Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 87

Thread: Student Sues Wisconsin School After Getting a Zero for Religious Drawing

  1. #1

    Student Sues Wisconsin School After Getting a Zero for Religious Drawing

    [QUOTE]MADISON, Wis. A Tomah High School student has filed a federal lawsuit alleging his art teacher censored his drawing because it featured a cross and a biblical reference.

    The lawsuit alleges other students were allowed to draw "demonic" images and asks a judge to declare a class policy prohibiting religion in art unconstitutional.

    "We hear so much today about tolerance," said David Cortman, an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal advocacy group representing the student. "But where is the tolerance for religious beliefs? The whole purpose of art is to reflect your own personal experience. To tell a student his religious beliefs can legally be censored sends the wrong message."

    Tomah School District Business Manager Greg Gaarder said the district hadn't seen the lawsuit and declined to comment.

    According to the lawsuit, the student's art teacher asked his class in February to draw landscapes. The student, a senior identified in the lawsuit by the initials A.P., added a cross and the words "John 3:16 A sign of love" in his drawing.

    His teacher, Julie Millin, asked him to remove the reference to the Bible, saying students were making remarks about it. He refused, and she gave him a zero on the project.

    Millin showed the student a policy for the class that prohibited any violence, blood, sexual connotations or religious beliefs in artwork. The lawsuit claims Millin told the boy he had signed away his constitutional rights when he signed the policy at the beginning of the semester.

    The boy tore the policy up in front of Millin, who kicked him out of class. Later that day, assistant principal Cale Jackson told the boy his religious expression infringed on other students' rights.

    Jackson told the boy, his stepfather and his pastor at a meeting a week later that religious expression could be legally censored in class assignments. Millin stated at the meeting the cross in the drawing also infringed on other students' rights.

    The boy received two detentions for tearing up the policy. Jackson referred questions about the lawsuit to Gaarder.

    Sometime after that meeting, the boy's metals teacher rejected his idea to build a chain-mail cross, telling him it was religious and could offend someone, the lawsuit claims. The boy decided in March to shelve plans to make a pin with the words "pray" and "praise" on it because he was afraid he'd get a zero for a grade.

    The lawsuit also alleges school officials allow other religious items and artwork to be displayed on campus.

    A Buddha and Hindu figurines are on display in a social studies classroom, the lawsuit claims, adding the teacher passionately teaches Hindu principles to students.

    In addition, a replica of Michaelangelo's "The Creation of Man" is displayed at the school's entrance, a picture of a six-limbed Hindu deity is in the school's hallway and a drawing of a robed sorcerer hangs on a hallway bulletin board.

    Drawings of Medusa, the Grim Reaper with a scythe and a being with a horned head and protruding tongue hang in the art room and demonic masks are displayed in the metals room, the lawsuit alleges.

    A.P. suffered unequal treatment because of his religion even though student expression is protected by the First Amendment, according to the lawsuit, which was filed Friday.

    "Students do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate," the lawsuit said. "No compelling state interest exists to justify the censorship of A.P.'s religious expression."[/QUOTE]

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

    UNREAL. Can any of you try and justify this?

  2. #2
    [QUOTE=JerseyJet2007;2459714][url]http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,344350,00.html[/url]

    UNREAL. Can any of you try and justify this?[/QUOTE]

    well, although the rule is wrong.....

    this student should not have signed the contract.....

  3. #3
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Long Island & Section 337
    Posts
    4,859
    Imagine if he drew a picture of Mohammed.

  4. #4
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,958
    1.) That picture is bad. A zero may have been a bit extreme...but I wouldn't grade than anything above a 25%.

    2.) I too also received a zero in art class for drawing my interpretation of the cover of Slayer's "Reign in Blood" album. I didn't sue. I'm not a litigious wuss.

    3.) The school should not prevent students from drawing religious art in art class. Religion has had more influence on art throughout the ages than any other aspect of human existence. Banning religion from art would be like banning depressive moodiness from music. Aaron Lewis would be out of work.

    4.) There are over 8,000 schools in the US that use crosses as part of their school logo. Go to school there.

  5. #5
    Can you imagine if the Student was a Muslim Girl, and the "policy" in question was "No Hats in School"?

    The hypocricy is stunning. But sadly, it's expected these days.

    If you are white, male and/or Christain, descrimination is not only acceptable, it is often encouraged.

    The best line of the story is;

    [QUOTE]Millin stated at the meeting the cross in the drawing also infringed on other students' rights.[/QUOTE]

    Amazing. I'm not remotely religious (put simply, I depsise organized religion), but the gross abandonment of equal freedom for this kid is just stunning to me. "Multiculturalism, as long as your not a white male christian" seems to be our societies way nowadays....

    What I want to know, is where is IntelligentJetsFan with an APPORPIRATE Use for "Shredding the Constitition" titles.....

  6. #6
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ (Jets Stadium Section 246)
    Posts
    36,391
    [QUOTE=HDCentStOhio;2459815]Imagine if he drew a picture of Mohammed.[/QUOTE]

    Or Chad on a cross outside the Church of Penningtology!

  7. #7
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Ft Lauderdale by way of New York
    Posts
    13,208
    Millin showed the student a policy for the class that [U]prohibited[/U] any violence, blood, sexual connotations or [U]religious beliefs in artwork[/U]. The lawsuit claims Millin told the boy he had signed away his constitutional rights when [U]he signed the policy [/U]at the beginning of the semester.


    He signed a contract end of story, if he wants to draw religious stuff then he should go to a school where he doesn't have to sign a contract that says he is not allowed to. The kids just trying to get attention on top of the fact he can't draw worth a ****.

  8. #8
    [QUOTE=piney;2459768]well, although the rule is wrong.....

    this student should not have signed the contract.....[/QUOTE]if he's under 18 it's not binding.you can't sign a contract with a minor.

  9. #9
    [QUOTE=New York Mick;2459840]Millin showed the student a policy for the class that [U]prohibited[/U] any violence, blood, sexual connotations or [U]religious beliefs in artwork[/U]. The lawsuit claims Millin told the boy he had signed away his constitutional rights when [U]he signed the policy [/U]at the beginning of the semester.


    He signed a contract end of story, if he wants to draw religious stuff then he should go to a school where he doesn't have to sign a contract that says he is not allowed to. The kids just trying to get attention on top of the fact he can't draw worth a ****.[/QUOTE]first of all the contract is not binding.he;s under 18.second of all you can never sign away your constitutional rights. thirdly you can never,whether public school or any other prevent a person from drawing a religious symbol.its called equal protection under the law.

  10. #10
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Ft Lauderdale by way of New York
    Posts
    13,208
    [QUOTE=2foolish197;2459842]if he's under 18 it's not binding.you can't sign a contract with a minor.[/QUOTE]

    A lot of schools require their students to sign contracts, I was guessing his parents signed it as well.

  11. #11
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Ft Lauderdale by way of New York
    Posts
    13,208
    [QUOTE=2foolish197;2459847]first of all the contract is not binding.he;s under 18.second of all you can never sign away your constitutional rights. thirdly you can never,whether public school or any other prevent a person from drawing a religious symbol.its called equal protection under the law.[/QUOTE]

    When you join the military or a lot of the law enforcement agencies as well as big companies you sign away your constitutional rights.

  12. #12
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2459831]Can you imagine if the Student was a Muslim Girl, and the "policy" in question was "No Hats in School"?

    The hypocricy is stunning. But sadly, it's expected these days.

    If you are white, male and/or Christain, descrimination is not only acceptable, it is often encouraged.

    The best line of the story is;



    Amazing. I'm not remotely religious (put simply, I depsise organized religion), but the gross abandonment of equal freedom for this kid is just stunning to me. "Multiculturalism, as long as your not a white male christian" seems to be our societies way nowadays....

    What I want to know, is where is IntelligentJetsFan with an APPORPIRATE Use for "Shredding the Constitition" titles.....[/QUOTE]


    I don't see the hypocrisy unless the teacher allowed the use of other religious drawings.

    I think the idea behind what she has done is ridiculous, along with the quote you provided....

    but....the muslim girl and the drawing are different issues entirely....

    The kid signed a contract in the class...if he thought it was such a travesty, why did he do it? Why not consult his parents?

    I mean, Christian holidays are national holidays...but Muslim holidays aren't...where is the great discrimination there?

  13. #13
    [QUOTE=piney;2459906]I don't see the hypocrisy unless the teacher allowed the use of other religious drawings.[/QUOTE]

    The teacher allowed "Demonic" drawings, and like it or not those are both considered offensive by many AND can easily be classified as "faith-based", even if we both know they were not intended that way.

    And it's hypocritical because:

    [QUOTE]A Buddha and Hindu figurines are on display in a social studies classroom, the lawsuit claims, adding the teacher passionately teaches Hindu principles to students.

    In addition, a replica of Michaelangelo's "The Creation of Man" is displayed at the school's entrance, a picture of a six-limbed Hindu deity is in the school's hallway and a drawing of a robed sorcerer hangs on a hallway bulletin board.

    Drawings of Medusa, the Grim Reaper with a scythe and a being with a horned head and protruding tongue hang in the art room and demonic masks are displayed in the metals room, the lawsuit alleges.[/QUOTE]


    [QUOTE=piney;2459906]I think the idea behind what she has done is ridiculous, along with the quote you provided....[/QUOTE]

    Glad we agree.

    [QUOTE=piney;2459906]but....the muslim girl and the drawing are different issues entirely....[/QUOTE]

    In what way? If a school has a "No Hats Rule", as many do, why should an Islamic Girl be excluded? Oh, right, because today's version of multiculturalism and acceptance of all does not extend to white, male christaians, but it does to Islamic girls and islamic beliefs. Hell, I know some schools (public ones) that have set aside prayer rooms for their islamic students.....

    [QUOTE=piney;2459906]The kid signed a contract in the class...if he thought it was such a travesty, why did he do it? Why not consult his parents?[/QUOTE]

    You cannot sign away your basic fundamental rights, nor does a school have the right to try andtake them, contract or not. If this were aprivate school, thats different (and this is a non issue then), but a Public School does not have that right.

    [QUOTE=piney;2459906]I mean, Christian holidays are national holidays...but Muslim holidays aren't...where is the great discrimination there?[/QUOTE]

    Well, we have been for over 200 years a massively predominanly Christian Nation. Only recently have Muslims become more prevalent. In time, if they stop hating us and trying to blow us up, perhaps we'll choose, as a nation, to celebrate their days off work too.

  14. #14
    [QUOTE=PlumberKhan;2459821] Aaron Lewis would be out of work.
    [/QUOTE]

    That would be a good thing.

  15. #15
    I wasn't aware a student in school was fully protected under the constitution.

  16. #16
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    22,105

    He'll Win the Case...

    The kid is likely going to win, if not at the district court level then ultimately in the US Supreme Court if the kid decides to pursue it.

    Signing the contract is irrelevant. Students can't "sign away" their constitutional rights. If they or anyone else can, then indentured servitude would be legal.

    Students, within the school setting, do have "less" constitutional rights than outside school. The reason for that is the US Supreme Court has recognized that public schools have not only the right, but the obligation to prevent student activity which would create a "substantial disruption" of school order. However, any curb on a student's constitutional free speech rights has to be done solely for the purpose of preventing a "substantial disruption."

    Obviously, banning religious images in art does not create a substantial disruption in school order. Note that the other prohobition in the rules (violence and sexual activity) does substantially disrupt and the Supreme Court has specifically held that schools have the right to limit that type of speech (along with promoting drug use).

    Sorry to get technical here, but this appears to be a cut-and-dry case. The school rule is unconstitutional but no one until now has challenged it. Remember, unless someone challenges the rule it may exist for a long time.

    [B]Bottom line, the school's rule is unconstitutional.[/B]

  17. #17
    All League
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Middlesex County, NJ
    Posts
    3,365
    Boys and girls, this country is going to Hell in a handbasket....Fast!

  18. #18
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2459968]The teacher allowed "Demonic" drawings, and like it or not those are both considered offensive by many AND can easily be classified as "faith-based", even if we both know they were not intended that way.[/QUOTE]

    ehh, I need to actually have that statement verified by someone other than the lawyer and kid in question.

    I mean...what is demonic and how is it classified as "faith-based" when it could be used for more of a horror effect.

    There seems to be less of a specific reference to faith with that than there is of a cross and "John 3:16"

    I don't think equating those two images are as cut and ried as you make it out to seem.

    [QUOTE=Warfish;2459968] And it's hypocritical because: A Buddha and Hindu figurines are on display in a social studies classroom, the lawsuit claims, adding the teacher passionately teaches Hindu principles to students.

    In addition, a replica of Michaelangelo's "The Creation of Man" is displayed at the school's entrance, a picture of a six-limbed Hindu deity is in the school's hallway and a drawing of a robed sorcerer hangs on a hallway bulletin board.

    Drawings of Medusa, the Grim Reaper with a scythe and a being with a horned head and protruding tongue hang in the art room and demonic masks are displayed in the metals room, the lawsuit alleges.[/QUOTE]

    key word, it alleges...

    and how is it that those pertain to the art class specifically. It seems as though the art teacher has a different set of parameters than the rest of the school. Unless she also teaches social studies, then I don't see how it is at all relevant.

    Now if there are other examples in the art class specifically, then I could see the claim of hypocrisy....IMO


    [QUOTE=Warfish;2459968]In what way? If a school has a "No Hats Rule", as many do, why should an Islamic Girl be excluded? Oh, right, because today's version of multiculturalism and acceptance of all does not extend to white, male christaians, but it does to Islamic girls and islamic beliefs. Hell, I know some schools (public ones) that have set aside prayer rooms for their islamic students......[/QUOTE]

    because this isn't the case of a girl signing something that says she will not wear a hat in school and then she proceeds to do so, and then sues for discrimination. I just don't think it is a valid argument.

    If the school decides to excuse religious head-gear for Jewish and Muslim students yet still does not want someone wearing their baeball cap, I don't have a problem with that.

    I also think though that if you have prayer rooms for some students you should have them available for all students of all faiths.

    I also don't have a problem with accomodating someone who has specific religious commitments, like timed prayer and things like that.

    I don't think it is out of line for any religious student of any faith to be equally accomodated for...do you?

    Or should we only take care of christians because "they aren't blowing us up?"



    [QUOTE=Warfish;2459968] You cannot sign away your basic fundamental rights, nor does a school have the right to try andtake them, contract or not. If this were aprivate school, thats different (and this is a non issue then), but a Public School does not have that right.[/QUOTE]

    well, that will be the crux of the case, right?

    I don't know myself if that is the case....not being able to sign away certain rights. I mean, schools can enforce dress codes and conduct requirements.

    I mean, where does it end? Can any student freely express themselves any way they see fit on school grounds regardless of any "contract" signed?

    I wonder how you would feel if the kid had a "Death to America" t-shirt on...

    would you support the school in sending him home or making him change his shirt?

    Or would you side with the student in his right of free expression?

    [QUOTE=Warfish;2459968] Well, we have been for over 200 years a massively predominanly Christian Nation. Only recently have Muslims become more prevalent. In time, if they stop hating us and trying to blow us up, perhaps we'll choose, as a nation, to celebrate their days off work too.[/QUOTE]

    because american-muslims hate us and are blowing us up....all the time...so we should punish them

    funny, how to christian white males (and not specifically you, I am generalizing here) are ok with christianity being given special treatment but not other religions.

    They get bent out of shape over "Happy Holidays" and taking God out of the public eye, but are outraged when people make exceptions for any other religion.

  19. #19
    [QUOTE=piney;2460029]I wonder how you would feel if the kid had a "Death to America" t-shirt on...

    Or would you side with the student in his right of free expression?[/quote]

    In my past, I have always sided with the free speech rights of the Individual whilst on public property. Schools are public property, so I side (and have sided) with the "Death to America" Shirt-Wearer.



    [QUOTE=piney;2460029]white males (and not specifically you, I am generalizing here) are ok with christianity being given special treatment but not other religions.

    They get bent out of shape over "Happy Holidays" and taking God out of the public eye, but are outraged when people make exceptions for any other religion.[/QUOTE]

    Well, I am glad you put in the "not you" portion, as I have no issue with the removal of Religion from Public Works, Facilities and Events. I have long railed against the "10 Commandments bleong in the Court" types here, and will continue to do so.

    The issue I have is the lame "his art hurt the rights of others" BS. As I have always said, FREEDOM is my over-riding watchword, freedom as long as the expression of that freedom does not hurt anyone. And I am sorry, but there is no way on Earth that this students art "hurt" anyone whatsoever.

    My opinion is that descrimination of white male christians is treated far differently today than any other culture, race or religious group. While I AM a white male (and can tell plenty fo stories of descrimination against me being viewed as perfectly acceptable), I am most certain NOT a christian.

    But that fact does not blind me to the obvious hypocricy of America today, where it seems rule #1 is anyone can "have their revenge" on whitey, for the crimes (so called) of past generations.

  20. #20
    [QUOTE=piney;2460029]ehh, I need to actually have that statement verified by someone other than the lawyer and kid in question.

    I mean...what is demonic and how is it classified as "faith-based" when it could be used for more of a horror effect.

    There seems to be less of a specific reference to faith with that than there is of a cross and "John 3:16"

    I don't think equating those two images are as cut and ried as you make it out to seem.



    key word, it alleges...

    and how is it that those pertain to the art class specifically. It seems as though the art teacher has a different set of parameters than the rest of the school. Unless she also teaches social studies, then I don't see how it is at all relevant.

    Now if there are other examples in the art class specifically, then I could see the claim of hypocrisy....IMO




    because this isn't the case of a girl signing something that says she will not wear a hat in school and then she proceeds to do so, and then sues for discrimination. I just don't think it is a valid argument.

    If the school decides to excuse religious head-gear for Jewish and Muslim students yet still does not want someone wearing their baeball cap, I don't have a problem with that.

    I also think though that if you have prayer rooms for some students you should have them available for all students of all faiths.

    I also don't have a problem with accomodating someone who has specific religious commitments, like timed prayer and things like that.

    I don't think it is out of line for any religious student of any faith to be equally accomodated for...do you?

    Or should we only take care of christians because "they aren't blowing us up?"





    well, that will be the crux of the case, right?

    I don't know myself if that is the case....not being able to sign away certain rights. I mean, schools can enforce dress codes and conduct requirements.

    I mean, where does it end? Can any student freely express themselves any way they see fit on school grounds regardless of any "contract" signed?

    I wonder how you would feel if the kid had a "Death to America" t-shirt on...

    would you support the school in sending him home or making him change his shirt?

    Or would you side with the student in his right of free expression?



    because american-muslims hate us and are blowing us up....all the time...so we should punish them

    funny, how to christian white males (and not specifically you, I am generalizing here) are ok with christianity being given special treatment but not other religions.

    They get bent out of shape over "Happy Holidays" and taking God out of the public eye, but are outraged when people make exceptions for any other religion.[/QUOTE]typical left-wing rantings by my favorite left-wing ranter.the issue is whether the teacher made him sign a non-binding contact.everything else is mute.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us