NationStates Jolt Archive

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

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

Meh. We're all Popes.

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 at least one seems to be trying (unless he or she thinks that they have a different precedent to call on).

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.


But it does NOT mean that the opinion of the layman may be automatically ignored or dismissed as some posters seem to be attempting to do.

But it does NOT mean that the opinion of the layman may be automatically ignored or dismissed as some posters seem to be attempting to do.

If I was dismissing you, I wouldn't be arguing with you.

BINGO!

Found at http://www.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/religionandschools/prayer_guidance.html

Religious Expression and Prayer in Class Assignments

Students may express their beliefs about religion in homework, artwork, and other written and oral assignments free from discrimination based on the religious content of their submissions. Such home and classroom work should be judged by ordinary academic standards of substance and relevance and against other legitimate pedagogical concerns identified by the school. Thus, if a teacher's assignment involves writing a poem, the work of a student who submits a poem in the form of a prayer (for example, a psalm) should be judged on the basis of academic standards (such as literary quality) and neither penalized nor rewarded on account of its religious content.

Bold mine. Still disagree Neo-art?

BINGO!

Found at http://www.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/religionandschools/prayer_guidance.html

Religious Expression and Prayer in Class Assignments

Students may express their beliefs about religion in homework, artwork, and other written and oral assignments free from discrimination based on the religious content of their submissions. Such home and classroom work should be judged by ordinary academic standards of substance and relevance and against other legitimate pedagogical concerns identified by the school. Thus, if a teacher's assignment involves writing a poem, the work of a student who submits a poem in the form of a prayer (for example, a psalm) should be judged on the basis of academic standards (such as literary quality) and neither penalized nor rewarded on account of its religious content.

Bold mine. Still disagree Neo-art?Should have bolded the "legitimate pedagogical concerns identified by the school" as well. That would allow a school to justifiably disallow the display of blood, violence, and sex in assignments, but not religion.

As it stands, the school's (or teacher's) policy is unjustified. There's no legitimate reason as to why the student should not be allowed to display religious things in his assignment, save perhaps that its a private atheist school.

Should have bolded the "legitimate pedagogical concerns identified by the school" as well. That would allow a school to justifiably disallow the display of blood, violence, and sex in assignments, but not religion.

I'd rather not justify disallowing the display of blood, violence, or sex. I'm of the opinion that they SHOULD be allowed in art and creative writing, hell in some cases it can be cathartic for the artist/writer. I just wanted to bolster my arguments about the use of religion.

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.

"A Wisconsin high school senior is suing his school..."

As a High School Senior I would imagine (I'm not certain as I'm from the UK and have no idea how old high school seniors are) that he would have legal access to media containing blood, violence and sex so what sensible logic is there in restricting those depictions?

To be honest, personally, I would restrict none of them but typically those are the 4 things that more likely to cause offence than any other and that is possibly why they are restricted.

Still, regardless of whether or not I agree with the restrictions, he failed to comply with instructions and failed. Fair play.

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


Sex.

Sex is supposed to give pleasure.
Blood, violence and religion, not.

Sex.

Sex is supposed to give pleasure.
Blood, violence and religion, not.I certainly feel pleasure when donating blood.

I certainly feel pleasure when donating blood.

You're a vampire's dream.

I certainly feel pleasure when donating blood.

And I get pleasure from my religion, but then mine isn't focused on how I'm a terrible sinner who needs someone else to save me from myself.

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.

Yes, it's silly 'logic', no it's not valid. The 1st amendment says:


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

In the example you give above, the school would be attempting to abridge the student's right to petition the Govt for a redress of grievances, which is forbidden under the 1st. Secondly, a lawsuit shouldn't substantially and materially interefere with the normal everyday functioning of a school. That kind of thing is reserved for e.g. sit-in protests, students manning barricades and so on. Thirdly, where a lawsuit does substantially and materially interfere with the normal everyday functioning of a school e.g. through the filing of an injunction, then that is (in the English system) generally justified by the need for the adminstration of justice and the law.

Your fundamental mistake is to assume this works solely on the basis of formal logic. It doesn't. The law, while an abstract, deals with reality so it necessarily falls short of idealised logic e.g. if this then that also. Law, by necessity, has to make all kinds of compromises and exceptions. You have the right to do 'this' except in circumstances a, b, c, d.

Freedom of speech is a good example. It's one thing to call for freedom of speech, it's another thing all together to use that freedom of speech to call for the beheading of the Kafrs


How, by using the Chewbacca defense?


I don't know what this means. Please explain.


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?



Found at http://www.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/re..._guidance.html

Religious Expression and Prayer in Class Assignments

Students may express their beliefs about religion in homework, artwork, and other written and oral assignments free from discrimination based on the religious content of their submissions. Such home and classroom work should be judged by ordinary academic standards of substance and relevance and against other legitimate pedagogical concerns identified by the school. Thus, if a teacher's assignment involves writing a poem, the work of a student who submits a poem in the form of a prayer (for example, a psalm) should be judged on the basis of academic standards (such as literary quality) and neither penalized nor rewarded on account of its religious content.


This quote from the Dept of Ed quite effectively fatally undermines any argument to the contrary.



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?



Of course not. Again, a quote from the Dept of Ed ... "and against other legitimate pedagogical concerns identified by the school." All the points you make are 'legitimate pedagogical concerns' and teachers can call on them as they will. Especially as, in the circumstances you describe, there are no issues of freedom of expression.

Further, you say 'I imagine that you will find that no teacher will ever agree to letting those prohibitions vanish'. But it's not up to the teacher. It's up to the founders of the Constitution, centuries of jurisprudence, the acts of Congress and ultimately the will of the people as expressed through a democratic election. Being a teacher doesn't give a totalitarian right to dictate.



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.

Actually, no, I didn't. The OP article says 'Now get this, it says... no religion'. The point about creationism in science classes is completely different to the expression of religious belief through artwork. The former is asserting a religious belief as a valid scientific theory - which it isn't because it can't be falsified - whereas the latter is a mere expression of belief.


Prohibition is valid.


How can you say this when Tinker, point by point, clearly eliminates all the arguments for it? How can you say this when the US Constitution clearly renders the prohibition invalid? Unless you have other precedents, equal in weight to Tinker, of which I am unaware? If so, please provide them.


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.


Actually, I'm arguing for schools to be places of education by promoting freedom of expression. If you read Tinker, that's what the Supreme Court did too. I'll quote you (another) bit of that fine judgment:


In Meyer v. Nebraska, supra, at 402, Mr. Justice McReynolds expressed this Nation's repudiation of the principle that a State might so conduct its schools as to "foster a homogeneous people." He said:

"In order to submerge the individual and develop ideal citizens, Sparta assembled the males at seven into barracks and intrusted their subsequent education and training to official guardians. Although such measures have been deliberately approved by men of great genius, their ideas touching the relation between individual and State were wholly different from those upon which our institutions rest; and it hardly will be affirmed that any legislature could impose such restrictions upon the people of a [512] State without doing violence to both letter and spirit of the Constitution."

This principle has been repeated by this Court on numerous occasions during the intervening years. In Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 385 U.S. 589, 603, MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, speaking for the Court, said:

"'The vigilant protection of constitutional freedoms is nowhere more vital than in the community of American schools.' Shelton v. Tucker, [364 U.S. 479,] at 487. The classroom is peculiarly the 'marketplace of ideas.' The Nation's future depends upon leaders trained through wide exposure to that robust exchange of ideas which discovers truth 'out of a multitude of tongues, [rather] than through any kind of authoritative selection.'"

(My emphasis)




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.


"to punish - to subject to pain, loss, confinement, death, etc., as a penalty for some offense, transgression, or fault" - dictionary.com

"quality control - a system for verifying and maintaining a desired level of quality in a product or process by careful planning, use of proper equipment, continued inspection, and corrective action as required" - dictionary.com

"corrective - designed to promote discipline; "the teacher's action was corrective rather than instructional"; "disciplinal measures" - dictionary .com

Let's apply...

School makes rule
Kid acts in non-conformity to that rule
School, in response to that non-conformity, subjects kid to loss (i.e. loss of chance to get good marks/credit for study)

Acting to inflict a loss in response to an undesired action is punishment.



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.


This is completely wrong. The kid, acting out of personal beliefs - backed up both by the US dept of ed and the Constitution, handed in work that the school/teacher deemed to be incorrect. The school must apply the 1st amendment mandated right to free speech. Indeed, there should be no exception for the one kid - all students should be able to put religious messages into their artwork. None can be free until all are free.


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.


Not really. Within reason, and within the boundaries of the law, he can do what he wants, when he wants.

Secondly, remember the first amendment? Let me quote it to you again...


Congress shall make no law ... abridging ... the right of the peopl... to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Or, in other words, the school has to do something to you first before you can petition the govt (i.e. start a lawsuit) for a redress of grievances. You can hardly have a redress of grievances if no-one has grievanced(:D) against you.

*shrug* art should never be restrained by concerns about offending the sensibilities of others.
It should not neccesarily be thrust in the face of those who might be offended, if it's very extreme. And students should be made aware of the fact that they actually can create powerful reactions with their art, and to shoulder the burden should they choose to depict 'x' anyway.
But it shouldn't be banned.

I don't know what this means. Please explain.

Chewbacca Defense (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUP5GzHIojU)

Chewbacca Defense (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUP5GzHIojU)

I don't see how arguing the clear precedent set by Tinker v. Des Moines bears any resemblance to the Chewbacca defense. Then there's the fact that the Department of Education itself seems to shoot down the schools position.

"A Wisconsin high school senior is suing his school..."

As a High School Senior I would imagine (I'm not certain as I'm from the UK and have no idea how old high school seniors are) that he would have legal access to media containing blood, violence and sex so what sensible logic is there in restricting those depictions?

To be honest, personally, I would restrict none of them but typically those are the 4 things that more likely to cause offence than any other and that is possibly why they are restricted.

Still, regardless of whether or not I agree with the restrictions, he failed to comply with instructions and failed. Fair play.

Generally about 18

I don't see how arguing the clear precedent set by Tinker v. Des Moines bears any resemblance to the Chewbacca defense. Then there's the fact that the Department of Education itself seems to shoot down the schools position.

Source?

Source?

I can understand how you missed it in the rest of his post http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13582544&postcount=262

But that's almost all there was to mine, plus I linked directly to the page and the post began with a bright red BINGO to draw attention to it.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13582300&postcount=254

Edit: I even put the important parts in bold.

I can understand how you missed it in the rest of his post http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13582544&postcount=262

But that's almost all there was to mine, plus I linked directly to the page and the post began with a bright red BINGO to draw attention to it.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13582300&postcount=254

Edit: I even put the important parts in bold.

GENERAL
404 - Page not found (http://www.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/re..._guidance.html)

GENERAL
404 - Page not found (http://www.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/re..._guidance.html)

Works fine when I link it directly from my post. Somehow in the link you copied into your post it cut out religionandschools/prayer_guidance.html and replaced it with re..._guidance.html.

The whole link is ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/religionandschools/prayer_guidance.html

Copy paste the link and it should work. I did however cut an paste it directly from the site, as did Bright Capitalism. That's word for word on the subject with nothing cut and only the bold added.

Works fine when I link it directly from my post. Somehow in the link you copied into your post it cut out religionandschools/prayer_guidance.html and replaced it with re..._guidance.html.

The whole link is ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/religionandschools/prayer_guidance.html

Copy paste the link and it should work. I did however cut an paste it directly from the site, as did Bright Capitalism. That's word for word on the subject with nothing cut and only the bold added.

Tried it again and it worked... :confused:

I'd say the most telling thing from that page is this:
Section 9524 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act ("ESEA") of 1965, as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, requires the Secretary to issue guidance on constitutionally protected prayer in public elementary and secondary schools.

Tried it again and it worked... :confused:

I'd say the most telling thing from that page is this:

Section 9524 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act ("ESEA") of 1965, as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, requires the Secretary to issue guidance on constitutionally protected prayer in public elementary and secondary schools.

And?

Still waiting for those who were arguing for the school to tell me why the school felt it necessary to violate the Department of Education's guidelines on the subject.

And Dyakovo I'm specifically waiting for you to explain what you feel the relevance of
Section 9524 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act ("ESEA") of 1965, as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, requires the Secretary to issue guidance on constitutionally protected prayer in public elementary and secondary schools. is.

Those who thought the school was in the right, it's time to concede...

Alright, I finally got around to reading the article. I'll start off with my reservations about it, and go on to Bright Capitalism's points.

First off, the guideline is a relatively recent one, and is part of the anti-education (because taking away school funds with failing students is soooo pro education) NCLB Act. It's legal, until the courts strike it down, so I'll give it that. But I want it on record that I think its a retarded act in its entirety.

Furthermore, I find this very telling.


Section 9524 requires that, as a condition of receiving ESEA funds, a local educational agency ("LEA") must certify in writing to its State educational agency ("SEA") that it has no policy that prevents, or otherwise denies participation in, constitutionally protected prayer in public schools as set forth in this guidance.

What this means is that the schools are under no legal requirement to actually comply with the act. Only to do so if they are to receive ESEA funds.

It's quite ironic.

The student cannot do (A) because the school does (B) but it cannot because the act would do (C).


Yes, it's silly 'logic', no it's not valid. The 1st amendment says:

In the example you give above, the school would be attempting to abridge the student's right to petition the Govt for a redress of grievances, which is forbidden under the 1st.


Except the school isn't congress. It's a part of the government, assuming it's a public one.


Secondly, a lawsuit shouldn't substantially and materially interefere with the normal everyday functioning of a school. That kind of thing is reserved for e.g. sit-in protests, students manning barricades and so on. Thirdly, where a lawsuit does substantially and materially interfere with the normal everyday functioning of a school e.g. through the filing of an injunction, then that is (in the English system) generally justified by the need for the adminstration of justice and the law.

Bit of a disconnect there between the two bolded.

And generally doesn't mean always. Not all frivolous lawsuits get chucked out of the court.


Your fundamental mistake is to assume this works solely on the basis of formal logic. It doesn't. The law, while an abstract, deals with reality so it necessarily falls short of idealised logic e.g. if this then that also. Law, by necessity, has to make all kinds of compromises and exceptions. You have the right to do 'this' except in circumstances a, b, c, d.


The law doesn't necessarily function in even those exceptions. At least not in any way that follows logic, proof or even assumption of guilt. Particularly in civil law.

For example:

One would think spilling hot coffee purchased from a vendor on one's self, through no fault of the vendor, would put the blame solely on the one who did the spilling.

I think the courts will have to have their say on the issue in the OP sooner or later.


I don't know what this means. Please explain.


In more logical terms, it's called chaff. Obfuscate the jury with unrelated facts in order to better play them to a verdict in your favor.


This quote from the Dept of Ed quite effectively fatally undermines any argument to the contrary.

Which I counter with this.


Section 9524 requires that, as a condition of receiving ESEA funds, a local educational agency ("LEA") must certify in writing to its State educational agency ("SEA") that it has no policy that prevents, or otherwise denies participation in, constitutionally protected prayer in public schools as set forth in this guidance.

It's not explicitly forbidden, no. It's simply a "this will happen if you don't comply."

Hence the irony.


Of course not. Again, a quote from the Dept of Ed ... "and against other legitimate pedagogical concerns identified by the school." All the points you make are 'legitimate pedagogical concerns' and teachers can call on them as they will. Especially as, in the circumstances you describe, there are no issues of freedom of expression.

Which I counter with this line from the same article.


ordinary academic standards of substance and relevance


I will grant you that the act stands, so long as you agree that the article on the OP is highly biased and, as such, can be reasonably assumed to be hiding the full story which might include important information which could or could not slant the case against the kid.

Like the subject matter.


Further, you say 'I imagine that you will find that no teacher will ever agree to letting those prohibitions vanish'. But it's not up to the teacher. It's up to the founders of the Constitution, centuries of jurisprudence, the acts of Congress and ultimately the will of the people as expressed through a democratic election. Being a teacher doesn't give a totalitarian right to dictate.


And being a politician doesn't mean you have any more than a pin's head, if even that, as to what teaching entails.


How can you say this when Tinker, point by point, clearly eliminates all the arguments for it?


Arguments were raised against the Tinker case applying here. I haven't seen you rebutting them.


How can you say this when the US Constitution clearly renders the prohibition invalid?

Unless the Constitution says that schools can't do so and so, it's not really clear at all. It's a matter of interpretation to whoever best wants it to fit with their agenda.

Like the 2nd Amendment and the definition of "militia". That one has been kicked around a lot.


Actually, I'm arguing for schools to be places of education by promoting freedom of expression. If you read Tinker, that's what the Supreme Court did too. I'll quote you (another) bit of that fine judgment:

From same judgment.

[quote=Tinker]
In order to submerge the individual and develop ideal citizens, Sparta assembled the males at seven into barracks and intrusted their subsequent education and training to official guardians

What do you think schools are? I could understand the whole barracks thing, but this guy seems to be using state education as the basis of his 'against' argument.


"to punish - to subject to pain, loss, confinement, death, etc., as a penalty for some offense, transgression, or fault" - dictionary.com

"quality control - a system for verifying and maintaining a desired level of quality in a product or process by careful planning, use of proper equipment, continued inspection, and corrective action as required" - dictionary.com

"corrective - designed to promote discipline; "the teacher's action was corrective rather than instructional"; "disciplinal measures" - dictionary .com

Let's apply...

School makes rule
Kid acts in non-conformity to that rule
School, in response to that non-conformity, subjects kid to loss (i.e. loss of chance to get good marks/credit for study)

Acting to inflict a loss in response to an undesired action is punishment.


So are we going to get into that IMO, retarded concept of never flunking students for unsatisfactory work because it's "punishment"?


This is completely wrong. The kid, acting out of personal beliefs - backed up both by the US dept of ed and the Constitution,


Debatable. It's why it's going to court.


Not really. Within reason, and within the boundaries of the law, he can do what he wants, when he wants.

It does not make him any less of an ass whether he broke any laws or not.


Or, in other words, the school has to do something to you first before you can petition the govt (i.e. start a lawsuit) for a redress of grievances. You can hardly have a redress of grievances if no-one has grievanced(:D) against you.

But just now you were arguing that the school was breaking the law by making the prohibition, which existed prior to the assignment being handed up. It's not like the teacher waited until the day before the due date and went "Surprise anti-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).

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.

The courts disagree with you. The Tinker case says that school students can make politcal statements as long as they are not disruptive to school disipline or infringing on peoples rights. Neither case occured here.

The courts disagree with you. The Tinker case says that school students can make politcal statements as long as they are not disruptive to school disipline or infringing on peoples rights. Neither case occured here.

Is this thread still going? Isn't it time to either agree to disagree or open your eyes to the fact that freedom of expression is not the issue at hand?

As a snotty and lazy student, I didn't see the point in writing research papers, so I refused when one was assigned as a kind of protest in my Advanced Composition class in high school. I failed that assignment and took at C- for the course. I accepted the consequences of a tanked GPA (3.6 to 3.1) and got on with life.

Again -- this kid knew the policy and waited until the last minute to oppose it and now expects no consequences. He failed THAT PROJECT, not the class, and got what he deserved. He's hiding behind religious expression when his cross image was allowed (which is why the "demons" were allowed as well -- no Satanic Bible quotes, or at least none mentioned). He hasn't got a leg to stand on and I hope he and his money-grubbing legal team get shredded in court.

There's a time to protest, and there's a time to play by the rules. To say that one is incapable of presenting a completed assignment on FORMAL ART -- that is, technique -- without injecting written quotes from a religious text is just plain disingenuous at best, and ludicrous at worst.

19 pages! Read the 1st 4, and can't go through them all.

This kid basically was told the rules of the art class, signed up, and then did a hissy fit later on. If he didn't like the rules, he shouldn't take art.

His freedom of religious expression wasn't hindered. He could display the art all he wanted. He just got a 0 mark, as he did not do an adequate submission.

If he was asked to do a charcoal sketch, and did an impressionist painting of the quality of Monet, it would also deserve a 0, as it was not what the teacher requested.

Any conservative religious people who have posted in the last 19 pages. This is not a freedom of religion issue. It's an issue of at school, teachers set tasks fro students to perform. The student is marked on their ability to perform the task assigned. This is a fair mark for the students effort.

I thought this thread was going to be about painting pictures of naked women. No such luck... :(

19 pages! Read the 1st 4, and can't go through them all.

This kid basically was told the rules of the art class, signed up, and then did a hissy fit later on. If he didn't like the rules, he shouldn't take art.

His freedom of religious expression wasn't hindered. He could display the art all he wanted. He just got a 0 mark, as he did not do an adequate submission.

If he was asked to do a charcoal sketch, and did an impressionist painting of the quality of Monet, it would also deserve a 0, as it was not what the teacher requested.

Any conservative religious people who have posted in the last 19 pages. This is not a freedom of religion issue. It's an issue of at school, teachers set tasks fro students to perform. The student is marked on their ability to perform the task assigned. This is a fair mark for the students effort.It most certainly is a freedom of religion issue, as it is questionable whether the teacher or school has the right to prohibit display of religion or religious symbols in art.

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.

Hold up here though -- are you SURE they will lose?

The requirement was made known to him in writing, and he signed that he knew of it.

I teach English. I have assigned a research paper. It must be a literary criticism paper. Students had to sign that they understood the format and content of the assignment and would follow those restrictions.

One student asked if they could do it on the life of a Hong Kong action-movie actor.

According to what you're saying above, the child should be able to do a paper on the wrong medium, for a topic I am not teaching, simply because what she hands in is "a research paper."

She COULD -- but she would fail.

Except the school isn't congress. It's a part of the government, assuming it's a public one.



Have you paid attention to the Tinker case, which has been cited ad nauseum in this thread?

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

You know, repeating that over and over's bloody annoying. There are Christians, both on this board and in the world, who don't have a persecution complex and who believe the kid's in the wrong, for the same reasons the non-Christians who think he's wrong do:

He violated the class policy/assignment restrictions.

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.

Where in the world is that possible?

Are you at boarding school (that is, is the school in loco parentis) or do your parents actually allow you to be compelled to go to school and work when you are supposed to be home?

You know, repeating that over and over's bloody annoying. There are Christians, both on this board and in the world, who don't have a persecution complex and who believe the kid's in the wrong, for the same reasons the non-Christians who think he's wrong do:

He violated the class policy/assignment restrictions.



Where in the world is that possible?

Are you at boarding school (that is, is the school in loco parentis) or do your parents actually allow you to be compelled to go to school and work when you are supposed to be home?

My school had this program as well. It was called "Saturday School." I myself never had to undergo this punishment, as I was always pretty well-behaved, but it existed.

We also had "After School," which was similar, only it was on a weekday evening instead of a Saturday.

Is this thread still going? Isn't it time to either agree to disagree or open your eyes to the fact that freedom of expression is not the issue at hand?

Did you even SEE the posts regarding the department of educations policies on the subject?

Hold up here though -- are you SURE they will lose?

The requirement was made known to him in writing, and he signed that he knew of it.

I teach English. I have assigned a research paper. It must be a literary criticism paper. Students had to sign that they understood the format and content of the assignment and would follow those restrictions.

One student asked if they could do it on the life of a Hong Kong action-movie actor.

According to what you're saying above, the child should be able to do a paper on the wrong medium, for a topic I am not teaching, simply because what she hands in is "a research paper."

She COULD -- but she would fail.

I'm saying that if you assign a paper that is supposed to be literary criticism you're not allowed to add "But you can't write it about religious literature." Your example is divorced from the case at hand because the student in your example wanted to a paper on a subject that was not literary criticism. In this case (judging solely on the article) he handed in art that would have been acceptable if it hadn't included a religious theme. If it were a case of "Draw these apples." and the teacher got the drawing that was turned in it would be a completely different story.

You know, repeating that over and over's bloody annoying. There are Christians, both on this board and in the world, who don't have a persecution complex and who believe the kid's in the wrong,

And there's the fact the the two most vocal defendants of the kid are a Pagan and an Atheist.

I wouldn't say that the kid waived his right. But I would say that No Religion was a guideline that must be followed for all art created in the class. The student didn't follow that guideline so he gets a zero.

I'm saying that if you assign a paper that is supposed to be literary criticism you're not allowed to add "But you can't write it about religious literature." Your example is divorced from the case at hand because the student in your example wanted to a paper on a subject that was not literary criticism. In this case (judging solely on the article) he handed in art that would have been acceptable if it hadn't included a religious theme. If it were a case of "Draw these apples." and the teacher got the drawing that was turned in it would be a completely different story.

It's more like:

A teacher assigned a paper on Romeo and Juliet, but one of the guidelines was it can't be about religion. This scenario also seems completely reasonable on the teachers part.

This is not even including the fact that the students first amendment rights weren't even violated, since no one was stopping him from drawing the picture.

Still waiting for those who were arguing for the school to tell me why the school felt it necessary to violate the Department of Education's guidelines on the subject.

And Dyakovo I'm specifically waiting for you to explain what you feel the relevance of is.

as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001

Dubya's handiwork

Hold up here though -- are you SURE they will lose?

The requirement was made known to him in writing, and he signed that he knew of it.

I teach English. I have assigned a research paper. It must be a literary criticism paper. Students had to sign that they understood the format and content of the assignment and would follow those restrictions.

One student asked if they could do it on the life of a Hong Kong action-movie actor.

According to what you're saying above, the child should be able to do a paper on the wrong medium, for a topic I am not teaching, simply because what she hands in is "a research paper."

She COULD -- but she would fail.

That is a very clear cut case, and very true.

But this is an art class. What was the assignment? That agreement the teacher forced students to sign is bunk, IMO. 'Your art cannot include religious references'? This is not the same thing as doing art in the wrong medium. If the kid draws a picture with a double helix, with the annotation Francis and Crick, would he be failed for doing a work of art for a topic the teacher is not teaching?

If you allow the schools to censor religion, what will be next? Butterflies and rainbows because of the gay culture? The school has no right to limit someone's expressions unless it is disruptive to the school as a whole. The waiver is garbage as well if it wasn't signed by his parents or legal guardians if hes under 18. If schools are going to censor something because of what it means, they should have been complaining about the evil satanic-ish demons. That is sure to cause a storm of disagreements between them and the people who are religious. Hopefully, the Supreme Court will rule in favor of the student and freedom of non-disruptive expression.

Dubya's handiwork

And I've heard Hitler was a vegetarian. Does that make being a vegetarian wrong?

<edit: as a matter of fact I'm pretty sure there's a specific term for the logical fallacy you just used. I just don't know it.>

19 pages! Read the 1st 4, and can't go through them all.

This kid basically was told the rules of the art class, signed up, and then did a hissy fit later on. If he didn't like the rules, he shouldn't take art.

His freedom of religious expression wasn't hindered. He could display the art all he wanted. He just got a 0 mark, as he did not do an adequate submission.

If he was asked to do a charcoal sketch, and did an impressionist painting of the quality of Monet, it would also deserve a 0, as it was not what the teacher requested.

Any conservative religious people who have posted in the last 19 pages. This is not a freedom of religion issue. It's an issue of at school, teachers set tasks fro students to perform. The student is marked on their ability to perform the task assigned. This is a fair mark for the students effort.

The teachers are not in a position to choose what is and is not art. Their function was to grade the piece on its merits as an artitisc work, not on its conformity to their ideas as art. Now if the student turned up naked or armed with rifles to fire at the canvas or with the blood of a fourteen year old virgin to use as paint, then yes I would consider that disruptive etc. But that isn't the case here. The function of the class is to provide an enviroment where the technique can be taught to better your abilities to express yourself. What can be expressed should only be limited by nature of extreme obscentity which would interfere with school discipline. This is not what this case engenders.

Click Stand;13585741']It's more like:

A teacher assigned a paper on Romeo and Juliet, but one of the guidelines was it can't be about religion. This scenario also seems completely reasonable on the teachers part.

Not according to the US Department of Education. I see no reason a student SHOULDN'T be able to do an essay on the religious symbolism used in Romeo and Juliet, or on how religion in Shakespeare's time influenced the work.

This is not even including the fact that the students first amendment rights weren't even violated, since no one was stopping him from drawing the picture.

Just from being graded on it. Something the teacher and school had no right to do.

Click Stand;13585741']A teacher assigned a paper on Romeo and Juliet, but one of the guidelines was it can't be about religion. This scenario also seems completely reasonable on the teachers part.

Actually its like "Hello students, this class is here to help equip you better to have the skills to artistically express your ideas, thoughts and feelings. However, you can't express sex or violence for reasons of restrictions to public taste, and you can't express religion because..."

Seriously, the function of the grade is to grade on the basis of skill and technique. Not content. In artitsic study, unlike academic, content is not relevent to skill in the same way. This classes grading system was to judge the skills of art that the children possessed. Grading on content outside reasons of obsecenity is unreasonable.

Click Stand;13585741']
This is not even including the fact that the students first amendment rights weren't even violated, since no one was stopping him from drawing the picture.

If an artist painted a picture that was of presentable in gallery quality but was refused on the grounds of its content in every gallery in the USA and then when attempting to publish their work in a gallary of their own, they were unable to get a lease because all the estate agents thought the content should not be displayed, and when they tried to show it in the street, people kicked it and burnt it, would you still say they had freedom of expression because they were able to paint it in the first place?

several questions that haven't been answered yet.

1) the policy is being used like an agreed upon contract. and as a minor, he is not legally bound to any document he signs.

2) is there any indication of any student NOT signing that policy? and what happened to those students... were they expelled? If all students are required to sign this policy to attend school, then understanding what they are signing is not proven, but assumed.

3) Art should be decided upon by other merits besides the subject. The Teacher was teaching ART class and thus needs to judge the work by the technique used, and not by the subject matter.

4) He knew the policy and was wrong to test it. A simple queary to clear it with the teacher might've avoided all these problems.

5) 'No blood. No violence. No sex' and 'No religion.' is too broad. a person eating dinner can be defined as violence. a scene depicting a battlefeild can be violence as well as blood ridden. a person fishing is committing violence in it's broad term.

6) Symbols does not mean Religion. Does this mean that anyone wearing or showing a cresent moon, stars, trees, or any other image used in any and all religions are also banned?

IMHO, the teacher over reacted. she is teaching art and if the student considers religious symbolism and references to be art, it should be judged as art. of course, because of school policy, displaying such art can be denied, but the student should receive credit on the artwork and not the subject of the art. The student was wrong in testing the policy. and the school is wrong if they force each student to sign such policy in order to recieve an education.

Snip
IMHO, the teacher over reacted. she is teaching art and if the student considers religious symbolism and references to be art, it should be judged as art. of course, because of school policy, displaying such art can be denied, but the student should receive credit on the artwork and not the subject of the art. The student was wrong in testing the policy. and the school is wrong if they force each student to sign such policy in order to recieve an education.

While I understand a lot of the points and as an overall policy I do not agree with it.

But as the penalty was on a class assignment And if the teacher was incorporating the policy into their classroom assignment guidelines the student should NOT necessarily receive credit.

All art does not fulfill the requirements for a classroom assignment necessarily and as such should be subject to the requirements of the assignment, the quality is simply not enough if they did not follow the guidelines

6) Symbols does not mean Religion. Does this mean that anyone wearing or showing a cresent moon, stars, trees, or any other image used in any and all religions are also banned?

As has been already established, religious symbols are allowed.

While I understand a lot of the points and as an overall policy I do not agree with it.

But as the penalty was on a class assignment And if the teacher was incorporating the policy into their classroom assignment guidelines the student should NOT necessarily receive credit.

All art does not fulfill the requirements for a classroom assignment necessarily and as such should be subject to the requirements of the assignment, the quality is simply not enough if they did not follow the guidelines

except, she rendered judgement on the art's subject, not on the artwork itself.

I can see lowering the grade because of the subject, but I cannot see disreguarding the technique used, the vision, and imagination (assumption because the artwork is not pictured) put into the art because of what was shown.

Does anyone know what the guildlines for that particual assignment was? was it free art? "paint anything that you want" type? I really doubt the assignment was "Feel Free to paint anything that does NOT show blood, Violence, Sex nor Religion"

That's like banning Huckleberry Finn because it uses racial slurs or "My Body, My Self" because it shows nekkid people.

Of course, I am not saying the kid was blameless. He did violate the policy as I said. I just don't agree with a "0" for his work.

As has been already established, religious symbols are allowed.

Thxs. must've missed that. :cool:

except, she rendered judgement on the art's subject, not on the artwork itself.

I can see lowering the grade because of the subject, but I cannot see disreguarding the technique used, the vision, and imagination (assumption because the artwork is not pictured) put into the art because of what was shown.

Does anyone know what the guildlines for that particual assignment was? was it free art? "paint anything that you want" type? I really doubt the assignment was "Feel Free to paint anything that does NOT show blood, Violence, Sex nor Religion"

That's like banning Huckleberry Finn because it uses racial slurs or "My Body, My Self" because it shows nekkid people.

Of course, I am not saying the kid was blameless. He did violate the policy as I said. I just don't agree with a "0" for his work.

We sometimes had restrictions on topics as well as tequniques both were a valid restriction on our class assignments ... as such it would be perfectly acceptable having an overriding restriction on topics such as blood violence sex or religion if thats what the teacher wished incorporated into the assignment topic

We sometimes had restrictions on topics as well as tequniques both were a valid restriction on our class assignments ... as such it would be perfectly acceptable having an overriding restriction on topics such as blood violence sex or religion if thats what the teacher wished incorporated into the assignment topic

1) such restrictions should've been stated.
2) if the policy is expected to be adhered to and remembered, then it's a form of contract especially if the students are required to sign it. if it's used as a contract, then you run into the legality of minors signing it.
3) if it's a painting (which I was given the impression that it was) then days would've been given to complete the assignment (our painting assignments took WEEKS) so the Teacher would've seen the artwork and what was on such artwork. so warnings would've been given. if the student had such warnings (and nowhere in the OP Article was it mentioned that such a warning was given) then a greater reduction of grade is expected. however, it still does not justify a "0".

While I understand a lot of the points and as an overall policy I do not agree with it.

But as the penalty was on a class assignment And if the teacher was incorporating the policy into their classroom assignment guidelines the student should NOT necessarily receive credit.

ONCE MORE I refer you to . . .


Students may express their beliefs about religion in homework, artwork, and other written and oral assignments free from discrimination based on the religious content of their submissions. Such home and classroom work should be judged by ordinary academic standards of substance and relevance and against other legitimate pedagogical concerns identified by the school. Thus, if a teacher's assignment involves writing a poem, the work of a student who submits a poem in the form of a prayer (for example, a psalm) should be judged on the basis of academic standards (such as literary quality) and neither penalized nor rewarded on account of its religious content.


Does anyone have something to refute this OTHER than "Bush did it"?

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJADMlBE9JY

Here are my thougts on this spoken clearly aloud. Hope people apreciate it

ONCE MORE I refer you to . . .



Does anyone have something to refute this OTHER than "Bush did it"?

How about the fact that the US federal government has no authority over education in the US? Yes, they use categorical funding to influence, but no, they do not dictate a single policy.

Have you paid attention to the Tinker case, which has been cited ad nauseum in this thread?

Tinker case has some validity in the argument, which I debated against. First amendment, not so much. Very specific really, first amendment.

Dubya's handiwork

Interestingly enough


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

NCLB could be argued to be unconstitutional then, since it's components do indirectly respect an establishment of religion, and since that act was passed by Congress, and not a school...

Interestingly enough



NCLB could be argued to be unconstitutional then, since it's components do indirectly respect an establishment of religion, and since that act was passed by Congress, and not a school...

NCLB has been around (in some form) since the 60's as title 1 funding. I don't really see where religion comes into it...tho it has been a bit since I really looked over the law

6) Symbols does not mean Religion. Does this mean that anyone wearing or showing a cresent moon, stars, trees, or any other image used in any and all religions are also banned?


It wasn't the symbols that were the problem, as much as the OP's legal team would like to portray. It was the religious text in the art.

Since when is copying text verbatim from a religious book art anyway? In fact, it could be considered to be plagiarism if it was meant to be an original work. And plagiarism is perfect grounds for flunking a student.

NCLB has been around (in some form) since the 60's as title 1 funding. I don't really see where religion comes into it...tho it has been a bit since I really looked over the law

The 2001 incarnation of it basically goes in one area "you must allow students to put religion into their work, or we'll take away your funding".

Sounds to me like a law respecting the establishment of religion.

The 2001 incarnation of it basically goes in one area "you must allow students to put religion into their work, or we'll take away your funding".

Sounds to me like a law respecting the establishment of religion.

It's a law respecting the EXISTENCE of religion and the students rights to the freedom thereof. There is a rather obvious difference.

How about the fact that the US federal government has no authority over education in the US? Yes, they use categorical funding to influence, but no, they do not dictate a single policy.

Erm, if a US department of education exists, then what is its function if not to dictate overarching policy issues. It may not be able to directly dictate what is involved in the specific teaching, but the No Child Left Behind act is government policy, and it is law. Therefore the schools have to abide by it. Unless you have a specific legal argument, I'm calling bull on your point having any relevence.

The 2001 incarnation of it basically goes in one area "you must allow students to put religion into their work, or we'll take away your funding".

Sounds to me like a law respecting the establishment of religion.

Do you have a link or specific section of the law (mind you, I haven't really read this thread since my last post, so sorry if it has been mentioned before)

however, allowing students to display their religion (supported both by the circuit courts and SCOTUS) is not the establishment of religion

Erm, if a US department of education exists, then what is its function if not to dictate overarching policy issues. It may not be able to directly dictate what is involved in the specific teaching, but the No Child Left Behind act is government policy, and it is law. Therefore the schools have to abide by it. Unless you have a specific legal argument, I'm calling bull on your point having any relevence.

the US federal government, per order of the constitution, does not specifically have the right to dictate education policy: it is left to the states.

NCLB is an extension of title 1 categorical funding. That is, the US Federal government creates funds, but sets up guidelines. If a school, district, or state fails to meet these guidelines, they do not get the funding. No school, district, or state MUST follow these laws.

As it stands, the feds provide 7-10% of any schools funding, usually.

It wasn't the symbols that were the problem, as much as the OP's legal team would like to portray. It was the religious text in the art.

Since when is copying text verbatim from a religious book art anyway? In fact, it could be considered to be plagiarism if it was meant to be an original work. And plagiarism is perfect grounds for flunking a student.

Firstly, it only copied the refence, not the text of the verse. If the school put the rule in to protect themselves from things like the words "John 3:16" then frankly, they need thicker skins. Secondly, plagerism in art does not work the same way as plagerism in academia. In order to plagerise an art form you would have to copy a Van Gough etc. This is refencing a text. Thirdly, you can quote something and it not be plagerism. If you can't then I really shouldn't have gotten this far at uni. Fourthly, who are you to say what is and is not art? Why cannot words be part of a picture?

the US federal government, per order of the constitution, does not specifically have the right to dictate education policy: it is left to the states.

NCLB is an extension of title 1 categorical funding. That is, the US Federal government creates funds, but sets up guidelines. If a school, district, or state fails to meet these guidelines, they do not get the funding. No school, district, or state MUST follow these laws.

As it stands, the feds provide 7-10% of any schools funding, usually.

I wouldn't call demanding that schools judge pupils work irrespective of apropriate religious content an issue that only applies to education. This is the educational aplication of it, but it reflects a far more diverse and verified issue that is ultimately that is that you cannot make rules based on religion arbitaryly. Unless the school in question can demonstrate a constitutionally sound reason for this restriction, realistically its not reasonable.

Do you have a link or specific section of the law (mind you, I haven't really read this thread since my last post, so sorry if it has been mentioned before)

however, allowing students to display their religion (supported both by the circuit courts and SCOTUS) is not the establishment of religion

Look back to message 254.

It's a law respecting the EXISTENCE of religion and the students rights to the freedom thereof. There is a rather obvious difference.

That would depend on how you interpret "respecting the establishment of religion" no?

The way I see it, it means no laws in regards to religion whatsoever.

Do you have a link or specific section of the law (mind you, I haven't really read this thread since my last post, so sorry if it has been mentioned before)

however, allowing students to display their religion (supported both by the circuit courts and SCOTUS) is not the establishment of religion

http://www.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/religionandschools/prayer_guidance.html

Here you go. The opening states compliance is a must for funding, and for the next, look under the bit regarding assignments.


Firstly, it only copied the refence, not the text of the verse.


Then answer this. Is text art?


Secondly, plagerism in art does not work the same way as plagerism in academia.

This is art for academia.


Thirdly, you can quote something and it not be plagerism. If you can't then I really shouldn't have gotten this far at uni


It would be if you failed to put in references to your quotes. My lecturers were quite adamant about that.


Fourthly, who are you to say what is and is not art? Why cannot words be part of a picture?

The teacher is given leeway to determine what is and what isn't art. This is the teacher's jurisdiction as part of the academia, not some random yahoo who wants to look important.

If no one can say what is and is not art, then why doesn't everyone turn in blank pieces of paper as "art"?

The teachers are not in a position to choose what is and is not art. Their function was to grade the piece on its merits as an artitisc work, not on its conformity to their ideas as art.
Part of school is preparing people for the real world. If later on in life, this person got a commission to do a painting, and was given the same directive, and as he did at school, ignore it, he'd be in big trouble. He could be sued for breach of contract, etc.

Now if the student turned up naked or armed with rifles to fire at the canvas or with the blood of a fourteen year old virgin to use as paint, then yes I would consider that disruptive etc. But that isn't the case here.
In fact it is. You have used an extreme example to try to ridicule the school. But he is being disruptive. He is saying, I don't think the rules should apply to me. What if he had Kali, goddess of death, committing violence (but that's my freedom of religion being quashed)? I'm an atheist. I am offended my child is being subjected to such fiction as christianity at art class, especially when the school promised no religion. I'm going to sue, etc, etc. Do you start to maybe see the point?

The function of the class is to provide an enviroment where the technique can be taught to better your abilities to express yourself. What can be expressed should only be limited by nature of extreme obscentity which would interfere with school discipline. This is not what this case engenders.

I ope my above paragraph shows how it could be seen as obscene.

That would depend on how you interpret "respecting the establishment of religion" no?

The way I see it, it means no laws in regards to religion whatsoever.


Unfortunately that flies in the face of Supreme Court precedent.

That would depend on how you interpret "respecting the establishment of religion" no?

The way I see it, it means no laws in regards to religion whatsoever.

Then you are misunderstanding it. The words "respecting the establishment of a religion" mean exactly that. No laws that establish on religion as part of the state. IE there are not laws that say that X religion is a state religion etc. A law regarding religious freedom is not a law establishing a religion. It is instead establishing a right to practise religious freedom. Your interpretation is wrong. That is not what the words here mean.


http://www.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/religionandschools/prayer_guidance.html

Here you go. The opening states compliance is a must for funding, and for the next, look under the bit regarding assignments.

Again, this is a law protecting their right to be able to pray, not forcing children to pray. There is a massive diffrence.



Then answer this. Is text art?

It can be, no one is in a position to say it can't be, since such things are subjective


This is art for academia.

You are misunderstanding my use of the term. Academia is not simply "Things done in school" it is a branch of learning that is seperate from artistic things. That is because academia requires evidence based logical reasoning etc when it comes to writing a piece of it. This is not academia, it is not an essay on the nature of the combat strategies and beliefs of Richard the Lionheart of a politcial analyis of the forigen policy of Ronald Regan. It is a piece of art, and as such it should not be judged on content as no one is in a position to say whehter X content is or isn't art. However it can be judged on the correct aplications of the techniques they used in art class.


It would be if you failed to put in references to your quotes. My lecturers were quite adamant about that.

Again, this is not academia, so such logic does not apply


The teacher is given leeway to determine what is and what isn't art. This is the teacher's jurisdiction as part of the academia, not some random yahoo who wants to look important.

No, the teacher is not given that leaway. The teachers job in art class is to judge the effective applications of the techniques that have been taught, not to make arbitary philosophical judgements about the nature of art


If no one can say what is and is not art, then why doesn't everyone turn in blank pieces of paper as "art"?

Because that would not be using the techniques taught at all. Things like pointalism, methods of chacholl drawing, oil painting etc. The point of an art class is to do these things, to use the techniques taught. If the art class had said "You must now do your course work using only charchol" that would have been a legitimate restriction as it is part of the nature of the function of the art class, a system to test the aplication of what they have learnt. But to arbitaraly choose a particular stream of content and say "No, art cannot be about that" is wrong.

Part of school is preparing people for the real world. If later on in life, this person got a commission to do a painting, and was given the same directive, and as he did at school, ignore it, he'd be in big trouble. He could be sued for breach of contract, etc.

Yes, that is part of the schools function, but this is not what happened here and as such he is legally entitled to sue


In fact it is. You have used an extreme example to try to ridicule the school. But he is being disruptive. He is saying, I don't think the rules should apply to me.

The point is that the rule has no place being there because it is not contributing to school discipline or protecting the rights of others.


What if he had Kali, goddess of death, committing violence (but that's my freedom of religion being quashed)?

If it was commiting viloence, it would be regarding the no-viloence policy, which is fairly related to school dicipline. However he's perfectly within his rights to represent the goddess of death doing something else if he wishes


I'm an atheist. I am offended my child is being subjected to such fiction as christianity at art class, especially when the school promised no religion. I'm going to sue, etc, etc. Do you start to maybe see the point?

Firstly, its a matter of opinion that it is fiction or not in this case, since you are unable to determine the truth or falsehood of Christianity. Secondly, you could only sue if the school were breaking their function as a public school and teaching Christianity as truth. You cannot simply sue for being exposed to the existance of Christianity in a school as you have no legal grounding. If you are offended, the simple response would be for you to grow a thicker skin. You are not legally empowered to have your offense acted upon if all your offence is aginst is other children expressing their religion freely in your childs school.

If it was commiting viloence, it would be regarding the no-viloence policy, which is fairly related to school dicipline. However he's perfectly within his rights to represent the goddess of death doing something else if he wishes

Violence is a fundamental part of Kali. It is nigh-impossible to represent her without violent imagery.

<snip>
Then answer this. Is text art?
<snip>


It very well can be, just ask a decent typographer. For instance, this (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Oscar_wilde_english_renaissance_of_art_2.png) can be quite easily considered art, and not just due to the content of the text.

In general, it's very very hard to apply any sort of blanket rule about art and have it automatically distinguish things correctly. In fact, if you can, I'd be incredibly impressed, then find a counterexample.

Yes, that is part of the schools function, but this is not what happened here and as such he is legally entitled to sue
We can agree to disagree. He flagrantly disobeyed the rules. He was given a task with set parameters. 4 "thought shall nots". He shall, instead of shall not, to try to prove a point. What would happen if everyone who thought they were right, and the rule was silly, just ignored it?
He had other means of making a protest. This was an arrogant and selfish means, and I think, he is just trying to make easy money out of the school.

Of course he has a right to sue, I just don't think he should, as he is wrong, and I don't think he'll win.

The point is that the rule has no place being there because it is not contributing to school discipline or protecting the rights of others.
Wake up and smell the bigotry and hypocrisy. It is protecting the school. The "no religion" is there for protection. A student who is stupid enough to try to make an example, could get the living xxxx beaten out of him.

My atheist and Kali example was put there as a goofy example, but it was relevant. If a Moslem put lots of Koranic verses on their art, I can promise you some extreme Christian parent's would complain, especially in the bible belt. Some extreme students may beat him. If I belittled Christianity, I'd be in trouble again, and also be getting ready for a beating.

The free speech idea is nice, but this is another "Yelling fire in a theatre" example. Sometimes, your rights of free speech can, and should, be restricted.
To stop the "My invisible friend is better than your invisible friend" arguments, which everyone knows can get ugly very easily, especially with the underdeveloped social skills of teens, the school had a sensible rule in place.

Here comes the drama queen, probably a puppet of his parents, trying to act like poor martyred christians."Oh woe is us, the majority religion is being persecuted. The horror. The horror." :rolleyes:

It most certainly is a freedom of religion issue, as it is questionable whether the teacher or school has the right to prohibit display of religion or religious symbols in art.

Which were not prohibited in this case.

Did you even SEE the posts regarding the department of educations policies on the subject?

Yes I did, and I fail to see their relevance, except to those who, literally in this instance, want to make a "federal case" out of it. I think both sides need to realize that they're BOTH contributing to this circus and have the sense and humility to back away from a lawsuit. There's too much of that shit in this culture already.

If you allow the schools to censor religion, what will be next? Butterflies and rainbows because of the gay culture? The school has no right to limit someone's expressions unless it is disruptive to the school as a whole. The waiver is garbage as well if it wasn't signed by his parents or legal guardians if hes under 18. If schools are going to censor something because of what it means, they should have been complaining about the evil satanic-ish demons. That is sure to cause a storm of disagreements between them and the people who are religious. Hopefully, the Supreme Court will rule in favor of the student and freedom of non-disruptive expression.

Except that the demons were not accompanied by text from a satanic bible or other "dark" religious text -- much like the cross in the kid's work was not the issue, either.

Just from being graded on it. Something the teacher and school had no right to do.

The teacher has the right to restrict content. Ironically, such restrictions are usually hatched from the desire to AVOID conflicts exactly like this one. That's where I think the teacher/school screwed up -- they should have done a much better job of conveying the restrictions and explaining them.

Religious imagery can be a part of even the most rudimentary basic art/line drawing class. Religious texts, however, don't need to be.

Here's why (at least in my experience): A school with a mixed population of young Christians, Muslims, Jews, insert-faith-or-absence-thereof-here is going to get along one hell of a lot easier with one another if overt displays of belief are asked to be reserved for their respective churches (or sleep-in-on-Saturday-or-Sunday-times). It is when students get into comparative "discussions" about religion that tempers can flare as those who feel marginalized or belittled by others' declarations of religious supremacy beg to differ...usually at volume.

So the art class is set up to attempt to avoid this by saying "no blood, no violence, no sex [notice not "no nudity"], and no religion." Where the school messed it up was in not being more specific (my examples only, and likely flawed themselves, as I'm ginning them up on the spot):

THE RULES: Art is a form of self-expression, and many of us have things we want or need to express that can provoke controversy or adverse reactions. As such, we have a policy regarding content in order to keep the controversy to a minimum. Before anyone lashes out with a First Amendment protest, let me explain that this is a basic art class. I'm here to teach you the techniques and tools of visual art. I do not teach expression -- that's up to you. My assignments are specifically designed to be practice in the technique. What you do with the techniques beyond my assignments is entirely up to you -- I do not censor or stifle expression. However, the assignments you submit MUST follow these four rules in order to be accepted for a grade:

NO BLOOD: Works depicting bleeding of any kind, from any source, are not allowed. This is a basic art class where you're taught how to render simple subjects. If you want to use these techniques to paint grotesques, that's fine, but not here -- not if you want credit for your work.

NO VIOLENCE: Works depicting harmful physical injury to living things, especially those injuries resulting in BLOOD (see above), even cartoon depictions, are not allowed. There is enough violence in our culture already, and if you wish to use the techniques taught here to depict it, that's fine, but not here -- not it you want credit for your work.

NO SEX: Works depicting oral or genital intercourse (clothed or not -- kissing is fine) or nudity beyond the study of human forms [I'm not sure any public school art classes would allow nude studies, but let me have my rational fantasy] used in obvious or salacious ways to provoke a sexual reaction are not allowed. If you wish to express eroticism using the techniques taught here, that's fine, but not here -- not if you want credit for your work.

NO RELIGION: Works depicting themes from religious texts or ideas are allowed, PROVIDED that they do not proclaim any religion's supremacy over others, do not express the various prohibitions of any religion on lifestyles or behaviors, and (this includes atheism or agnosticism) do not mock or deride those who believe or their beliefs. In addition, the use of specific passages, quotes, or titles from religious texts is not allowed: art is supposed to be able to convey meaning without many words, or without words at all. Should you wish to add a textual passage to one of your works after presenting it for a grade, but prior to display, that is acceptable. My course is about expression without words, and your works will be graded with that idea in mind. If you want to get a pointed religious message across with your art, that's fine, but not here -- not if you want credit for your work.

Now I understand that these guidelines are more full of potential holes than a cheese grater, but it's a damn sight better than just "NO BLOOD, NO VIOLENCE", etc. Feel free to critique, improve, dismiss, or "whatever" them.

*Sniptastic* THE RULES, etc. *Sniperrific*


Beautiful. Just beautiful.

This seems like exactly the intent of the school. The point of the "No religion" rule was not to stifle any sort of expression, but was instead enacted because it was thought that religion could potentially be disruptive, a condition which nearly everyone in this discussion has ceded would be acceptable.

Now, personally, I think just about anything should be allowed in an art class, as it should be a place to foster discussion, not to avoid it, but it does not seem that this rule was in direct violation of the Constitution, or NCLB, due to the fact that this sort of work was deemed as disruptive, and the fact that the expression itself was not being stifled or barred. It was only determined that the awarded grade, based on the guidelines stipulated, was affected by the policy.

And I've heard Hitler was a vegetarian. Does that make being a vegetarian wrong?

<edit: as a matter of fact I'm pretty sure there's a specific term for the logical fallacy you just used. I just don't know it.>

:confused:

:confused:

Your argument against the quoted guidelines looks to consist of "Bush is responsible for those guidelines, therefor they are bad/invalid." You're not going to try and tell me that's not a logical fallacy are you?

NO RELIGION: Works depicting themes from religious texts or ideas are allowed, PROVIDED that they do not proclaim any religion's supremacy over others, do not express the various prohibitions of any religion on lifestyles or behaviors, and (this includes atheism or agnosticism) do not mock or deride those who believe or their beliefs. In addition, the use of specific passages, quotes, or titles from religious texts is not allowed: art is supposed to be able to convey meaning without many words, or without words at all. Should you wish to add a textual passage to one of your works after presenting it for a grade, but prior to display, that is acceptable. My course is about expression without words, and your works will be graded with that idea in mind. If you want to get a pointed religious message across with your art, that's fine, but not here -- not if you want credit for your work.


See, this is a much more reasonable and understandable set of rules. If they had restricted him because it was text and the course was about expression without words, thats fine. I particually like the part about being able to add text later if you wish. I think the thing about mocking etc, you may have to be careful with. Its usually quite obvious when something is mocking but not always and some people can be unnessecarly sensative.

It seems that what this school has done is a blanket ban on all religious symbolism. That in my opinion is wrong. If they didn't want the text there for the reasons you described, that should have been in the signing of the waiver, but otherwise your policy on religion here seems very enlightened and much more sensable. If I were you I would e-mail the school and tell them that this is a much better all round policy and that they should let this kid by because it was a poorly thought out policy this time, but in the future the following policy (yours) will be enforced.

Beautiful. Just beautiful.

This seems like exactly the intent of the school. The point of the "No religion" rule was not to stifle any sort of expression, but was instead enacted because it was thought that religion could potentially be disruptive, a condition which nearly everyone in this discussion has ceded would be acceptable.

Now, personally, I think just about anything should be allowed in an art class, as it should be a place to foster discussion, not to avoid it, but it does not seem that this rule was in direct violation of the Constitution, or NCLB, due to the fact that this sort of work was deemed as disruptive, and the fact that the expression itself was not being stifled or barred. It was only determined that the awarded grade, based on the guidelines stipulated, was affected by the policy.

I think that the problem is that they've simply said that all discussion of religion could be disruptive, but I think if you choose to be intellegent about it and say, as has been said, you can express religion but be sensable about it. Don't mock, don't display one's superiority over the other etc.

Your argument against the quoted guidelines looks to consist of "Bush is responsible for those guidelines, therefor they are bad/invalid." You're not going to try and tell me that's not a logical fallacy are you?

Show me where I said anything about the guidelines.

It seems that what this school has done is a blanket ban on all religious symbolism.

Did you even read the article?

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.

You do realize that you have pretty much said that you agree with the school, yes?

SARKHAAN, KATGANISTAN, all other teachers - you need to read this...

Anyone who is a teacher and argues that 'I set the policy, I set the rules, that's what counts' needs to read this post

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13582131&postcount=240

It's a point by point examination of the principles of the Supreme Court in Tinker and then it's applied to the current case.

If you apply 'I set the policy, I set the rules, that's what counts' in real life then you are setting yourself up to be on the losing end of a freedom of expression lawsuit.

But, hey, don't take my word for it. Read the post. Better yet, read the decision of the Supreme Court at Wikisource. It's all there.

Did you even read the article?

You do realize that you have pretty much said that you agree with the school, yes?

The school said it was simply "no religion". If they had wanted to simply remove the text the policy should have been "No text of any kind" not no religous text.

Hi NAS

On a couple of times, re: the first amendment, you've said that 'Congress isn't the teacher', i guess with the implication that it doesn't apply.

OK, let's start:


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances


In the UK, we have a concept known as the 'emanation of the State,' meaning that when a body carries out govt-like functions it can be treated as if it is the govt for judicial review purposes. It looks like the US has something similar





"The Fourteenth Amendment, as now applied to the States, protects the citizen against the State itself and all of its creatures--Boards of Education not excepted. These have, of course, important, delicate, and highly discretionary functions, but none that they may not perform within the limits of the Bill of Rights. That they are educating the young for citizenship is reason for scrupulous protection of Constitutional freedoms of the individual, if we are not to strangle the free mind at its source and teach youth to discount important principles of our government as mere platitudes"



PRINCIPLE Or, in other words, Boards of Education are creatures of the state so amendments to the constitution can be applied to them

APPLICATION - School, acting presumably under the direction or supervision of the Board of Education, is a creature of the state. Therefore the 1st amendment, being an amendment, can be applied against it.


Incidentally, I think it was you who said the 'Chewbacca defence' applies to Tinker and it's application to the case at hand. In my opinion, that is quite wrong. The principles of Tinker quite clearly apply to the case in hand.

Cheers

BC

The school said it was simply "no religion". If they had wanted to simply remove the text the policy should have been "No text of any kind" not no religous text.

Fail...

The ADF said that it was no religion, however, if you read the snippet I quoted, you will see that the cross was fine, the reason for the piece of art being deemed not suitable was the text "John 3:16".

Show me where I said anything about the guidelines.

Your post here: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13585752&postcount=290
was in response to my question here: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13584383&postcount=273 prompted by your response TO my posting the guidelines where you claimed

"I'd say the most telling thing from that page is this:


Section 9524 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act ("ESEA") of 1965, as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, requires the Secretary to issue guidance on constitutionally protected prayer in public elementary and secondary schools.

If I can't interpret that series of posts as being about the Department of Education guidelines and your reasons for disregarding them then I can't figure out for the life of me what the hell you were talking about.

Hey guys, guess what?

The kid's a friggin' minor. Unless his parents signed the waiver, it can't be applied.

Beautiful. Just beautiful.

This seems like exactly the intent of the school. The point of the "No religion" rule was not to stifle any sort of expression, but was instead enacted because it was thought that religion could potentially be disruptive, a condition which nearly everyone in this discussion has ceded would be acceptable.

Now, personally, I think just about anything should be allowed in an art class, as it should be a place to foster discussion, not to avoid it, but it does not seem that this rule was in direct violation of the Constitution, or NCLB, due to the fact that this sort of work was deemed as disruptive, and the fact that the expression itself was not being stifled or barred. It was only determined that the awarded grade, based on the guidelines stipulated, was affected by the policy.

I appreciate that, thanks. I was just trying to show how I'd have written the policy if I'd been that teacher. Who knows? I'd still probably get sued...in THIS country? Probably. I just think it's a shame that the school couldn't have thought the policy through and worded it positively instead of negatively, and that the kid's parents have to encourage such thin-skinned sensitivity and fell back on legal action so quickly.

See, this is a much more reasonable and understandable set of rules. If they had restricted him because it was text and the course was about expression without words, thats fine. I particually like the part about being able to add text later if you wish. I think the thing about mocking etc, you may have to be careful with. Its usually quite obvious when something is mocking but not always and some people can be unnessecarly sensative.

It seems that what this school has done is a blanket ban on all religious symbolism. That in my opinion is wrong. If they didn't want the text there for the reasons you described, that should have been in the signing of the waiver, but otherwise your policy on religion here seems very enlightened and much more sensable. If I were you I would e-mail the school and tell them that this is a much better all round policy and that they should let this kid by because it was a poorly thought out policy this time, but in the future the following policy (yours) will be enforced.

"Unnecessarily sensitive" -- terrific wording and very accurate. Some people will go out of their way to be offended. I think some people need to feel offended in order to feel alive.

As for self-expression, I agree with you. As a music professor -- moreover, as a choral director who deals with texts -- the vast majority of the music I have to choose from in the canon of outstanding choral works are most often religious works. Masses, anthems, psalm texts, blessings, bible passages -- in Latin, English, Yoruba, Swahili, French, German, Italian, you name it. That's how I got away with an Ave Maria when I taught at a public school -- I made sure pieces I chose like that were in Latin and provided a..."lite" translation in the program. Parents on the Left who knew my position (and probably more than a bit of Latin) knew what was going on, and parents on the Right appreciated music whose original purpose was worshipful (as opposed to the purpose of rockin' the adjudicators' asses off in competitions...which, for some reason, most secular music doesn't do...but that's a different story).

So I don't really have much of a choice. I simply must program religiously-based music, because that's what most of the choral greats were written for. By the time secular texts caught up in prevalence with religious texts, the music was well into the 20th century and you run into the issue of appropriateness for the level of singers you have (difficulty) -- not every high school choir can handle pandiatonicism or serialism or other 20th century composition styles. If I want music from the Classical Era (Mozart, Haydn) that ISN'T religious in nature, I'm left with opera choruses. If I go back to the Baroque or Renaissance, I'm left with secular-texted madrigals, and nobody wants to sit through an hour of those. One or two "fa-la-la" pieces fills most audiences' madrigal quota. Flashing forward, the Romantic Era contains much more secular texts, but the difficulty of the voice leading and harmonies increases dramatically -- and nothing sounds worse than Ravel, Debussy or R. Strauss done poorly.

If I were you I would e-mail the school and tell them that this is a much better all round policy and that they should let this kid by because it was a poorly thought out policy this time, but in the future the following policy (yours) will be enforced.

I did exactly that, emailing the idea to the principal and the Art staff there as well as the opinion page of the local paper. Here's hoping it helps, even a bit. Thank you for the suggestion.

Sounds like the teacher is an atheist nazi just like there are religious nazis. You should be able to paint whatever you want unless it contains something like kill/beat X, or something violent like that.

This is a real go nowhere argument, isn't it.

Side 1: It's freedom of speech, stupid. A previous court case says so.

Side 2: His freedom of speech wasn't held back. He could express himself as much as he wants, but if he does it in that art class, he'll get a 0.

There is no issue of a minor signing a waiver. You can't sign away your rights as an adult anyway. Waivers are near useless anyway.

To me it's simple. I'm definately side 2. He was given a task. He did not perform that task. 0. If in maths, I answer 2 + 2 with a proof of Fermat's last theorem, I still deserve 0.

This is a real go nowhere argument, isn't it.

Side 1: It's freedom of speech, stupid. A previous court case says so.

Side 2: His freedom of speech wasn't held back. He could express himself as much as he wants, but if he does it in that art class, he'll get a 0.

There is no issue of a minor signing a waiver. You can't sign away your rights as an adult anyway. Waivers are near useless anyway.

To me it's simple. I'm definately side 2. He was given a task. He did not perform that task. 0. If in maths, I answer 2 + 2 with a proof of Fermat's last theorem, I still deserve 0.

Move back please ladies and gentalmen, nothing to see here, shows over go home people, home.

Your post here: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13585752&postcount=290
was in response to my question here: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13584383&postcount=273 prompted by your response TO my posting the guidelines where you claimed



If I can't interpret that series of posts as being about the Department of Education guidelines and your reasons for disregarding them then I can't figure out for the life of me what the hell you were talking about.

Again, show me where I said anything about the guidelines (the validity thereof)

Again, show me where I said anything about the guidelines (the validity thereof)

Again, if that was NOT about the guidelines and the validity thereof then what the hell were you talking about?

Again, if that was NOT about the guidelines and the validity thereof then what the hell were you talking about?

Bemoaning the influences of Dubya.

As far as the guidelines, I don't see how they are applicable just as I don't see how the first amendment is applicable, or Tinker for that matter.

My opinion might be changed if we could get some info about the case, but until we do...