Student Sues Wisconsin School After Getting a Zero for Religious Drawi

[sox4lifeinPA]

link

 

 

 

 

my favorite line:

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.

 

it's art. whether it is GOOD art or not...it's art. when the hell did we start protecting people's rights against art?

 

and before anyone brings up the "Feces Jesus" or whatever, that offends me, but I don't think it violates my rights. It violates taste, but it doesn't violate art.

 

this is dumb, through and through, and the student will win.

 

 

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."

[Texsox]

I know where this is going.

[StrangeSox]

What a horrible policy. How in the world does his own personal drawing infringe on anyone else's rights or beliefs?

[sox4lifeinPA]

I know where this is going.

 

 

well, hopefully people can just discuss logically.

[Texsox]

[knightni]

[GoSox05]

It sucks when someone censors your art. Ask Slayer.

Edited April 3, 2008 by GoSox05

[Controlled Chaos]

Those pigs look somewhat Angelic. Get rid of em!!

Edited April 1, 2008 by Controlled Chaos

[sox4lifeinPA]

now you can ban it...

[GoSox05]

I don't approve of the what the teacher did, but I do find it funny. Religous groups have been trying to censor everything from music to tv to book's and everything else for the last 30 years. Now when it happens to them "Oh my god". Maybe next time they won't be so quick to try and stop an album from coming out or a movie from being edited.

Edited April 3, 2008 by GoSox05

[DrunkBomber]

I didnt see anywhere in the article if it said what exactly they were suing for. If it is mainly for principle than I see no problem with the lawsuit if all of the other religious stuff listed is all over the school. However, if they are after any sort of monetary compensation, which it doesnt sound like they are, than I think thats a bit of a stretch. Censoring stuff like this in public school is counterproductive in the grand scheme of things. The more they try to "protect" these kids from stuff like this the longer it will take them to adjust to life in the real world and will hinder their social development.

Edited April 2, 2008 by DrunkBomber

[The Critic]

I don't approve of the what the teacher did, but I do find it funny. Religous group's have been trying to censor everything from music to tv to book's and everything else for the last 30 years. Now when it happen's to them "Oh my god". Maybe next time they won't be so quick to try and stop an album from coming out or a movie from being edited.

Yep.

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

[mr_genius]

Those pigs look somewhat Angelic. Get rid of em!!

 

now you can ban it...

 

Nicely played soxPA and Controlled chaos

 

 

Edited April 2, 2008 by mr_genius

[mr_genius]

Religous group's have been trying to censor everything from music to tv to book's and everything else for the last 30 years. Now when it happen's to them "Oh my god". Maybe next time they won't be so quick to try and stop an album from coming out or a movie from being edited.

 

 

Don't forget to add the mighty Al and Tipper Gore to the list of censorship zealots.

[santo=dorf]

It suck's when someone censor's your art. Ask Slayer.

 

 

I don't approve of the what the teacher did, but I do find it funny. Religous group's have been trying to censor everything from music to tv to book's and everything else for the last 30 years. Now when it happen's to them "Oh my god". Maybe next time they won't be so quick to try and stop an album from coming out or a movie from being edited.

Apostrophe abuse is not cool.

 

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.

So I guess since the policy that he signed was destroyed, it's all good? The teacher is right, the student is wrong, and assistant principal is on something else.

 

He signed a document that saying he wouldn't express religious expression in his art, and reniged. Then he threw a fit. Tough s***, you didn't follow the rules. :

 

[mr_genius]

Millin told the boy he had signed away his constitutional rights when he signed the policy at the beginning of the semester.

 

 

since when can a public school force you sign over your constitutional rights in order to take a class? that is kind of hilarious.

[santo=dorf]

The Student got a zero for for violating the agreed upon and signed policy, and was later kicked out of class for destroying the property.

 

So in typical chilidish Christian fashion he claims.....

 

The constitution doesn't guarantee your homework will be of a passing grade.

 

Why do I have a feeling if this was a Muslim student who got a zero for drawing Muhammad, it wouldn't be such a big deal, and people would say the student was wrong for going against school rules? The constitution doesn't say anything about being 5 minutes late to class. Man, I could've been late to class all these times claiming I was saying my prayers, and when I would get a referral, I could just spout they were being ignorant to my religious beliefs.

 

Edited April 2, 2008 by santo=dorf

[mr_genius]

Why do I have a feeling if this was a Muslim student who got a zero for drawing Muhammad, it wouldn't be such a big deal?

 

Oh it would have been a huge deal because some zealots threaten to blow up the school and to kill the teacher because someone produced a picture of the prophet. such a picture is forbidden in islam! The teacher would praise the students efforts at diversity, and then apologize to offended muslims. then the school would cancel math class so all students could attend 4 weeks of diversity training as so no one ever dared to draw a picture of muhammad again.

Edited April 2, 2008 by mr_genius

[DrunkBomber]

Apostrophe abuse is not cool.

So I guess since the policy that he signed was destroyed, it's all good? The teacher is right, the student is wrong, and assistant principal is on something else.

 

He signed a document that saying he wouldn't express religious expression in his art, and reniged. Then he threw a fit. Tough s***, you didn't follow the rules. :

[Balta1701]

 

since when can a public school force you sign over your constitutional rights in order to take a class? that is kind of hilarious.

Public schools force students to surrender their rights all the freaking time. Just to enter the building. The unreasonable search one goes right out the window, they can search your lockers, backpacks, or even person without cause. There are clear speech limitations. There are certainly assembly restrictions. Hell, schools can enforce dress codes for crying out loud!

[mr_genius]

Public schools force students to surrender their rights all the freaking time. Just to enter the building. The unreasonable search one goes right out the window, they can search your lockers, backpacks, or even person without cause. There are clear speech limitations. There are certainly assembly restrictions. Hell, schools can enforce dress codes for crying out loud!

 

nice to know that harmless drawing of a cross has been added to a list

 

 

[Balta1701]

nice to know that harmless drawing of a cross has been added to a list

Is it really "harmless"? For all we know, the student could be indicating his support for the KKK or for the olympic park bomber, etc.

 

That's half in jest. But the reality is, most public schools have gone so security crazy in the last 10 years that if you draw anything but a Hello Kitty you're likely to get in trouble. If they wanted to ban all religious imagery, or ban specific things that they've had a problem with, or ban specific things that other schools have had a problem with...that's where we've allowed the rules to go.

[knightni]

if you draw anything but a Hello Kitty you're likely to get in trouble.

 

 

Seriesly?

 

http://www.kittyhell.com/wp-content/upload...llish-kitty.jpg

 

[mr_genius]

Is it really "harmless"? For all we know, the student could be indicating his support for the KKK or for the olympic park bomber, etc.

 

That's half in jest. But the reality is, most public schools have gone so security crazy in the last 10 years that if you draw anything but a Hello Kitty you're likely to get in trouble. If they wanted to ban all religious imagery, or ban specific things that they've had a problem with, or ban specific things that other schools have had a problem with...that's where we've allowed the rules to go.

 

screw it, just end all forms of expression, because anything can be seen as offensive in the hyper political correctness age.

 

have our public schools like in those weird science fiction works where everyone is exactly same. no one ever questions authority. yes sir. no sir. right away sir.

 

Complete political correctness bliss. ahhhhh

Edited April 3, 2008 by mr_genius

[bmags]

screw it, just end all forms of expression, because anything can be seen as offensive in the hyper political correctness age.

 

have our public schools like in those weird science fiction works where everyone is exactly same. no one ever questions authority. yes sir. no sir. right away sir.

 

Complete political correctness bliss. ahhhhh

 

Well, we have it gets sticky. Unlike the Tinker case, since this is occurring in a class that promotes art, and therefore could fall under that they are promoting the art the students are producing. Tinker states that schools have to tolerate acts of speech and expression, not promote them. So anything that happens during a class, students don't have much free speech. Me personally, I disagree. however, in the case it happened, I agree with the ruling, just not the standard it set up. Some states grant students more freedom of speech, not Missouri, however, I'm pretty sure this state has created most of the educational standards by the Supreme Court.