Student Sues Wisconsin School After Getting a Zero for Religious Drawi

[mr_genius]

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.

 

I willing to bet this no tolerance policy is loosely enforced, aka certain religious symbols are accepted in artistic works and others aren't. That is the problem with the ruling.

[EvilMonkey]

His teacher, Julie Millin, asked him to remove the reference to the Bible, saying students were making remarks about it.

Isn't good art supposed to provoke emotion, discussion, etc? It appears that this work did just what all the elitist artists want to do, which is create a buzz, a conversation, etc. If what was meant instead of 'making remarks' was that some were offended, then we really should be asking ourselves what kind of pussies parents are raising that they are offended by a cross in an art project.

[lostfan]

If what was meant instead of 'making remarks' was that some were offended, then we really should be asking ourselves what kind of pussies parents are raising that they are offended by a cross in an art project.

lol, that was my first thought. Who the f*** would be offended by the kid next to them drawing a cross in school?

 

My first thought was "oh, a kid drew a burning cross, that's pretty inappropriate" because that's what it kind of looks like, but they're not even saying that.

[mr_genius]

we really should be asking ourselves what kind of pussies parents are raising that they are offended by a cross in an art project.

 

 

[santo=dorf]

Isn't good art supposed to provoke emotion, discussion, etc? It appears that this work did just what all the elitist artists want to do, which is create a buzz, a conversation, etc. If what was meant instead of 'making remarks' was that some were offended, then we really should be asking ourselves what kind of pussies parents are raising that they are offended by a cross in an art project.

...and we should ask what kind of dumbass parents raise a kid to sign an agreement, and then throw a hissy fit and waste the court's time when he clearly broke the promise.

[EvilMonkey]

...and we should ask what kind of dumbass parents raise a kid to sign an agreement, and then throw a hissy fit and waste the court's time when he clearly broke the promise.

 

I think that falls on the parents, AND society. With all the 'self esteem' crap that the liberals have pushed in various programs, such as no valedictorians so noone gets their feelings hurt, no keeping scores in little league or soccer games, etc., the self esteem has turned into me-centered thinking. More here to blame for that attitude than just the parents.

[FlaSoxxJim]

I think that falls on the parents, AND society. With all the 'self esteem' crap that the liberals have pushed in various programs, such as no valedictorians so noone gets their feelings hurt, no keeping scores in little league or soccer games, etc., the self esteem has turned into me-centered thinking. More here to blame for that attitude than just the parents.

 

I must have missed the meeting the day the liberals decided to make "no scores in little league" a plank in the campaign platform.

[mr_genius]

I must have missed the meeting the day the liberals decided to make "no scores in little league" a plank in the campaign platform.

 

Maybe you were out drinkin the night before and was late, which resulted in you missing the meeting. That happened to me today.