More Christian Persecution in Schools

[mamallama]

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.



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

[LaDonna]

There was a story tonite on our local news of a school in the DFW area that had painted on the wall in large letters IN GOD WE TRUST and some parent made a comment that it wasn't appropriate and so the school board decided to paint over it. Well some momma's raised concern and well come to find out it is legal to have the words IN GOD WE TRUST so guess what they painted them back on the wall of the school......

This goes to show that if we as Christians sit back and keep our mouths shut and not stand up for our rights then our rights and beliefs will be taken away just because someone doesn't like them. Christians need to stand for what they know to be right...

[Madre]

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.


I think this is very strange that by signing some class policy, you sign away your Constitutional rights. How can this be?

Tearing up the policy was a bit over the top, though.

[Timmys mom]

That is really sad...

[Mo2b1d]

I think this is very strange that by signing some class policy, you sign away your Constitutional rights. How can this be?

The teacher was incorrect when he stated that. A basic knowledge of contract law proves that contracts with underage persons aren't legally binding anyway, LOL. Also, I don't think the issue is that he signed away his constitutional rights, because you're right, you can't do that. However, if the sitch was a little different, it would be ok for an instructor to ask adult students to not make certain kinds of art in his class, and ask them to sign a contract stating that...maybe not in a public school setting, but perhaps private school or college.


Tearing up the policy was a bit over the top, though. I don't think so, assuming it wasn't done in a fit of rage of course. I see it as a statement that the student doesn't agree with the contract and hadn't realized (in his youth) what it said, or that he could choose not to sign it. So he destroyed it. I guess it all depends on his tone of voice and what was going on surrounding the situation, but I'm sure he felt that he couldn't in good concsience leave it be knowing that he didn't actually agree with or understand what he signed.

[Mo2b1d]

My gut feeling in this case is that it will probably fail in court. AFAIK, it is perfectly legal for an art instructor to put stipulations on the kinds of art that the students produce in the classroom. It is the instructor's right to tailor the class to only include some kinds of art because they're teaching the class. In the classroom, the student needs to produce art within the scope of the class, but has every right to produce other art on a personal level and to display it in other places. Basically, if you're instructed to paint a landscape, you paint a landscape. If you're instructed to paint a portrait, you paint a portrait. If you're instructed do a project about something you care about, but are restricted on what kinds of things you can do, then you adhere to the rules because you're in public school, and the class dictates what you're allowed to produce. If you don't want to follow the rules and paint a landscape, then you fail the project. It's your right to not follow the rules, but its also the right of the instructor to fail you if you don't follow them.

It makes me sad that a child wouldn't be allowed to proclaim their faith through their art in class, but that's another reason why we homeschool.

[Madre]

The teacher was incorrect when he stated that. A basic knowledge of contract law proves that contracts with underage persons aren't legally binding anyway, LOL. Also, I don't think the issue is that he signed away his constitutional rights, because you're right, you can't do that. However, if the sitch was a little different, it would be ok for an instructor to ask adult students to not make certain kinds of art in his class, and ask them to sign a contract stating that...maybe not in a public school setting, but perhaps private school or college.


I don't think so, assuming it wasn't done in a fit of rage of course. I see it as a statement that the student doesn't agree with the contract and hadn't realized (in his youth) what it said, or that he could choose not to sign it. So he destroyed it. I guess it all depends on his tone of voice and what was going on surrounding the situation, but I'm sure he felt that he couldn't in good concsience leave it be knowing that he didn't actually agree with or understand what he signed.

You make a good point. (In fact, Mo, you make several good points in your above posts. :-D) I was just looking at it as an "in your face" type of statement that may have done more harm than good to his case. Perhaps he did tear it up in a very calm manner, just proclaiming his stance.

[Mo2b1d]

Perhaps he did tear it up in a very calm manner, just proclaiming his stance. That's what I'm hoping for anyway, LOL. It would make me pretty upset as a parent if my child did it in a rebellious manner even though I agreed with the end result...