that, contrary to your earlier statement, the rules in the student handbooks (and presumably in each individual class) ARE subject to the law?

He wasn't. He could have changed to a different class.

A class other than art. I repeat, he should not have to sign away his rights in order to take the classes he wishes to take.

A class other than art. I repeat, he should not have to sign away his rights in order to take the classes he wishes to take.

And I repeat.

Its the American dream.

He's not persecuted for his beliefs. He's persecuted for failing to produce a graded project that fell within the required parameters.

I say again, the parameter "can not include religion" is not LEGAL.

We really need a lawyers perspective in here . . .

<lights incense, draws strange marks on the floor in blood, sacrifices several chickens and the last virgin in the state of California while intoning the chant "Neo-artCat-tribeneo-artcat-tribeneo-artcat-tribe . . .">

I hate to tell you this, but that is constantly done by every teacher...we just don't tell you.

Moreover, this teacher could have listed on every assignment that A, B, and C are unacceptable subjects to draw. His method was more efficient. I could write on every paper assignment "Double space. 12 pt times new roman font. 1" margins." etc. My method of passing out "Standard Paper Guidelines" at the beginning of my class saves me from doing this.



Those are guidelines on the execution of the assignment, not on its subject. That analogy is more comparable to "the assignment must be completed in acrylic paints/colored pencils/pastels/etc."

Art is about emotional expression much of the time, about what inspires one. It's not an analysis of anything, it's a creation of something realized first in one's own mind, projecting one's thoughts and emotions into concrete form. I don't think it's really comparable to an essay at all.

I too, would chafe at being restricted by "no blood, no violence, no sex, no religion." What if I want to express something serious instead of painting flowers?

Creativity should not be restricted. It's my opinion that the art student's execution, realization of the intended subject should be graded, not the choice in subject. Art should be meaningful.

I say again, the parameter "can not include religion" is not LEGAL.

No, it is completely legal. A teacher has the legal authority to set the parameters of any item that he or she is expected to grade so long as it is relevant to the subject matter.

If your argument holds, then I should be able to argue that the doodles of Barney the dinosaur is a sufficient history thesis of feudal Europe to get me a passing mark on the grounds of free speech.

Your argument only serves to further weaken educational standards.

I too, would chafe at being restricted by "no blood, no violence, no sex, no religion." What if I want to express something serious instead of painting flowers?Why can't flowers be serious? It doesn't have to be political to be serious. Good artists can make any ordinary object express any emotion.

Creativity should not be restricted. It's my opinion that the art student's execution, realization of the intended subject should be graded, not the choice in subject. Art should be meaningful.How can somebody be taught to execute something well if they aren't restricted? If you try to teach someone perspective, and instead of learning perspective they choose to paint blood, they're not learning. I think it's lame to censor someone just for offending somebody, but there are plenty of other good reasons to restrict creativity.

It's funny how no one applies these arguments to the other subjects at school. I think it's because people would rather have art remain the easy class were you never learn anything and then it eventually gets removed from the budget because nobody cares about something that is impossible to learn.

Why can't flowers be serious? It doesn't have to be political to be serious. Good artists can make any ordinary object express any emotion.

How can somebody be taught to execute something well if they aren't restricted? If you try to teach someone perspective, and instead of learning perspective they choose to paint blood, they're not learning. I think it's lame to censor someone just for offending somebody, but there are plenty of other good reasons to restrict creativity.

It's funny how no one applies these arguments to the other subjects at school. I think it's because people would rather have art remain the easy class were you never learn anything and then it eventually gets removed from the budget because nobody cares about something that is impossible to learn.

You can learn perspective and make a disturbing painting with blood in it. They're not mutually exclusive.

I just think it's bullshit how the assignment was "paint anything you want, except this." That's crap. If it was "okay, we're doing figure studies today, you'll be painting the model," that's different. That is a legitimate way to teach technique.

If the teacher says "You can paint anything you want except blood, violence, sex and religion," you can't really paint anything you want, can you? Basically it's an open ended assignment with unnecessary and stifling restrictions. What if blood and violence are what you want to paint, or you're feeling inspired by Goya's Black Paintings, or by much of El Greco's work?

I ran up against similar restrictions in art class. Officially you could paint anything you wanted for the project, but when I started my sketch, it was like "oh no, you can't paint that, it's a violent subject." Eventually I was able to argue my way into being able to do the piece I wanted, but it was hard when they were so afraid of someone being offended.

It seems to me that this is basically what the "no blood, no violence, no sex, no religion" bullshit is about. They're just overly paranoid about people being offended, as if that's actually such a bad thing.

I went to the city's website contact section (http://www.tomahwisconsin.com/contact.htm) and told them I'm happy I don't live their city but rather I live in a city that appears to not pretend the constitution only exists when it's convenient. I'd suggest anyone who cares at all about the first amendment also sends them the message "Thank God I don't live in Tomah, WI". We need to start making some noise, letting people know that we're not going to let the constitution be ignored without a fight.

I agree to an extent with whoever said

How can somebody be taught to execute something well if they aren't restricted? If you try to teach someone perspective, and instead of learning perspective they choose to paint blood, they're not learning. I think it's lame to censor someone just for offending somebody, but there are plenty of other good reasons to restrict creativity.

But that was not given as the reasoning as to why the student was given a failing grade. Attention was drawn to the fact that the teacher was disrespectful enough to pretend that the constitution only exists whenever he/she feels like it which it is no one's right while they are in this country to say when the constitution exists and when it doesn't. It's bad enough we have an idiot president who tries to pull this nonsense, the last thing we need is more people taking after his example.

You can learn perspective and make a disturbing painting with blood in it. They're not mutually exclusive.

I just think it's bullshit how the assignment was "paint anything you want, except this." That's crap. If it was "okay, we're doing figure studies today, you'll be painting the model," that's different. That is a legitimate way to teach technique.

If the teacher says "You can paint anything you want except blood, violence, sex and religion," you can't really paint anything you want, can you? Basically it's an open ended assignment with unnecessary and stifling restrictions. What if blood and violence are what you want to paint, or you're feeling inspired by Goya's Black Paintings, or by much of El Greco's work?

I ran up against similar restrictions in art class. Officially you could paint anything you wanted for the project, but when I started my sketch, it was like "oh no, you can't paint that, it's a violent subject." Eventually I was able to argue my way into being able to do the piece I wanted, but it was hard when they were so afraid of someone being offended.

It seems to me that this is basically what the "no blood, no violence, no sex, no religion" bullshit is about. They're just overly paranoid about people being offended, as if that's actually such a bad thing.I agree.

The courts have upheld students rights to wear religious symbols, students rights to pray (in a non-disruptive manner), and IIRC (Neo-Art or Cat Tribe might be able to back me up on this last one - or tell me I'm full of shit) write on religious subjects. Why should drawing religious subjects not be upheld as well?

The courts have upheld students rights to wear religious symbols, students rights to pray (in a non-disruptive manner), and IIRC (Neo-Art or Cat Tribe might be able to back me up on this last one - or tell me I'm full of shit) write on religious subjects. Why should drawing religious subjects not be upheld as well?

You can write on or draw religious subjects, if it's the topic matter, or can be shown to be part of the topic matter. Nobody is stopping you.

You can also submit religious works even if it's not part of the topic matter. Just don't complain when you fail. It's retarded to argue "freedom of speech" when you fail for producing something that the teacher has already specified won't be graded.

Would you argue "freedom of speech" as well if a student for a debate team on genetic engineering ethics decided to give a speech straight out of the communist manifesto or Mein Kampf and as a result was failed?

You can write on or draw religious subjects, if it's the topic matter, or can be shown to be part of the topic matter. Nobody is stopping you.

You can also submit religious works even if it's not part of the topic matter. Just don't complain when you fail. It's retarded to argue "freedom of speech" when you fail for producing something that the teacher has already specified won't be graded.

Would you argue "freedom of speech" as well if a student for a debate team on genetic engineering ethics decided to give a speech straight out of the communist manifesto or Mein Kampf and as a result was failed?

Considering that your example would be both irrelevant and plagiarism no. However the caveat of no religious subject matter was as I have repeatedly stated an illegal violation of the students first amendment rights. This was not a case where the teacher said "draw a horse" and got a cross instead, this was a case where the teacher laid down rules that they were not legally empowered to lie down.

The student is legally a minor. Minors don't have the same rights under law that adults do, it has to do with the legal ability to take responsibility (not actual ability, but ability under law). If the rules say "no religion," then s/he's stuck with it. If religion is important to him/her and his/her parents, then they should consider a private religious school (most of them have scholarships for financially stressed families).

A public school classroom is not the place for religious or political statements by students or teachers. Ideally, it should be neutral ground where teachers teach and students learn (art teachers should, however, keep in mind when teaching, that a substantial portion of the great art in the world is not secular, but religious).

This could, I suppose, be considered censorship, but it is in a particular context and does not apply to every aspect of the student's life. There are many situations where it is not considered appropriate to speak freely; but these situations are not universal and are contextual.

The student in question should consider this an important lesson on how to judge when and where to keep his opinions to himself.

Order of events (concept pinched from Dyakovo)...

*Founders of USA, cititing the authority of the people, create the Constitution (1787), which is the supreme legal authority in the US

*First amendment (1791) comes along saying Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech ...

*Supreme Court in Tinker (1969) rules that non-disruptive free speech in public schools is protected under the consitution

*art class project in Tomah, Wisconsin. Teacher makes people sign waiver saying no blood, sex, violence and religion

*waiver in clear conflict with the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, and with the decision of the Supreme Court in Tinker

*student signs waiver at the beginning of the class, indicating the he was okay with/agreed to the rules of the waiver

*student failed to follow the rules

*student received a zero for an assignment for failing to complete work according to the waiver

*student whines about how the rules shouldn't apply to him

*student sues school for violating his right to free speech

*court checks whether 1st amendment applies and, following Tinker, finds that it does

*court checks which has supremacy - US Constitution or teacher waiver

*court finds in favour of student


Incidentally, the argument that 'If I, as a teacher, give and assignement then, because I, as a teacher, can set whatever rules I like and if the student fails to follow those rules then he gets a zero' is bogus.

Teachers do not have the right to over-ride the Constitution. (Who does by the way? Is it Congress, the President, or 'the People'?)

Secondly, the rule is flawed. If I, as a teacher, say: 'draw me a pic of a cup of coffee and the student draws a pic of a crucifix then it's a failed project. If the student draws me a pic of a cup of coffee with crucifixes on it then he satisfies the rules and expresses himself.'

The counter argument I am anticipating is this "yeah, but I said 'draw me a cup of coffee with no religion', then the teacher would, on the facts alone be right.

But... this comes back to the point in Tinker and teachers being unable to over-rule the Constitution. At no point can a teacher take away a student's right to non-disruptive free expression.

All the arguments about 'I'm a teacher and I gave the rule X' are fatally felled by the Constitution.

Cheers

BC

Considering that your example would be both irrelevant and plagiarism no. However the caveat of no religious subject matter was as I have repeatedly stated an illegal violation of the students first amendment rights. This was not a case where the teacher said "draw a horse" and got a cross instead, this was a case where the teacher laid down rules that they were not legally empowered to lie down.

They are legally empowered to set the criteria for what will get marks and what won't, as long as it pertains to the subject matter.

This was a case where the teacher said "don't draw a horse" and still got a horse.

Order of events (concept pinched from Dyakovo)...

*Founders of USA, cititing the authority of the people, create the Constitution (1787), which is the supreme legal authority in the US

*First amendment (1791) comes along saying Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech ...

*art class project in Tomah, Wisconsin. Teacher makes people sign waiver saying no blood, sex, violence and religion

*waiver in clear conflict with the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, and with the decision of the Supreme Court in Tinker


So you are claiming that the teacher is Congress then? I guess we should chuck out all those non-disclosure agreements too. And drop lawsuits against breach of corporate secrets. Ooh, and the RIAA too. Digital piracy is really just free speech.


But... this comes back to the point in Tinker and teachers being unable to over-rule the Constitution. At no point can a teacher take away a student's right to non-disruptive free expression.


How many times has it got to be said? The teacher isn't taking away the student's right to non-disruptive free expression. The teacher is simply flunking him for failing to adhere to the parameters.

The student is legally a minor. Minors don't have the same rights under law that adults do, it has to do with the legal ability to take responsibility (not actual ability, but ability under law). If the rules say "no religion," then s/he's stuck with it. If religion is important to him/her and his/her parents, then they should consider a private religious school (most of them have scholarships for financially stressed families).
Minors do have the same rights as adults, but those rights are held in trust by their legal guardians. And schools do not have carte blanche when coming up with the rules, as the Supreme Court has been very clear. You do not leave you free speech at the door of a classroom.

A public school classroom is not the place for religious or political statements by students or teachers. Ideally, it should be neutral ground where teachers teach and students learn (art teachers should, however, keep in mind when teaching, that a substantial portion of the great art in the world is not secular, but religious).
so what do we do when the subject matter can obviously involve religion or politics. What do we do in government class, when attempting to teach the way our system of government works, by debate. What do we do when trying to foster a love and understanding of art?
This could, I suppose, be considered censorship, but it is in a particular context and does not apply to every aspect of the student's life. There are many situations where it is not considered appropriate to speak freely; but these situations are not universal and are contextual.

The student in question should consider this an important lesson on how to judge when and where to keep his opinions to himself.

When and where being when and where he damn well pleases, because this is America, and that's supposed to mean something.

Linkaroni (http://www.onenewsnow.com/Education/Default.aspx?id=74297)

Who's right, the school or the student?

Also, doesn't this lead us to more fundamental question: Should schools ever be allowed to infringe upon free speech rights, especially in art class?

Well, I think they have to infringe on free speech to some extend, if only to keep order in class really.
However, I greatly object to the limitations set in art class (art, of all subjects!). I can appreciate teachers trying to avoid discussions about religion or essays about religion as it can be an extremely touchy subject for some, and might end up doing more harm than good from a teaching perspective. However, art is not up for discussion. Art is a peaceful and indirect form of expression, both the creative and the perceptive process are highly individual and should not be infringe on by anything or anybody.

Who's right, the school or the student?The student. Firstly, constitutional rights can't be 'waived'. Secondly it's art; it's allowed to touch a nerve. Getting a zero for including a religious element should get him an A for achieving controversy with his art.
It would be even better if he had actually been an athiest, but well, you can't have everything.

That's so screwed up.

It's not like he made a reality snuff film.

I got in trouble for photographing and drawing breasts, even though we had life-models in class and our assignment was about the human form!

Order of events (concept pinched from Dyakovo)...
http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff315/Sarothai/Smileys/Dziekuje.gif
Incidentally, the argument that 'If I, as a teacher, give and assignement then, because I, as a teacher, can set whatever rules I like and if the student fails to follow those rules then he gets a zero' is bogus.
How is it bogus?

Secondly, the rule is flawed. If I, as a teacher, say: 'draw me a pic of a cup of coffee and the student draws a pic of a crucifix then it's a failed project. If the student draws me a pic of a cup of coffee with crucifixes on it then he satisfies the rules and expresses himself.'

The counter argument I am anticipating is this "yeah, but I said 'draw me a cup of coffee with no religion', then the teacher would, on the facts alone be right.

So you admit you're wrong...

So you are claiming that the teacher is Congress then? I guess we should chuck out all those non-disclosure agreements too. And drop lawsuits against breach of corporate secrets. Ooh, and the RIAA too. Digital piracy is really just free speech.


Of course I'm not saying this.

What I am pointing out is that (a) there is a Constitution (b) there's an amendment to it in respect of freedom of expression (c) that the Supreme Court in Tinker ruled that non-disruptive speech was protected in schools (d) it applies in this case



The teacher isn't taking away the student's right to non-disruptive free expression. The teacher is simply flunking him for failing to adhere to the parameters.

Flunking the student for failing to adhere to these particular parameter IS the taking away of the student's right to non-disruptive free expression in these circumstances.

Although a teacher has the right to set parameters for assignments / work, a teacher does not have the right to do so in a way that conflicts with the student's basic, constitutionally guaranteed rights under the 1st amendment and in the caselaw of Tinker.

How is it bogus?


Because of this line of argument in my post...


Teachers do not have the right to over-ride the Constitution.

Secondly, the rule is flawed. If I, as a teacher, say: 'draw me a pic of a cup of coffee and the student draws a pic of a crucifix then it's a failed project. If the student draws me a pic of a cup of coffee with crucifixes on it then he satisfies the rules and expresses himself.'

The counter argument I am anticipating is this "yeah, but I said 'draw me a cup of coffee with no religion', then the teacher would, on the facts alone be right.

But... this comes back to the point in Tinker and teachers being unable to over-rule the Constitution. At no point can a teacher take away a student's right to non-disruptive free expression.


So you admit you're wrong...

No. Y'see, I said ...

The counter argument I am anticipating is this "yeah, but I said 'draw me a cup of coffee with no religion', then the teacher would, on the facts alone be right. But... this comes back to the point in Tinker and teachers being unable to over-rule the Constitution. At no point can a teacher take away a student's right to non-disruptive free expression.


Perhaps I shouldn't have put the paragraph break in the original.

To put it another way ... If it wasn't for the fact that the Constitution/1st amendment/caselaw of Tinker forbids it, a teacher could put in whatever parameters he/she wanted. But the fact is the law does forbid it.

Now, you may argue that 'morally speaking' the teacher is in right (and I think there's a strong argument for that). Or you may argue against it. But it does look like, legally speaking, the student's right.

Of course I'm not saying this.

What I am pointing out is that (a) there is a Constitution (b) there's an amendment to it in respect of freedom of expression (c) that the Supreme Court in Tinker ruled that non-disruptive speech was protected in schools (d) it applies in this case

And what exactly, is disruptive? One might as well argue that deliberately violating the parameters set before him and then whining about it to the Christian persecution complex law firm is disruptive and thereby, not protected.


Flunking the student for failing to adhere to these particular parameter IS the taking away of the student's right to non-disruptive free expression in these circumstances.

Although a teacher has the right to set parameters for assignments / work, a teacher does not have the right to do so in a way that conflicts with the student's basic, constitutionally guaranteed rights under the 1st amendment and in the caselaw of Tinker.

Then clearly I can give a speech drawn from the likes of Mein Kampf and the Communist Manifesto in a debate about medical ethics and demand it be judged fairly as if it was on topic. Free speech remember?

Or how about if I wrote an essay about religion when the topic was weather analysis? Or draw a tree when told the subject would be people and thereby, could not include trees?

There are sensible limits to free speech, and none of what happened here went beyond those limits.

Then clearly I can give a speech drawn from the likes of Mein Kampf and the Communist Manifesto in a debate about medical ethics and demand it be judged fairly as if it was on topic. Free speech remember?

Or how about if I wrote an essay about religion when the topic was weather analysis? Or draw a tree when told the subject would be people and thereby, could not include trees?

There are sensible limits to free speech, and none of what happened here went beyond those limits.

No, NAS, you're missing the point that this was an art class therefore there cannot be any limitations put on what is therein, and especially not ones that don't allow a christian child to display scripture in school.

That was sarcasm in case anyone wasn't sure...

Perhaps I shouldn't have put the paragraph break in the original.

That was appreciated, otherwise I would have had to have done it myself. ;)

The student's right-
he has the right to his God, and the Supreme court has validated student rights before.
To hell with forced atheism (no pun intended).

The student's right-
he has the right to his God, and the Supreme court has validated student rights before.
To hell with forced atheism (no pun intended).

How is this forced atheism?
I don't recall anything in the article saying that he wasn't allowed to believe in god.

The student is legally a minor. Minors don't have the same rights under law that adults do, it has to do with the legal ability to take responsibility (not actual ability, but ability under law). If the rules say "no religion," then s/he's stuck with it. If religion is important to him/her and his/her parents, then they should consider a private religious school (most of them have scholarships for financially stressed families).Where does it expressly say "no religion"?
A public school classroom is not the place for religious or political statements by students or teachers. Ideally, it should be neutral ground where teachers teach and students learn (art teachers should, however, keep in mind when teaching, that a substantial portion of the great art in the world is not secular, but religious).I totally disagree. Teachers are servants of the state, and therefore should maintain religious neutrality. Students are not employed by the state and are thus not bound by that restriction.
This could, I suppose, be considered censorship, but it is in a particular context and does not apply to every aspect of the student's life. There are many situations where it is not considered appropriate to speak freely; but these situations are not universal and are contextual.Art is one of the most core forums for expression. Nothing I've read here indicates that the student failed his assignment on the grounds of not meeting the criteria the assignment was supposed to adhere to, other than a highly dubious one about avoiding religious references set up after the work was finished.
The student in question should consider this an important lesson on how to judge when and where to keep his opinions to himself.Totally disagree.

And what exactly, is disruptive?

Depends upon what rules of legal interpretation you are using. Under English law, this would be the ordinary and normal definition of the word. I confess I don't know the US legal rules of interpretation (I only studied English and European law).

Anywho, dictionary.com gives the following for 'disrupt'

to cause disorder, turmoil, to destroy (temporarily) the normal continuance of, to throw into confusion or disorder.

None of these apply to the painting of a crucifix with a bible quote in art class. It is speech, it is non-disruptive, it is protected by the first amendment and Tinker. Because of that, all your other points are rendered invalid.


One might as well argue that deliberately violating the parameters set before him and then whining about it to the Christian persecution complex law firm is disruptive and thereby, not protected.

Seeking to protect your first amendment rights is, I'm sure, protected elsewhere in the corpus of US law, although I doubt under the right to free speech. Anyway, the point is that the parameters set were illegal because they violated the right to free speech. So you can happly ignore them and seek to have them over-turned and any actions done against you that have the origin in an unlawful act are themselves unlawful. The fruit of the poisonous tree is also poisonous.


Then clearly I can give a speech drawn from the likes of Mein Kampf and the Communist Manifesto in a debate about medical ethics and demand it be judged fairly as if it was on topic. Free speech remember?

You can indeed as long as (a) it is not disruptive and (b) it is about what Mein Kampf and the Communist Manifesto have to say about medical ethics. No matter how horrid your views, short of inciting others to commit harmful acts, you are entitled to say them in a public school providing it is not disruptive.


Or how about if I wrote an essay about religion when the topic was weather analysis? Or draw a tree when told the subject would be people and thereby, could not include trees?


This is a difficult area. I think the key point is that you are employing a logical fallacy - the false equivalence.

You are basically asserting that, for these purposes, art/painting is the same as weather analysis, for instance. But they're not.

A better equivalence would be 'Art' and 'the Philosophy of Science / freedom of scientific expression'. Another good equivalence would be 'architectural drawings and weather analysis'.

In the former, there is plenty of room for discussion, freedom of expression and so on. In the latter, there isn't. Weather analysis is weather analysis. 4+4 = 8. There is no room for religion or freedom of expression there. You're simply dealing with facts and analysis of facts.


In relation to the second example you gave people/trees. Unfortunately, you have divorced your example from a key fact, which was given in the OP. It's this: no blood, no sex, no violence, no religon AS A POLICY.


A policy is not an instruction.


If I am an art teacher and instruct you to draw a cup of coffee and you draw a crucifix, then I can happily fail you. (this is equivalent to your trees/people argument)

If I am an art teacher and instruct you to draw a cup of coffee and you draw a cup of coffee with crucifixes and religious scenes on it then I can happily grade you.

If I am an art teacher and instruct you to draw a cup of coffee and you draw a cup of coffee with crucifixes on it AND there is a policy of the school saying 'no religion' AND I then fail you, then that is an unconstitutional ban on your freedom of expression.


There are sensible limits to free speech, and none of what happened here went beyond those limits.

There are indeed sensible limits to free speech, even in public schools. There are also sensible limits to the amount of authority that can be exercised by the school over the student.

In this case, the limit to free speech was not reached whereas the limit to the school's authority clearly was reached, and breached.

The student is both morally, and legally, in the right.

Art is one of the most core forums for expression. Nothing I've read here indicates that the student failed his assignment on the grounds of not meeting the criteria the assignment was supposed to adhere to, other than a highly dubious one about avoiding religious references set up after the work was finished.

Fail

FailYeah, I've only just noticed that the school apparently has a prohibition on displaying religion in art, for whatever bogus reason that may be.

Yeah, I've only just noticed that the school apparently has a prohibition on displaying religion in art, for whatever bogus reason that may be.

Fail again. Come on Laerod, I know you can read.

Fail again. Come on Laerod, I know you can read.They apparently have a policy against sex, violence, blood, or religion. I highly doubt that applies to general school life, since the whole "no blood" thing might be a tad hard to enforce. It sounds like things they're supposed to keep out of their art class, not avoid doing it (though there may be other policies concerning that).

They apparently have a policy against sex, violence, blood, or religion. I highly doubt that applies to general school life, since the whole "no blood" thing might be a tad hard to enforce. It sounds like things they're supposed to keep out of their art class, not avoid doing it (though there may be other policies concerning that).

The teacher has a policy of...

The school district argues that the student voluntarily waived his First Amendment religious freedoms when he entered the classroom.
Since when can a school impose a student to waive his constitutional rights? Stupid school.

'No blood. No violence. No sex' and 'No religion.'
Free speech then, with the logical extension of free artistical expression. I'd be happy to accept a bit of religion in my school if by that I would be given blood, violence and sex. Expecially sex! Oh and heavy metal, please.


The student, Cortman says, was not intimidated by the teacher's apparent anti-religious bias.
Too bad it isn't the teacher's bias and it isn't a (solely) anti-religious bias.


favors one religion over another.

Which one?


"What makes the case more egregious -- and it shows where our public schools are heading -- the same teacher allowed pictures of these demonic, evil-looking beings as part of these assignments, but yet wouldn't allow a small cross and a scripture verse,"
Unless in the other pictures were quoted verses of the satanist equivalent of the Bible, the two cases are clearly and radically different. A thing is referring to common cultural backgrounds, even if with some religious background, another is quoting religious texts.


...is the fact that their policy lumps blood, violence, sex, and religion as if those four things are equal," he states.

Well, if you read the Bible you can have lots of literary depictions of blood, violence and sex. Including warmongering, genocide, theft, pillaging, rape and slavery (after the Exodus), seduction used as tool to commit homicide (Judith), (after the Exodus again, see Leviticus iirc), attempted human sacrifice (Abraham and Isaac) ... all seen as "good things" because made or inspired by the "righteous" man or god. Of course I take them them as literaly depictions. Other people call them moral teachings.



Americans...:rolleyes:

The teacher has a policy of...Care to back that up? I see nothing in the article that states that it is limited to the teacher. I do see something ("that all students have to sign") that indicates that it is a school policy.

You can write on or draw religious subjects, if it's the topic matter, or can be shown to be part of the topic matter. Nobody is stopping you.

You can also submit religious works even if it's not part of the topic matter. Just don't complain when you fail. It's retarded to argue "freedom of speech" when you fail for producing something that the teacher has already specified won't be graded.

Would you argue "freedom of speech" as well if a student for a debate team on genetic engineering ethics decided to give a speech straight out of the communist manifesto or Mein Kampf and as a result was failed?

Let's make this entirely clear -- just because you can make rules that are ENTIRELY arbitrary does not also give you the right to make rules that are discriminatory.
If I'm your employer with an at-will contract, I can fire you because I don't like the color of your shirt. I can fire you because you enjoy country music. I can fire you for doing your job too well.
I CANNOT fire you for being black, or for being in a wheelchair, or for being Wiccan.
Here, the teacher could have made a rule that said no horses, or no viscera. The teacher was well within her rights to specify no nudity, no violence.
But she CANNOT specify no religion. Arbitrary does not imply discriminatory.

Yeah, I've only just noticed that the school apparently has a prohibition on displaying religion in art, for whatever bogus reason that may be.

I wonder how can they manage to teach european art, since a good half of it is about religion.:D

Take Leonardo. Or Michelangelo. Or Raffaello. Not the turtles! *whop*

I wonder how can they manage to teach european art, since a good half of it is about religion.:D

Take Leonardo. Or Michelangelo. Or Raffaello. Not the turtles! *whop*
Yeah. No Venus from the Sea for you! :p

Yeah. No Venus from the Sea for you! :p

No, that would be allowed because the Greek pantheon is clearly "demonic"! :D:D

No, that would be allowed because the Greek pantheon is clearly "demonic"! :D:DRoman. Aphrodite would be the Greek Pantheon. ;)

Care to back that up? I see nothing in the article that states that it is limited to the teacher. I do see something ("that all students have to sign") that indicates that it is a school policy.

for that class...

And I'll grant that point, either one of us could be right since there is so little actual information in the article about the actual policy.

I wonder how can they manage to teach european art, since a good half of it is about religion.:D

Take Leonardo. Or Michelangelo. Or Raffaello. Not the turtles! *whop*

That class probably doesn't teach European art...

for that class...

And I'll grant that point, either one of us could be right since there is so little actual information in the article about the actual policy.Yeah, I see where you're coming from. I just think there's more indication that it's a school policy. I doubt a teacher has that much say.

The student is in the wrong.

Guidelines were set for the course and if he can't follow them it's his own fault to be honest. It's hardly discrimination as it says no religious references may be used at all. In fact, it just downright p*sses me off that some people think that their beliefs allow them to be above the rules. Some of you may have seen exams with statements such as "Graphical calculators prohibited" or "Only use blue or black ink". Hell, if you don't follow them you're gonna damn fail!

The exam board/district sets the regulations and if you can't follow them you're not going to pass.

That class probably doesn't teach European art...

...nor indian art... ...nor lots of african art...

Maybe they can teach islamic art, since the depiction of god is forbidden thereby.
Or japanese art... I remember something about a "dream of the fisherman's wife" ;)

Yeah, I see where you're coming from. I just think there's more indication that it's a school policy. I doubt a teacher has that much say.

And in thinking about it, I see your point, however, I have doubts that this is a school-wide policy; thus my thinking that it was the teachers decision.

But enough of this being reasonable, what the hell are we doing?
Having a civil discussion on NSG?
:D

The student is in the wrong.

Guidelines were set for the course and if he can't follow them it's his own fault to be honest. It's hardly discrimination as it says no religious references may be used at all. In fact, it just downright p*sses me off that some people think that their beliefs allow them to be above the rules. Some of you may have seen exams with statements such as "Graphical calculators prohibited" or "Only use blue or black ink". Hell, if you don't follow them you're gonna damn fail!

The exam board/district sets the regulations and if you can't follow them you're not going to pass.I fail to see any sensible argument in favor of keeping religion out of the project, as opposed to blood, violence, or sex, or graphical calculators and colors of ink.

I'm not sure why there's even a question here. Prior Supreme Court cases have made it clear that your Constitutional rights do not suddenly disappear upon entering the classroom, and that waiver is legally worthless.

As an atheist, I recognize how important it is to protect religious freedoms, even if I personally think most religious beliefs are silly and a few are dangerous. It's his personal belief, his choices, and it was not right to fail his art project because it involved religious symbolism.

That said, I find it abhorrent that those in the article arguing in the student's favor are attempting to paint the school and/or teacher as some sort of demon-worshiper or something. That is not the right way to go about defending someone's right to religious/areligious beliefs.

I wonder how can they manage to teach european art, since a good half of it is about religion.:D

Take Leonardo. Or Michelangelo. Or Raffaello. Not the turtles! *whop*

I'd say a good 90% is a mixture of all four ;-)

Depends upon what rules of legal interpretation you are using. Under English law, this would be the ordinary and normal definition of the word. I confess I don't know the US legal rules of interpretation (I only studied English and European law).

Anywho, dictionary.com gives the following for 'disrupt'

to cause disorder, turmoil, to destroy (temporarily) the normal continuance of, to throw into confusion or disorder.

None of these apply to the painting of a crucifix with a bible quote in art class. It is speech, it is non-disruptive, it is protected by the first amendment and Tinker. Because of that, all your other points are rendered invalid.


First amendment and Tinker under no circumstance set any precedent where a teacher must make special exceptions for students who fail to comply with parameters for a graded paper that were made known beforehand.


So you can happly ignore them and seek to have them over-turned and any actions done against you that have the origin in an unlawful act are themselves unlawful.


And the law also sets state servants, such as public school students, with a certain amount of authority to dictate what subject matter is and is not permissible, so long as it is relevant to the subject taught, for grading.

If you want to argue that free speech trumps this authority under all circumstance, then you might as well abolish all manner of educational standards right here, right now, because no standard can apply as long as any ass clamors that his answer is right under "free speech" laws.


You can indeed as long as (a) it is not disruptive and (b) it is about what Mein Kampf and the Communist Manifesto have to say about medical ethics. No matter how horrid your views, short of inciting others to commit harmful acts, you are entitled to say them in a public school providing it is not disruptive.


Aha! Here we are. The crux of the argument. You have clearly given the caveat that any input is acceptable, so long as it is relevant to the subject matter. This can cut either way in allowing or disallowing topics in terms of relevancy.

The teacher has specified that such parameters would put the subject matter out of relevancy, and thereby, grounds for failing.


In relation to the second example you gave people/trees. Unfortunately, you have divorced your example from a key fact, which was given in the OP. It's this: no blood, no sex, no violence, no religon AS A POLICY.


A policy is not an instruction.


I'm fairly certain you've gone to at least high school level education. If so, you will note that some teachers, or lecturers at college level and above, provide all their students with basic unit outlines. Included in some of these unit outlines are specific instructions on how a project paper's format must be prepared, failing which, is grounds for automatic failure of the assignment.

Are you arguing that such is not instruction?


If I am an art teacher and instruct you to draw a cup of coffee and you draw a crucifix, then I can happily fail you. (this is equivalent to your trees/people argument)

If I am an art teacher and instruct you to draw a cup of coffee and you draw a cup of coffee with crucifixes and religious scenes on it then I can happily grade you.

If I am an art teacher and instruct you to draw a cup of coffee and you draw a cup of coffee with crucifixes on it AND there is a policy of the school saying 'no religion' AND I then fail you, then that is an unconstitutional ban on your freedom of expression.


And if you are an art teacher and you have already instructed students NOT to include certain themes within their work but they still do?


The student is both morally, and legally, in the right.

The student is morally in the wrong. He has not chosen to make issue of the instruction or policy at the time of its notice, or even during the period in between the assignment start date and it's due date. He did not make any mention of this to the senior faculty, or any other agency which could review this.

Instead, he chose to be an ass, hand in his assignment in violation of the unit parameters, and then engaged legal services because he deliberately violated the rules.

He walked in with both eyes willfully closed, and when he walked into a closed door, complained about it.

Legally, we can argue about this to the end of time, because neither of us are going to budge.

I fail to see any sensible argument in favor of keeping religion out of the project, as opposed to blood, violence, or sex,

Since you are supposedly in the free speech camp, it could be a mistaken impression, then why do you exclude the bolded as possibly having a sensible argument in favor of keeping? After all, if this is a matter of free speech, of which some argue that so long as it is not disruptive, as set by the Tinker case, then it should be allowed.

Why do you exclude blood, violence or sex then hmm? It seems a bit of an uneven standard.

No, NAS, you're missing the point that this was an art class therefore there cannot be any limitations put on what is therein, and especially not ones that don't allow a christian child to display scripture in school.


Or any child to use any symbol set important to them in their art religious or otherwise.

Since you are supposedly in the free speech camp, it could be a mistaken impression, then why do you exclude the bolded as possibly having a sensible argument in favor of keeping? After all, if this is a matter of free speech, of which some argue that so long as it is not disruptive, as set by the Tinker case, then it should be allowed.

Why do you exclude blood, violence or sex then hmm? It seems a bit of an uneven standard.

Personally I don't, however that's a harder tack to take within a school setting and I know of no Supreme Court precedent that would bolster my argument on those three.

And if you are an art teacher and you have already instructed students NOT to include certain themes within their work but they still do?

If I were an art teacher I wouldn't. Both because it is wrong to do so and because the school could use the money it's going to loose in the law suit.

I'm thinking, here's a self centered, self absorbed egotistical brat of a kid who completely ignores the teacher's right to self expression.

A zero... round, balanced, a classic form, often given extra impact through the use of a bold red color, the brilliance of the color offering a natural counterbalance to the stark softness of the numeral itself. But the true meaning of the art doesn't come from the form itself. Alone it is nothing, but in context, ah, there we have art, there we have meaning. Deep, often inciteful meaning, called from the shadows within and given shape and urgency by the teacher's simple geometric forms. And the meaning, in the case...

"You're a nitwit."

So who does this kid think he is, trying to block the teacher's right to self expression?

I'm thinking, here's a self centered, self absorbed egotistical brat of a kid who completely ignores the teacher's right to self expression.

A zero... round, balanced, a classic form, often given extra impact through the use of a bold red color, the brilliance of the color offering a natural counterbalance to the stark softness of the numeral itself. But the true meaning of the art doesn't come from the form itself. Alone it is nothing, but in context, ah, there we have art, there we have meaning. Deep, often inciteful meaning, called from the shadows within and given shape and urgency by the teacher's simple geometric forms. And the meaning, in the case...

"You're a nitwit."

So who does this kid think he is, trying to block the teacher's right to self expression?

LOL

Why do you exclude blood, violence or sex then hmm? It seems a bit of an uneven standard.

Can't ask for a better education than that! If I was an art teacher I'd go further, and add several utterly random restrictions just to fog it up! "Yes, you heard me. No religion, blood, badminton, violence, extinct marsupials, sex, aluminum* or especially anything having to do with Belgium."

You see, teachers mold young minds. Maybe one of my kids will be so motivated that he or she will actually become an artist one day. And one day, that kid, now in his or her mid-20's, will work in a studio with several other young artists somewhere in Soho, and one day, one of those other artists, who are ALWAYS on or past the verge of nervous breakdown will say: "How do you do it? How come those insane requests and demands by the gallery owners never bother you in the least?"

And MY student will smile calmly and say..."I had a teacher, once..."

It's the sort of thing that brings tears to your eyes.


*I just can't bring myself to do it. If you're from the UK and "Aluminum" makes you uncomfortable, you'll just have to mentally add in that superfluous "i" youself.

Can't ask for a better education than that! If I was an art teacher I'd go further, and add several utterly random restrictions just to fog it up! "Yes, you heard me. No religion, blood, badminton, violence, extinct marsupials, sex, aluminun or especially anything having to do with Belgium."

You see, teachers mold young minds. Maybe one of my kids will be so motivated that he or she will actually become an artist one day. And one day, that kid, now in his or her mid-20's, will work in a studio with several other young artists somewhere in Soho, and one day, one of those other artists, who are ALWAYS on or past the verge of nervous breakdown will say: "How do you do it? How come those insane requests and demands by the gallery owners never bother you in the least?"

And MY student will smile calmly and say..."I had a teacher, once..."

It's the sort of thing that brings tears to your eyes.

Nice

Meh, teachers a prick and Im on the students side. Censorship is censorship, and everyone should be forced to read Tinker V De Moines so they dont say stupid shit like "Minors have no rights!!!! Especially in school!!!!" Also, one can easily unwaive their constitutional rights at any time, so that little waiver is useless.


That all being said, I hope the kid loses, because I hate the Christian Persecution Complex Alliance law firm.

This is more complicated than a superficial "who is right who is wrong" style gives credit for. On one hand Tinker is clear that students, even minor students, have constitutionally protected rights inside the school room.

On the other hand however, teachers have the authority to lay down rules for the classroom. For example, there's one part in some biblical passage that describes a round room 100 cubits across and 300 cubits around. Anyone who has a basic understanding of geometry would know that the ramifications of this is that pi = 3.

However if a student did his math homework calculating pi = 3, would we expect the math teacher to allow this? Would we consider it a violation of his constitutional liberties if he (rightly so) got a bad grade for doing so? If a student said on his science test that the earth was less than 6,000 years old, would we allow this to pass as well because it's a religious perspective?

No, of course not. Tinker is more narrow than those around here seem to give it credit for. It states a student can not be required to stifle his free speech unless such exercise would be a disruption to the class. It does not say he is free to exercise his "free speech" in contrary to the rules of a duly authorized assignment.

If the teacher had said "I want you to paint a nature scene, no man made objects in the picture" and he painted a car, and was failed, would we have a problem? If not, why not? Is his right to paint a car any more or less his first amendment right than talking about the bible? Painting a car is as much expression as painting a biblical passage, but we wouldn't have a problem with this.

I side with the teacher. he is perfectly free to practice his religion, he is free to voice his opinions about his religion, he is free to pray in accordance with his religion, he is free to hold meetings with students to discuss his religion. None of those things are violated. He is not, however, free to disregard the rules of his instruction merely because he feels like it.

Im shakey on my stance here, so if my arguement seems half assed, that why.

This is more complicated than a superficial "who is right who is wrong" style gives credit for. On one hand Tinker is clear that students, even minor students, have constitutionally protected rights inside the school room.

On the other hand however, teachers have the authority to lay down rules for the classroom.

But if those rules violate a constitutional given right, which takes precident? I dont know, Im asking in all honosty.

For example, there's one part in some biblical passage that describes a round room 100 cubits across and 300 cubits around. Anyone who has a basic understanding of geometry would know that the ramifications of this is that pi = 3.

However if a student did his math homework calculating pi = 3, would we expect the math teacher to allow this? Would we consider it a violation of his constitutional liberties if he (rightly so) got a bad grade for doing so? If a student said on his science test that the earth was less than 6,000 years old, would we allow this to pass as well because it's a religious perspective?

No, of course not. Tinker is more narrow than those around here seem to give it credit for.

I suppose an argueable difference is one is a matter of fact, the other is opinion/art/expression.


Everything else in your post I cant argue with you. I think I need to retract my earlier post and say I side with the teacher, but censorship, especially of art, always makes me uncomfortable. I never support censorship and I dont support the idea that students waive their constitutional rights, and his art project is not causing a disruption to the learning enviroment. But, at the same time, I think teachers should be fee to set rules they see fit.

Im shaky on my stance here, so if my arguement seems half assed, that why.



But if those rules violate a constitutional given right, which takes precident? I dont know, Im asking in all honosty.

My question becomes "what right"? Was his right to freedom of expression denied? I'm not so sure. Was he STOPPED from painting the picture? No. Nobody said "you can not paint this". Nobody said "you can't believe this". Nobody said "you can't talk about your religion"

What he was told is that he was given an assignment, and that assignment had rules about the content of his picture. Rules he violated. You can't simply choose what assignment rules you follow, any more than back in highschool when we all had to stand up one by one and read excerpts from Julius Caesar could I have instead decided to read The Great Gatsby outloud, and then complain once I was failed that he violated my right to read the great gatsby.

Tinker said students have rights. It did not say those rights were absolute.

My question becomes "what right"? Was his right to freedom of expression denied? I'm not so sure. Was he STOPPED from painting the picture? No. Nobody said "you can not paint this". Nobody said "you can't believe this". Nobody said "you can't talk about your religion"

What he was told is that he was given an assignment, and that assignment had rules about the content of his picture. Rules he violated. You can't simply choose what assignment rules you follow, any more than back in highschool when we all had to stand up one by one and read excerpts from Julius Caesar could I have instead decided to read The Great Gatsby outloud, and then complain once I was failed that he violated my right to read the great gatsby.

Tinker said students have rights. It did not say those rights were absolute.



I was under the impression that the rules were for the class, not that particular assignment. I dont know if that makes a difference or not.

But youre right on that count. The teacher never said "I dont want you to even speak about Jesus!"

Its also interesting that he wasnt told to remove the cross, just the Bible verse.

The "no relligion" part of the "contract" is nebulous, and it really expurgates one hell of a lot of influences and iconic images from which any art student might draw inspiration. I think both sides should put down their lawyers and pull their heads out of their asses.

Think about images that could be construed as religious that might find their way into a typical art student's expression. Not just crosses, stars of David or the star and crescent, but the yin-yang symbol, or even the old symbol the Nazis appropriated, the swastika. Even Native American or other animistic/pantheistic religious imagery could be inferred from a totemic drawing of a bear, salmon, raven or coyote.

Instead of a bogus contract, I think you sit the kids down and tell them why the school wants to avoid depictions of religion or religious imagery instead of making it seem like there's some legal right you're signing away.

Both parties are at fault here, in my opinion. The school, for not doing even a decent job of communicating its intentions, and the kid's parents for being overzealous assholes instead of talking with the teacher and the kid and learning why religion isn't allowed for expression in art class. Seems to me that if the class is teaching basics like form, light, color, shadow, perspective, technique etc., it seems that overtly complex expressions might logically be avoided in order to focus on those basics.



[NOTICE the link was to a site called the "American Family News" -- that strikes me as a pro-Christian point of view. Not saying it has anything to do with the case, but the wording of the OP quote from the site was decidedly biased.]

My question becomes "what right"? Was his right to freedom of expression denied? I'm not so sure. Was he STOPPED from painting the picture? No. Nobody said "you can not paint this". Nobody said "you can't believe this". Nobody said "you can't talk about your religion"

What he was told is that he was given an assignment, and that assignment had rules about the content of his picture. Rules he violated. You can't simply choose what assignment rules you follow, any more than back in highschool when we all had to stand up one by one and read excerpts from Julius Caesar could I have instead decided to read The Great Gatsby outloud, and then complain once I was failed that he violated my right to read the great gatsby.

Tinker said students have rights. It did not say those rights were absolute.

And this, good sir, is why you rock.

Both parties are at fault here, in my opinion. The school, for not doing even a decent job of communicating its intentions, and the kid's parents for being overzealous assholes instead of talking with the teacher and the kid and learning why religion isn't allowed for expression in art class. Seems to me that if the class is teaching basics like form, light, color, shadow, perspective, technique etc., it seems that overtly complex expressions might logically be avoided in order to focus on those basics.

From a moral, ethical, and practical standpoint sure, the teacher could have done a HELL of a lot better explaining. But I tend to stay away from moral and ethical debates as they're far too subjective. I prefer, not so shocking due to my profession, to deal with the legal.

Could the teacher/school have handled it better? yeah, probably. But were they in the legal right? I think so.

The "no relligion" part of the "contract" is nebulous, and it really expurgates one hell of a lot of influences and iconic images from which any art student might draw inspiration. I think both sides should put down their lawyers and pull their heads out of their asses.


Well, they only wanted him to remove John 3:16, the cross was still allowed. Which to me is interesting and hurts his case that his religion was being persecuted against.

[NOTICE the link was to a site called the "American Family News" -- that strikes me as a pro-Christian point of view. Not saying it has anything to do with the case, but the wording of the OP quote from the site was decidedly biased.]

Thats because it is biased.

From a moral, ethical, and practical standpoint sure, the teacher could have done a HELL of a lot better explaining.
We don't actually know what the teacher said. I would give zero credence to the version of events peddled by a site like the one linked to.

I was under the impression that the rules were for the class, not that particular assignment. I dont know if that makes a difference or not.

But youre right on that count. The teacher never said "I dont want you to even speak about Jesus!"

Its also interesting that he wasnt told to remove the cross, just the Bible verse.

This

We don't actually know what the teacher said. I would give zero credence to the version of events peddled by a site like the one linked to.

I'm giving this assumption as true. Even if the events were exactly as described, the teacher was still within the law.

This is more complicated than a superficial "who is right who is wrong" style gives credit for. On one hand Tinker is clear that students, even minor students, have constitutionally protected rights inside the school room.

On the other hand however, teachers have the authority to lay down rules for the classroom. For example, there's one part in some biblical passage that describes a round room 100 cubits across and 300 cubits around. Anyone who has a basic understanding of geometry would know that the ramifications of this is that pi = 3.

However if a student did his math homework calculating pi = 3, would we expect the math teacher to allow this? Would we consider it a violation of his constitutional liberties if he (rightly so) got a bad grade for doing so? If a student said on his science test that the earth was less than 6,000 years old, would we allow this to pass as well because it's a religious perspective?

No, of course not. Tinker is more narrow than those around here seem to give it credit for. It states a student can not be required to stifle his free speech unless such exercise would be a disruption to the class. It does not say he is free to exercise his "free speech" in contrary to the rules of a duly authorized assignment.

If the teacher had said "I want you to paint a nature scene, no man made objects in the picture" and he painted a car, and was failed, would we have a problem? If not, why not? Is his right to paint a car any more or less his first amendment right than talking about the bible? Painting a car is as much expression as painting a biblical passage, but we wouldn't have a problem with this.

I side with the teacher. he is perfectly free to practice his religion, he is free to voice his opinions about his religion, he is free to pray in accordance with his religion, he is free to hold meetings with students to discuss his religion. None of those things are violated. He is not, however, free to disregard the rules of his instruction merely because he feels like it.

However the SC has upheld that a teacher or a school can not make a rule stating that students can not wear religious symbols (barring rules such as "no necklaces or rings in shop class" that are clearly put in place for safety). Why would that not apply to drawing religious symbols?

My question becomes "what right"? Was his right to freedom of expression denied? I'm not so sure. Was he STOPPED from painting the picture? No. Nobody said "you can not paint this". Nobody said "you can't believe this". Nobody said "you can't talk about your religion"

What he was told is that he was given an assignment, and that assignment had rules about the content of his picture. Rules he violated.

Rules that IMO were not constitutional.

Rules that IMO were not constitutional.

I'd say that the opinion of someone who actually has legal knowledge trumps that of someone who doesn't when it comes to what is or isn't legal/constitutional.

However the SC has upheld that a teacher or a school can not make a rule stating that students can not wear religious symbols (barring rules such as "no necklaces or rings in shop class" that are clearly put in place for safety). Why would that not apply to drawing religious symbols?

Because the art teacher sets the criteria for which he is graded. Because students are not graded on their clothing. What they wear has no baring on the instruction of the class. This student was not stopped from drawing religious symbols. He can draw all the religious symbols he wants to.

Just as he can't be stopped from wearing a cross, he can't be stopped from drawing a cross. But if he wants to submit a piece of work for a grade he needs to follow the criteria by which it is graded. Just as if I wanted a good grade in my highschool english class, I had to stand up and read shakespeare, not spider man, even if I really would have much prefered to read spiderman.

The first amendment and freedom of expression covers a lot of ground. From drawing a cross to reading spiderman, but his first amendment rights no more protect him from drawing a cross for a graded assignment, when he was told not to than it does protect me from reading spider man instead of Julius Caesar.

Rules that IMO were not constitutional.

you can believe that all you want but I'm unsure if you have a firm foundation on which to generate sufficiently informed opinions.

you can believe that all you want but I'm unsure if you have a firm foundation on which to generate sufficiently informed opinions.

I think we can safely say that, no he does not.

IIRC from a news clip the school allowed for 'demonic' images (as well as Buddha, lol) but not Christian ones. Although in this case the kid openly violated school policy, the school is catering to other faiths and is wrong.

IIRC from a news clip the school allowed for 'demonic' images (as well as Buddha, lol) but not Christian ones. Although in this case the kid openly violated school policy, the school is catering to other faiths and is wrong.

How about provided a link?

IIRC from a news clip the school allowed for 'demonic' images (as well as Buddha, lol) but not Christian ones. Although in this case the kid openly violated school policy, the school is catering to other faiths and is wrong.

and you can substantiate that claim where?

IIRC from a news clip the school allowed for 'demonic' images (as well as Buddha, lol) but not Christian ones. Although in this case the kid openly violated school policy, the school is catering to other faiths and is wrong.

No, there is a difference. They did not quote from their holy books.

The kid was only asked to remove the verse. The cross was a-ok. There is no double standard at work, despite what the Christian Persecution Complex law firm wants you to believe.

No, there is a difference. They did not quote from their holy books.

The kid was only asked to remove the verse. The cross was a-ok. There is no double standard at work, despite what the Christian Persecution Complex law firm wants you to believe.

Personally I doubt that DrV is going to provide a link to support his claim anyways...

However the SC has upheld that a teacher or a school can not make a rule stating that students can not wear religious symbols (barring rules such as "no necklaces or rings in shop class" that are clearly put in place for safety). Why would that not apply to drawing religious symbols?

He can draw religious symbols. No one stopped him. He just can't draw religious symbols on an assignment to draw something other than religious symbols and expect to get credit.

(Incidentally, it wasn't the cross that made him fail. It was the John 3:16 or whatever.)

(Incidentally, it wasn't the cross that made him fail. It was the John 3:16 or whatever.)


Exactly, and people seem to be willfully ignoring that, because it helps to fuel their CPC (Christian Persecution Complex).

He can draw religious symbols. No one stopped him. He just can't draw religious symbols on an assignment to draw something other than religious symbols and expect to get credit.

(Incidentally, it wasn't the cross that made him fail. It was the John 3:16 or whatever.)

Which is the part that the "OMG!!! His right to freedom of religions is being squashed!!!" crowd are ignoring.

Exactly, and people seem to be willfully ignoring that, because it helps to fuel their CPC (Christian Persecution Complex).

MY Christian persecution complex? You might want to recheck some of my posting history.

It is still my assertion that the rule of "no religion in your artwork" is not going to be upheld in court even if the cross was allowed and the John 3:16 was not.

Neo-art and others: No, I'm not a lawyer. This is my opinion as a layman alone. However, even other lawyers may disagree with each other on constitutional interpretation. Just because Neo-art (and Cat-tribe if he contributes to this thread - on either side of the debate) have a more informed opinion it doesn't make their opinion infallible.

He can draw religious symbols. No one stopped him. He just can't draw religious symbols on an assignment to draw something other than religious symbols and expect to get credit.

(Incidentally, it wasn't the cross that made him fail. It was the John 3:16 or whatever.)I'd love to know what the assignment was, because the article doesn't say. How do you know what it was?

If the handbook laws said they could arbitrayly detain children in the gym at weekends, would the US gov not have something to say? No. The handbook has to have good reasons for it.

Well technically the area in which I am detained is the cafeteria, every saturday so far this year, from 7pm to 11pm. For the past few weeks, I have been forced to work in the kitchen to make breakfast, lunch, and dinner on saturday and sunday. And I have to check in with an on-duty teacher every 30 minutes til 6pm when not working. It's not a very effective system, in that instead of getting kids to stop whatever they're doing, it ends up angering them and screwing them over even more; the point, however, is that schools can pretty much do whatever they want.

I'd love to know what the assignment was, because the article doesn't say. How do you know what it was?

Well, considering the article said that the assignment could not include religion, it's reasonable to assume that the assignment was to draw something that wasn't religious.

Allowing people to express religious faith in the form of art is hardly bending over backwards. Thats a basic right.

I know, and I realize that the thought process that forms in my head does not always become clear when I write it down.

To try and explain... The student recieved an assignment, and failed to show the creativity necessary to keep within the guidelines of the rules of the classroom, thus he was failed the assignment. Instead of chosing to see it this way, he instead cried religious foul forcing secular society to take another lawsuit up the ass. That is my issue.

If the student were aware of the policy that he supposedly signed, then he should have inquired with the teacher if his idea for the project was appropriate. However, if he never read what he signed and was therefore ignorant of the rule, then I would say the failing grade is deserved. Do I agree with this cencorship policy? No. I find it asinine like a so many other supposedly PC policies.

However, if this kid produced a piece of artwork outside of the classroom, and brought it to school to show to his friends, or made copies for those who were interested and was disciplined for it, then I would put the error entirely on the school and have no issue at all with the student.

Allowing people to express religious faith in the form of art is hardly bending over backwards. Thats a basic right.

Not and count for points for an assignment

What good would assignments be if we were not able to restrict what counted as grade worthy material?

Can't some of you see! (As I now do) that this is no different then being told to write a short story on, lets say animals, and you come in with a paper completly on a (personified)rock and his grass friends, and getting a zero for it! Would you complain about your rights then? No. The only difference is that this has stirred up controversy because it was about religion.

Can't some of you see! (As I now do) that this is no different then being told to write a short story on, lets say animals, and you come in with a paper completly on a (personified)rock and his grass friends, and getting a zero for it! Would you complain about your rights then? No. The only difference is that this has stirred up controversy because it was about religion.

Actually, if would be a lot more like if you were asked to write a story about animals and your story about animals included some religious references, (for an example, see "the one who came back".) such a story would meet the general idea of the assignment.

And the teacher asked the student to effectively blot out the objectionable portion of his work, which is rather obviously a form of censorship.

Actually, if would be a lot more like if you were asked to write a story about animals and your story about animals included some religious references, (for an example, see "the one who came back".) such a story would meet the general idea of the assignment.

And the teacher asked the student to effectively blot out the objectionable portion of his work, which is rather obviously a form of censorship.

What part of the whine-ass kid agreed to not including religious elements in his submitted artwork, then submitted artwork which did not meet the criteria (it included not only a religious symbol (the cross) but a reference to scripture (John 3:16), and consequently received a failing grade for that assignment.
His 1st amendment rights were not restricted.

What part of the whine-ass kid agreed to not including religious elements in his submitted artwork, then submitted artwork which did not meet the criteria (it included not only a religious symbol (the cross) but a reference to scripture (John 3:16), and consequently received a failing grade for that assignment.
His 1st amendment rights were not restricted.

The existence of the agreement as a requirement to take the class in a state sponsored institution was an unlawful restriction on his right to free speech.

The existence of the agreement as a requirement to take the class in a state sponsored institution was an unlawful restriction on his right to free speech.

How?

How?

Because, effectively, he was forced to sign the agreement in order to continue in the class. The teacher who wrote the agreement was working as a representative of the school, which is a representative of the state, which is bound by the same bill of rights that binds the federal government.

You keep trying to equivocate it to an issue of relevance, when it clearly was not an issue of relevance, but of banned topics. And I don't believe any topic should ever be banned by the state.

I don't think the right to free speech covers the right to be offensive. The theory is that you can express anything you want but only in a certain way. Apparently this student was allowed to draw a cross, but not quote scripture. Which is pretty stupid, but it might not violate the 1st amendment. The government already censors porn, bad words, and sometimes violence from TV, and no one complains.

Because, effectively, he was forced to sign the agreement in order to continue in the class.

To take the class, not continue in it.

The teacher who wrote the agreement was working as a representative of the school, which is a representative of the state, which is bound by the same bill of rights that binds the federal government.

So now teachers aren't allowed to determine what is or is not acceptable in their classroom re grading?

You keep trying to equivocate it to an issue of relevance, when it clearly was not an issue of relevance, but of banned topics. And I don't believe any topic should ever be banned by the state.

It is an issue of relevance, he was told that certain subject matter would not be acceptable and thusly would not count towards his grade; by signing the agreement he indicated that this was acceptable to him.

Where in the First Amendment is there a guarantee of receiving a passing grade in school? He was not disciplined for including religious references in his artwork, he simply received a failing grade for not turning in the assignment (the piece that he turned in was not acceptable for grading and he knew that when he did it).

Using the same argument as the student, I should just include a reference to Christianity in every single one of my pieces of work.

If I ever fail, I just blame the teacher for being anti-religion and voila! No fail! Heck, I don't even need to write about the subject at hand!

No, this student failed because he was given guidelines for what the work was not supposed to include and he included them. Now, he was allowed to draw the art and express himself, but freedom of expression has consequences. In this instance, the consequence was that he never actually performed the work asked.

In fact, the teacher shouldn't even have bothered grading the art piece.

I don't think the right to free speech covers the right to be offensive. The theory is that you can express anything you want but only in a certain way. Apparently this student was allowed to draw a cross, but not quote scripture. Which is pretty stupid, but it might not violate the 1st amendment. The government already censors porn, bad words, and sometimes violence from TV, and no one complains.

See this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13581381&postcount=222) and Neo A's responses.

Personally I don't, however that's a harder tack to take within a school setting and I know of no Supreme Court precedent that would bolster my argument on those three.

Doesn't matter. Either "free speech" trumps school authority to set parameters in matters of grading or school authority trumps free speech when it comes to that. There's no "mine's special! It should be allowed, but nothing else!" Which one will it be?

If I were an art teacher I wouldn't. Both because it is wrong to do so and because the school could use the money it's going to loose in the law suit.

You seem awfully sure that they'll lose. And if they win?

However the SC has upheld that a teacher or a school can not make a rule stating that students can not wear religious symbols (barring rules such as "no necklaces or rings in shop class" that are clearly put in place for safety). Why would that not apply to drawing religious symbols?

Gah! Nobody is stopping him from drawing whatever the hell he wants! He could reproduce the Sistine Chapel on canvass if he wants! Nobody would have the legal right to stop him. He is just failing to follow the instructions set by the assignment and as such, he fails! Can't you wrap your mind around that concept?

Gah! Nobody is stopping him from drawing whatever the hell he wants! He could reproduce the Sistine Chapel on canvass if he wants! Nobody would have the legal right to stop him. He is just failing to follow the instructions set by the assignment and as such, he fails! Can't you wrap your mind around that concept?

Dont you understand that there is a massive athiest conspirecy out to get Christianity? Only when Christianity has been toppled can we turn all the youth of the world into godless, murderous, sodomites who cant go 15 seconds without doing a coke line.

Dont you understand that there is a massive athiest conspirecy out to get Christianity? Only when Christianity has been toppled can we turn all the youth of the world into godless, murderous, sodomites who cant go 15 seconds without doing a coke line.

Hey....
You're not supposed to tell anyone that...

The First Rule of Atheist Club is you don't talk about Atheist Club...
The Second Rule of Atheist Club is you don't talk about Atheist Club...
:D

Using the same argument as the student, I should just include a reference to Christianity in every single one of my pieces of work.

If I ever fail, I just blame the teacher for being anti-religion and voila! No fail! Heck, I don't even need to write about the subject at hand!

No, this student failed because he was given guidelines for what the work was not supposed to include and he included them. Now, he was allowed to draw the art and express himself, but freedom of expression has consequences. In this instance, the consequence was that he never actually performed the work asked.

In fact, the teacher shouldn't even have bothered grading the art piece.

We do not know much about what the "subject at hand" was, but I think it's safe to assume he was working within the guidelines of the assignment, with the exception of the religious imagery added.

All of these attempts to inflate the situation are at least slightly dishonest, aren't they?

All of these attempts to inflate the situation are at least slightly dishonest, aren't they?

And whining that you were flunked for "suppression of free speech" when you actually failed to provide what was required isn't dishonest?

Can't some of you see! (As I now do) that this is no different then being told to write a short story on, lets say animals, and you come in with a paper completly on a (personified)rock and his grass friends, and getting a zero for it!

Except that as far as we know the assignment was NOT to draw something specific. I swear I recall a case where it was determined that schools could not prevent students from writing on religious themes in essay assignments or creative writing assignments (unless of course such was completely inappropriate to the assignment). I see no reason drawings should be held to a different standard.

Well, considering the article said that the assignment could not include religion, it's reasonable to assume that the assignment was to draw something that wasn't religious.

Except, again IIRC, you can not give a creative writing assignment (FREX: Write about something important to your life) and say "But you CAN NOT write about religion."

What part of the whine-ass kid agreed to not including religious elements in his submitted artwork, then submitted artwork which did not meet the criteria (it included not only a religious symbol (the cross) but a reference to scripture (John 3:16), and consequently received a failing grade for that assignment.
His 1st amendment rights were not restricted.

The part where you seem to think the restriction was acceptable.

I don't think the right to free speech covers the right to be offensive. The theory is that you can express anything you want but only in a certain way. Apparently this student was allowed to draw a cross, but not quote scripture. Which is pretty stupid, but it might not violate the 1st amendment. The government already censors porn, bad words, and sometimes violence from TV, and no one complains.

I do. TV comes with a lot of buttons. Some of them change the channel, one turns it off.

Doesn't matter. Either "free speech" trumps school authority to set parameters in matters of grading or school authority trumps free speech when it comes to that. There's no "mine's special! It should be allowed, but nothing else!" Which one will it be?

I thought I made it clear that I personally think they should all be allowed, but think that there is little chance of successfully making the argument for the other three.

You seem awfully sure that they'll lose. And if they win?

All the precedents I'm familiar with, in my layman's opinion (and clearly the opinion of the lawyer who took the case in the kids defense), point that way. If the court decides differently then that will have to be followed but I will still be of the opinion that they decided wrongly.

Dont you understand that there is a massive athiest conspirecy out to get Christianity? Only when Christianity has been toppled can we turn all the youth of the world into godless, murderous, sodomites who cant go 15 seconds without doing a coke line.

You do know that I, and I think a few others arguing in the kids favor, am anything BUT Christian, right?

I thought I made it clear that I personally think they should all be allowed, but think that there is little chance of successfully making the argument for the other three.

And why do you think that is hmm? Is it because religion happens to be a bit more scandalous to make a case for? Then clearly it's a double standard on this prosecution counsel's case.


All the precedents I'm familiar with, in my layman's opinion (and clearly the opinion of the lawyer who took the case in the kids defense), point that way.


The precedent you mentioned was very specific, and in no way covers what happened here. A lawyer, who apparently has less of an agenda than this kid's lawyer, thinks very much otherwise.


If the court decides differently then that will have to be followed but I will still be of the opinion that they decided wrongly.

And you'd still be wrong.

Except, again IIRC, you can not give a creative writing assignment (FREX: Write about something important to your life) and say "But you CAN NOT write about religion."

saying "you can't writing about religion" is no different than saying "you can't write about cars" or "you can't write about the olympics" or "you can't write about your Aunt Judy."

Expression is expression. Free speech is free speech. The limitations on the exercise of the free speech generally apply universally. Why do you think that a school could not prevent me from writing about Jesus for an assignment, but could be within its rights to stop me from writing about my gay cousin Barry?

Why do you think expression regarding religious topics is somehow more sacrosanct than any other non profane discussion?

Can't help but notice that most of these arguments are going around and around and around and around.

When it's actually fairly simple. All of the arguments in support of the teacher/school are fatally dismissed by Supreme Court Justices Fortas, Warren, Douglas, Brennan, White, Marshall in the case of Tinker v Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969) link (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Tinker_v._Des_Moines_School_District/Opinion_of_the_Court)

First, we'll start off with the US Constitution, 1st amendment:


Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech; or the right ... to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

There is a right, in the US, of free speech and the ability to take action (petitioning the govt i.e. starting a lawsuit) for redress.

And now we'll look at the decision of the Justices in Tinker:


The District Court recognized that [symbolic acts are] within the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment ... the circumstances of this case was entirely divorced from actually or potentially disruptive conduct by those participating in it. It was closely akin to "pure speech" [506] which, we have repeatedly held, is entitled to comprehensive protection under the First Amendment

PRINCIPLES - (1) symbolic acts are a form of free speech that is protected by the 1st (2) 'pure speech' unaccompanied by actual or potentially disruptive conduct is also protected by the 1st

APPLICATION - Art class student does a symbolic act (paints cross and biblical ref into painting despite 'no religion policy'. Act is not actually or potentially disruptive. Act is therefore protected free speech under the principles described above.

First Amendment rights, applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment, are available to teachers and students. It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate. This has been the unmistakable holding of this Court for almost 50 years.

PRINCIPLE - 1st amendment rights are available in public schools

APPLICATION - the 1st amendment right to free speech applies in the art class under discussion. The policy of 'no religion' clearly contradicts the 1st.


Our problem lies in the area where students in the exercise of First Amendment rights collide with the rules of the school authorities.

PRINCIPLE - Supreme Court explicitly recognises that there is a conflict between school rules and 1st amendment

APPLICATION - there is a conflict between the school 'no religion' policy and the student's 1st amendment right to freedom of expression


The school officials banned and sought to punish petitioners for a silent, passive expression of opinion, unaccompanied by any disorder or disturbance on the part of petitioners ...

in our system, undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance is not enough to overcome the right to freedom of expression ...

In order for the State in the person of school officials to justify prohibition of a particular expression of opinion, it must be able to show that

* its action was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint.

*Certainly where there is no finding and no showing that engaging in the forbidden conduct would "materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school," the prohibition cannot be sustained. [emphasis by BC] ...

In our system, students ... may not be confined to the expression of those sentiments that are officially approved. In the absence of a specific showing of constitutionally valid reasons to regulate their speech, students are entitled to freedom of expression of their views. As Judge Gewin, speaking for the Fifth Circuit, said, school officials cannot suppress "expressions of feelings with which they do not wish to contend"


PRINCIPLE - undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance is not enough to overcome the right to freedom of expression and rules/policies must be justified by something more than that. Prohibitions, dealing with subject matters with which the school cannot or does not want to contend, cannot stand when the conduct does not materially/substantially interfere with the discipline/operation of the school

APPLICATION - school (or teacher) sought to put in a rule about 'no religion' presumably on the basis of 'keeping the peace'. However, under Tinker, this is not enough to legally justify the rule. Provided there was no material disruption to the class then the student is legally free to disregard the rule. The school's policy is prima facie an unlawful restriction on the student's right to freedom of expression

QUESTION - but what about the authority of the teacher to set rules? Well, it's partly answered as long as the protest is non-disruptive. But what about the teacher's entirely reasonable point, that 'I need to set parameters for students?' That's answered in the next bit...


In our system, state-operated schools may not be enclaves of totalitarianism. School officials do not possess absolute authority over their students. Students in school as well as out of school are "persons" under our Constitution. They are possessed of fundamental rights which the State must respect

PRINCIPLE - schools and teachers do not have absolute rights over students, especially in opposition to the rights granted under the constitution

APPLICATION - the school and the art class teacher attempted to impose an absolute rule in contravention of art student's 1st amendment rights. They, under the principles elaborated in Tinker, have no right to do so. Similarly, any argument that 'the teacher gave parameters and guidelines so they must be followed and any failure to do so can be punished' is fatally swept aside by the rule in Tinker that schools and teachers to not have the absolute right to sweep away constitutionally guaranteed rights.

Mind you, this has no bearing on the situation whereby an art teacher asks for a cup of coffee and gets back a picture of a crucifix. Teachers are not forbidden under Tinker from giving instructions. They are only forbidden from setting policies that are in breach of 1st amendment rights to free expression. So if you ask for a pic of a cup of coffee and get back a pic of a cup of coffee with crucifixes drawn on it, then you (as a teacher) can't object to that.


Under our Constitution, free speech is not a right that is given only to be so circumscribed that it exists in principle but not in fact.

PRINCIPLE - Constitutional rights must be applied in reality and cannot be cut down so that they only apply on paper

APPLICATION - arguments that 'I have to do X' or 'it's better for the group that X' are likely fatally felled by this principle. As for the argument that 'teachers have the right to set parameters', then where those parameters conflict with the 1st amendment, then this prinicple in Tinker renders those parameters unlawful and therefore void.



The student is legally and, I'd argue, morally in the right.

saying "you can't writing about religion" is no different than saying "you can't write about cars" or "you can't write about the olympics" or "you can't write about your Aunt Judy."

Expression is expression. Free speech is free speech. The limitations on the exercise of the free speech generally apply universally. Why do you think that a school could not prevent me from writing about Jesus for an assignment, but could be within its rights to stop me from writing about my gay cousin Barry?

Why do you think expression regarding religious topics is somehow more sacrosanct than any other non profane discussion?

It isn't, I never claimed it was. A school, in my opinion, has no right to prevent a student from writing on either subject or to lower or negate their grade for writing on such subjects.

Can't help but notice that most of these arguments are going around and around and around and around.
<SNIP>

I'm curious, are you actually a lawyer? Apparently to some in this thread the opinion of no-lawyers became irrelevant once Neo-Art gave his opinion.

I studied law for many years - at further education (US equivalent - High School), undergraduate degree, post-grad and vocational training. Even represented a few people in the local employment tribunals.

But no, I'm not a lawyer. I became a journalist instead, although, owing to my legal background, I've researched and written extensively on law. Most recently, I created a monthly journal on business/commercial law in the Middle East (I live in Arabia).


Apparently to some in this thread the opinion of no-lawyers became irrelevant once Neo-Art gave his opinion.


I'm curious - what's the significance of Neo-Art in this context? What's the background?

Cheers

BC

The student is legally and, I'd argue, morally in the right.

How nice of you to forget this little factoid in your article


*Certainly where there is no finding and no showing that engaging in the forbidden conduct would "materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school," the prohibition cannot be sustained.

Well guess what? Operation of the school? Appropriate discipline? That certainly sounds like something that falls within the parameters of grading assigned works.

And forbidden conduct? How many times has it got to be said? He can draw whatever the hell he likes, but it it goes against the pre-arranged requirements for an assignment and then goes up and hands in work that violates it, the teacher is under no obligation to mark it.

Oh, and let's take a look at this. Quite important.


On December 16, Mary Beth and Christopher wore black armbands to their schools. John Tinker wore his armband the next day. They were all sent home and suspended from school until they would come back without their armbands.

This is clearly not a case of failure to comply with any project parameter, but individual behavior! Apples and oranges.

And Neo is a lawyer by profession, with at least several cases already covered. His legal background can be reasonably expected to be greater than yours.

How nice of you to forget this little factoid in your article



Well guess what? Operation of the school? Appropriate discipline? That certainly sounds like something that falls within the parameters of grading assigned works.
Drawing a cross and a bible quote didn't"materially and substantially interfere" with that, though.
And forbidden conduct? How many times has it got to be said? He can draw whatever the hell he likes, but it it goes against the pre-arranged requirements for an assignment and then goes up and hands in work that violates it, the teacher is under no obligation to mark it.

Oh, and let's take a look at this. Quite important.



This is clearly not a case of failure to comply with any project parameter, but individual behavior! Apples and oranges.

And Neo is a lawyer by profession, with at least several cases already covered. His legal background can be reasonably expected to be greater than yours.

While Neo Art's expert opinion is appreciated, his law degree does not make him infallible. Only popehood does that.

And while this situation is obviously not identical to the tinker case, I think a good lawyer could extrapolate the precedents from the tinker case and apply them to this situation.

And for everyone saying that he didn't complete the "requirements of the assignment", remember that he could still have been graded if the teacher had chosen to focus on the quality of his work rather than the content.

Firstly, there's no need for the sniping tone in your post. We've never met. We don't know each other. We've never, as far as I'm aware, never done any kind of harm to each other.

Let's keep it civilized.

]
*Certainly where there is no finding and no showing that engaging in the forbidden conduct would "materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school," the prohibition cannot be sustained.


Well guess what? Operation of the school? Appropriate discipline? That certainly sounds like something that falls within the parameters of grading assigned works

I think this rather proves the point rather than disproves it. The confusion arises because it's all written in the negative. Let's re-phrase it slightly.

Prohibitions cannot be sustained when...

*the act prohibited by the school ...
*is free from any material or substantially adverse interference...
*in the operation or discipline of the school

Let's apply

School prohibits religion
Kid disregards religion - by putting in a cross and a Bible reference
School, and art class, is substantially and materially unaffected by kid
Prohibition is unlawful
Teacher applies punishment to kid for breach of prohibition
Punishment applied is also unlawful

Forbidden Conduct
I think I've adressed these points elsewhere

1) Teachers do not have absolute control over students (Tinker) and cannot suspend the operation of the constitution by decree

2) Teacher is therefore obliged to act in accordance with the constitution

3) Teacher cannot therefore impose a decree contrary to the constitution

4) Teacher cannot there for impose a punishment for breach of a requirement that is contrary to the constitution

Or, let me put it more simply.

Teachers do not have an absolute right to dictate what student conduct must be.

It's all there in Tinker.

This is clearly not a case of failure to comply with any project parameter, but individual behavior! Apples and oranges.

This is quite wrong. The principles expressed in Tinker are sufficiently wide to cover the case of the art student.



And Neo is a lawyer by profession, with at least several cases already covered. His legal background can be reasonably expected to be greater than yours.

I hardly know where to begin with this. First, it strikes me as very aggressive/defensive. Angry even. There's no need for it, none.

Second, just because someone is a lawyer and has great experience doesn't logically make him right. Either his points are good, or they're not. Lawyers can and do disagree with each other. And they even get it outright wrong. Especially lawyers in practice. They're often so very busy, they simply just don't have the time to sit there, read and keep up to date. I've seen professionally drafted applications to the Employment Tribunal that are just plain wrong.

Thirdly, just because Neo is a professional lawyer is of itself, meaningless. What kind of lawyer is he? A divorce lawyer? A criminal lawyer? A land-law lawyer? Or a civil liberties and constitutional law lawyer?

As for myself, no, I'm not a lawyer by profession but I've had lengthy and extensive training. I'm now a journalist and I've written about constitutional law (in this context I mean 'law of constitutions' as opposed to 'the law of the US constitution')

Even the highest court in England, the House of Lords, admitted it wasn't infallible (that was in the 60s I think).

Merely saying: 'Neo is a more experienced lawyer than you so 'yahboosucks' still doesn't make him (or her) right.' In fact, the whole point is irrelevant.

Only the reasoned application of the principles of the law to the facts of the case has any value or relevance.

Well, considering the article said that the assignment could not include religion, it's reasonable to assume that the assignment was to draw something that wasn't religious.It says nothing of the sort. It says there's a policy, either applicable to the class or the whole school. There is no mention of what the assignment is.

I'm curious - what's the significance of Neo-Art in this context? What's the background?


He's one of the resident lawyers, the tenancy of some posters in legal threads is to treat the legal opinion of him or Cat-tribe as sacrosanct and tell other posters (such as myself) that since we don't have a law degree and Neo and Cat do that if we disagree with their legal opinion we must be the ones who are wrong. While I respect both posters and their legal experience I realize that their legal opinion, while better informed than mine, can still be wrong or at least a matter of contention.

Drawing a cross and a bible quote didn't"materially and substantially interfere" with that, though.

Presumably then, schools can use a blanket forbidding of legal action against them by students since such litigation can be shown to materially and substantially interfere. Would you argue that such is permissible then?

It's silly logic, but it's also valid within that particular criteria.


While Neo Art's expert opinion is appreciated, his law degree does not make him infallible. Only popehood does that.

Popehood doesn't make one infallible either, just fairly untouchable.

Neo Art's background however, makes his opinion worthy of higher than say, the average layman who may or may not have any legal background.


And while this situation is obviously not identical to the tinker case, I think a good lawyer could extrapolate the precedents from the tinker case and apply them to this situation.

How, by using the Chewbacca defense?


And for everyone saying that he didn't complete the "requirements of the assignment", remember that he could still have been graded if the teacher had chosen to focus on the quality of his work rather than the content.

If I submit a Shakespearean quality play on my systems analysis assignment, I'm still going to fail though. Content matters.

Or maybe you'll say I can claim free speech hmm?


I think this rather proves the point rather than disproves it. The confusion arises because it's all written in the negative. Let's re-phrase it slightly.

Prohibitions cannot be sustained when...

*the act prohibited by the school ...
*is free from any material or substantially adverse interference...
*in the operation or discipline of the school


So are you going to argue that prohibitions on assignment format types (small font, mini-spacing, etc, etc), prohibitions from using electronic aids during exams, prohibitions from using say, yellow ink on yellow paper cannot be sustained?

Certainly, none of the above actually disrupt the operation of the school, but I imagine that you will find that no teacher will ever agree to letting those prohibitions vanish.

Or as again, out of topic work for graded papers. Will you argue that such should also be graded as if relevant as they do not disrupt school operation?


School prohibits religion


This is an outright lie. If true, the school would have gotten into a lot more trouble. The teacher is prohibiting religion from a topic. This is no more different than prohibiting Creationism from science class except for subject matter.


Kid disregards religion - by putting in a cross and a Bible reference
School, and art class, is substantially and materially unaffected by kid
Prohibition is unlawful

Prohibition is valid. Unless you are arguing that schools have no right whatsoever to set subject matter, logically restricting what will and will not be graded that is.

In which case, you are arguing for the abolishment of schools as places of education.


Teacher applies punishment to kid for breach of prohibition
Punishment applied is also unlawful

Here's the big difference. You see the flunking as a punishment. It's not. You are treating the school as a place of business, or some sort of facility wherein grades are somehow used as some sort of reward/punishment system.

It isn't. If anything, it's closer to quality control.

The kid failed to provide material that was sufficiently satisfactory insofar as the prohibited material was considered. Consequently, the teacher must either make special exception, becoming grossly unfair to all other students who complied and further damaging school operations (try telling students that some classmate of theirs will get special consideration for their marks. See what happens.), or being fair and acting according to the guidelines.

If the kid wanted to make an issue of this, he should have done so before handing in the assignment. Not wait until after the fact before doing so.


I hardly know where to begin with this. First, it strikes me as very aggressive/defensive. Angry even. There's no need for it, none.

The former is simply your assumption. It isn't. The latter is moot.


Second, just because someone is a lawyer and has great experience doesn't logically make him right.

Naturally not. But statistically, in his field of expertise, he would be less likely to be wrong than someone not in it. I wouldn't go to an architect for advice on cataract surgery. Would you?

So his position on this matter carries more weighting until either someone with greater experience comes along or until he can be shown to be certainly wrong. Neither criteria has been fulfilled yet.