It will be interesting to see if the ACLU gets involved in this one and if they do, which side they take.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,344350,00.html

The school is 100% correct. The policy is clearly stated, other students were offended, the student was made aware of the changes that needed to be made AND the consequences, and he chose not to adhere to the policy and was punished appropriately. And on top of that, he wasn't very mature in handling the situation when he ripped up the detention notice. I was ready to side with the student, but after reading the whole article, it's obvious the kid clearly has a history of pushing the envelope on religious expression within the school and that in order to protect ALL students of the school, the school has to take a zero tolerance stance on religion.

Heres the thing, I am tired of people using the tired old excuse that it infringes on other students' rights.

Complete bullshit. If the school is going to allow people to draw pictures of the Grimreaper(which I personally love) and allow Buddha and Hindu figurines on display then a cross should be allowed as well.

Hell, I am agnostic so it dont matter to me but what does matter is that double standard schools are teaching our kids.

No, what matters is the school enforcing their policies. The policy clearly states that religious drawings are not allowed, and students sign this waiver agreeing to it upfront. And there is no question that his drawing was a religious expression that violates the stated policy. Proof of this is in the fact that other students complained. The school had no choice to but to punish him. And, it sounds like the student was offered an "out" to remedy the situation, but like a true preacher (martyr) he chose to be in violation and was punished as he should.

I see a trend with you. I think you know what the school is doing is wrong but you cant make yourself admit it for fear of looking like you are giving up your political beliefs in some fashion.


You have not said a thing about the statues of Buddha.

Is the Buddha as strong as a religious symbol as a cross with John 3:16 inscribed? Was the Buddha signifying some sort of religious message? If so, it should be banned too. I'm all for equal banning of publically financed brainwashing.

I don't think Buddha would appreciate his followers killing 15 month old babies.

Vit>>No, what matters is the school enforcing their policies.

So school policies are what's the most important? What if those policies are unconstitutional?

GWBush>>Quit throwing the constitution in my face. The Constitution is just a goddamned piece of paper.

The main thing the student did wrong is in signing the agreement in the first place. If he initially agreed to it, he should have followed it.

This is a radio message board, right?

What if radio on-air talents on secular formats that attend church started going into religious teaching discussions between songs?

Or a DJ simply started doing something like this:
"ContempoKissyMix FM, with the latest from Nickelback. Smile because Jesus loves you and if you proclaim him as your Lord and savior you will be saved; now here's Rhianna on ContempoKissyMix FM!"
(Yes, the station "name" is based on some of Roger's on the radio board.)

My guess is, in either above situation, they'd be fired.

Way back when I was in high school, signing a statement stating I had READ (not necessarily agreed with!) the Code of Conduct was required to receive grades and get credit for taking the classes.
I also had an experience where I did an assignment that the teacher said he wouldn't accept. I refused. Got an "F" for the entire class. This same school's policy said that in order for me to re-take the (required) class I had to do all the assignments for the original class anyway even though I already failed it. (If I refused to do that, I would have been "asked" to consider dropping out since I was considered to be refusing to comply with academic policies.)
At the time, did it make me think twice? Not really. When I look back on this years later, do I consider it similar to a boss at a job returning paperwork saying, "Unacceptable. Do it over. Next time you're out the door."? Yep.

IMO now, if the student is presented with a class policy stating the teacher has the right to refuse to accept assignments containing certain concepts/themes, if the student disagrees with the policy their next stop should be to the counseling office or wherever so they can find a class that they don't disagree with. If it's a class that's required for graduation at a school where all sections of the class are taught by one teacher, then they need to figure out how to complete the assignments in a manner that would be accepted.

I don't like the double standard that this school's religious expression policy creates. However, this student really needs to learn about getting policies changed by working within the system. The policy needs to be reviewed to see if its definition of "religious expression" is fair and/or if it is being applied consistently. There are many ways that he could go about getting school administrators to evaluate this policy without getting himself into trouble. For example:

1) He could talk to his parents about getting the subject brought up at a PTA meeting.

2) He could work with other students who disapprove of the policy to set up a meeting with the principal or guidance counselor.

Unfortunately, teenagers, for some reason, have a hard time understanding that one can effect changes without bringing trouble on oneself. I say this partly from my own memories of junior high and high school.

Agreed.

Gotta pick your battles and work from the higher ground position. That means following directions at a minimum.

Interesting legal question. Is the school's ban on religious expression in homework, artwork etc. a restiction on individual student's religious freedoms?

Schools can't initiate religious expression, that's very clear. But student initiated religious expression is another issue. This would be an issue worthy of further research.

This is very similar to a lot of cases in that the kid is pushing the matter.

Nobody really wants to over-regulate this stuff. We have the regulation we do so there are options when that happens. I remember plenty of religious stuff happening at or around school. Nobody really cared, and that's how it should be. There are lots of religions and they are important to people.

When the matter gets pushed, then there have to be some options. The school is a place for learning and that's structured learning --not evangalizing. There are times and places for that, and leveraging a captive audience in the school is neither the time nor the place.

Clearly that kind of thing is happening in this case and that, plus the poor attitude, makes it a loser for the student. Student gets angry because he has "rights" that he feels are more important than the structured learning activities.

Well, they just aren't. We've got clubs, home, church, and many other times and places where that makes sense.

Had the kid taken a reasoned approach and had demonstrated good overall deportment, his position on this would be significantly different.

I don't think taking a theological position on something is out of line in a school environment. A lot depends on the subject matter, but if the student has demonstrated they understood the material, but just didn't agree, IMHO that's fair game. The school is education, not brain washing.

But that's not what the kid did.

Life lesson learned, IMHO. The student will get over it and maybe pick up a few tips on how to be a solid ambassador for his religion and not a liability to it.

Some time spent in the good book might prove valuable in this. His peers, who share his beliefs, might consider that time well spent.

Our family has had to take some stands against our school. I've told the kids, from day one, to keep the high ground. If there is anger, breaking of rules, profanity, or any other easy out, the school is gonna take that out and run with it, leaving them without solid support from me.

Where they have done this correctly, it's gone well. I did my part, they did theirs and we reached good solutions quickly, without having to really give much. Where they didn't, they ended up in trouble right quick, with me adding on some extra for blowing what would otherwise be a simple discussion to keep them in the clear.

This kid will either learn these things, from a religious stand point, or common sense one, or will continue to have a very difficult time in live.

His call.

"But student initiated religious expression is another issue."

It's an issue that can be addressed at the local private christian school, not the public school.

It is unconstitutional for schools to enforce a zero tolerance policy on religious speech. Religious speech is still free speech, and is protected under the First Amendment.

The Constitution does not demand that religion be kept out of our public schools. The Constitution only prohibits school-sponsored religious activities. Free Exercise of Religion is our right under the Constitution.

The Supreme Court, in Tinker et al. v. Des Moines
Independent Community School District et al.
(393 U.S. 503), held that First Amendment rights are available to teachers and students, subject to application in light of the special characteristics of the school environment. It also held that a prohibition against expression of opinion, without any evidence that the rule is necessary to avoid substantial interference with school discipline or the rights of others, is not permissible under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

The court's reasoning behind this decision began with, "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.

"VITALOGY" asserts that schools can ban speech if certain people are offended. "VITALOGY wrote:"there is no question that his drawing was a religious expression that violates the stated policy. Proof of this is in the fact that other students complained."

The Supreme Court ruled otherwise. Here's what the Supreme Court said in the Tinker decision:

" But, in our system, undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance is not enough to overcome the right to freedom of expression. Any departure from absolute regimentation may cause trouble. Any variation from the majority's opinion may inspire fear. Any word spoken, in class, in the lunchroom, or on the campus, that deviates from the views of another person may start an argument or cause a disturbance. But our Constitution says we must take this risk, Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (1949); and our history says that it is this sort of hazardous freedom--this kind of openness--that is [509] the basis of our national strength and of the independence and vigor of Americans who grow up and live in this relatively permissive, often disputatious, society."

The court expanded on this reasoning:
"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, just as they themselves must respect their obligations to the State. In our system, students may not be regarded as closed-circuit recipients of only that which the State chooses to communicate. They 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."

Religious speech is protected speech, even in schools. This kid has a good case. The school's policy was wrong.

If the school uniformly prohibits religious expression in art, and enforces the policy evenhandedly, then I'd say it's not discriminatory. It is unfortunate though. These aren't kindergarten kids. High schools need to prepare students for the adult life that they are about to enter. Removing from assignments common elements of society, such as religion, does a disservice to the future of these students. I don't advocate the school endorsing or dismissing anyone's religious beliefs, but I would expect a high school to nurture an environment where expression is encouraged.

"If the school uniformly prohibits religious expression in art, and enforces the policy evenhandedly, then I'd say it's not discriminatory."

But that's the point of the First Amendment. Schools cannot prohibit student's religious expression. The Constitution only prohibits school-sponsored religious activities. Religious expression by students is protected speech.

I would expect a high school to get the core education done.

Expression is secondary to that, otherwise the school is just a gathering place where all the kids just do what they want to do.

BTW: A kid, is a not fully developed "person", which is exactly why we call them kids and why we treat them differently in a lot of cases.

They don't yet have all the rights, because they don't yet have all the responsibilities.

This kid made this whole thing a power struggle. It's a perfectly child like thing to do and that should not be tolerated. --from anybody.

The religion is not the core issue. It's how this kid chose to do things.

Remember that higher ground bit I wrote above. This is how it goes. There is faith and there is being a prick. The latter is not protected.

The biblical reference is not "a landscape". IMHO, the cross could be part of that.

Seems to me the teacher asked for the text to be removed, not the cross. That's what I read. The teacher maintained the scope of work, and did it equally. No problem there.

The kid chose to exceed the scope given for the task, then got pissed about it.

I wonder if the text, drawn as part of the landscape, such as patterns in grass, trees, etc... would have passed the test?

Given it's an art class, I would love to see that kind of test put to the school.

All for the expression, but not at the expense of the STRUCTURED learning. We've got home school options for those that just can't do it.

"The Constitution only prohibits school-sponsored religious activities."

An art program that allows students to draw religious based art with bible references sounds to me like a school sponsered religious activity.

And secondly, if free speech is supposedly protected within the school, I'm sure you'd have no problem with a student showing up to class with a t-shirt saying "God Kills Innocent People".

Free speech is absolutely not protected in the schools. We limit profanity, clothing, symbols, behaviors considered acceptable, and lots of other things. We put those limits there so that the school has a shot at delivering a STRUCTURED learning environment that gets the kids the CORE education they need to FUNCTION as ADULTS later on.

That's the primary goal. It includes socialization, core reading, math, sciences, critical thinking, history, etc...

A secondary goal is to enrich their lives at a time when it will matter. That's sports, clubs, theatre, dance, drama, ART, and other similar things.

Remember, they don't have all the rights because they don't have all the responsibilities. Can't have it both ways.

Either kids and adults are different, or they aren't. And before you answer, consider your own childhood, and your role as a parent today.

I know absolutely, had I been treated like an adult as a kid, I would have been in huge ass trouble, on many occasions. People then, that knew me, also saw a kid that needed help and gave it. Made all the difference in the world.

If this spoiled, snot nose, power struggling little brat can't handle himself well enough to actually present a solid case on the matter, he deserves exactly what he gets.

And the school has EVERY right to hammer him on this crap. It's not a religious thing, it's a deportment thing. He does not have any significant respect for the school, and chooses to put his self interest over that of others --from the reading of the article, I would bet REPEATEDLY too.

Take the biblical TEXT reference out of it, and we've got a very different story. That story is about a kid, who just can't seem to play well with others.

This is a classic, "Oh look at the persecuted [insert religion here] bit." It's horse shit, cow shit, and bull shit, from start to end.

His parents should be embarrassed.

I sure would be.

As a parent, what I say goes, until they are 18. Free speech is as free as I'll tolerate and that means giving me the respect I'm due. The same goes for other adults, and that of course, includes the school.

If there is a problem, there is a time and place to handle it, and there is a clear way to handle it.

This ain't it, period.

So, right or wrong on the biblical reference (and I think the text is wrong, but the cross is likely ok), the kid being an ass means he loses, end of story, grow up and try again another day, next.

--->and the above is from personal experience as a kid. When I blew up, for whatever reason, I lost on form, period, end of story. Took me a lot of times to work that out.

This kid needs to work that out, then make his case. IMHO, he's got a shot, but he's only got it, if he's gonna bring it like a human being and not some brat.

That's equality and respect for one another 101, playing out right here.

"An art program that allows students to draw religious based art with bible references sounds to me like a school sponsered religious activity. "

Allowing religious based art would be acceptable. It would NOT be acceptable to REQUIRE students to draw religious based art.

" I'm sure you'd have no problem with a student showing up to class with a t-shirt saying "God Kills Innocent People".

Why wouldn't this be protected speech in a school? Have you been to a high school lately? Much worse text is allowed these days.

The Fox news story said the Principal told the student, " Later that day, assistant principal Cale Jackson told the boy his religious expression infringed on other students' rights."

The TINKER decision clearly says that just because another person is offended by the boy's religious expresion is not an infringement on another's rights.

"Any word spoken, in class, in the lunchroom, or on the campus, that deviates from the views of another person may start an argument or cause a disturbance. But our Constitution says we must take this risk, Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (1949); and our history says that it is this sort of hazardous freedom--this kind of openness--that is [509] the basis of our national strength and of the independence and vigor of Americans who grow up and live in this relatively permissive, often disputatious, society."

" 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."

Actually, my wife works in a high school, so I'm quite in tune on what's allowed and what's not. I'm not sure when the last time YOU were in a high school? Probably back in the 70s when anyone could do what they want. Times have changed, and so have the rules.

And I can tell you, there is not one school in America that would allow a student to wear a t-shirt that said "God Kills Innocent People". It would be offensive and disruptive to the student body, just the same as students who are preaching to other students through the art they create.

If there's anything we need more of in this country it's more politically correct BS, with a bunch of liberal educators deciding what "correct" is.

If it wasn't for "liberal educators' we'd all be uninformed conservative knuckledraggers like you, Deane.

I've been to just about every high school in the Portland Public schools, as well as West Linn, Centenial, Reynolds, and Barlow.

Frankly, what I saw students wearing in the hallways of PPS high schools particularly Roosevelt, disgusted me.

Off point, but equally disturbing in the PPS high school teachers lounges were the many marxist and anti-american posters.

PPS's "Environmental School" is a hotbed of leftist teaching. I was shocked at the curriculum there. They might as well call this school a Cal-Berkeley annex. This school is a breeding ground for the new generation of "Keep Portland Weird" citizens.

So yes, I 've been to schools lately. . .

"many marxist and anti-american posters."

Litterally Marxist, or just from your point of view?
Have any examples?

PPS's "Environmental School" is a hotbed of leftist teaching.

Proof.....

So yes, I 've been to schools lately. . .

Off point, but equally disturbing in the PPS high school teachers lounges were the many marxist and anti-american posters.

This school is a breeding ground for the new generation of "Keep Portland Weird" citizens.

Good.

Because generations of citizens added their own flavor, Portland is world renowned for quite a few things including our art scene, our skate parks, our green spaces and our unique vibe. It would suck if we went back to being famous for another suburban underachiever like Tonya Harding.

I would hate to have my tax dollars pay for a gaggle of mall lizards and video game drones. Kids are pretty smart whether you want to give them credit or not. Not everybody learns the same way, or believes the same things. Why not cultivate our culture?

wobboh sez: "I've been to just about every high school in the Portland Public schools, as well as West Linn, Centenial, Reynolds, and Barlow."

Did you ever manage to graduate?

Absolutely, Skeptical. Did you?

"many marxist and anti-american posters."

Just playing a hunch here...
Were these by chance pro-Union posters?