RE: Student Sues 'Anti-Christian' Teacher Over Remarks in Class (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> Current Events



Message

1dblthnk02 -> RE: Student Sues 'Anti-Christian' Teacher Over Remarks in Class (4/29/2008 3:44:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: gengwall
The first amendment applies to citizens and protects them from the state. A teacher is an agent of the state.

No, the 1st Amendment is not limited to U.S. citizens alone.
Secondly, it protects us from the Congressional infringement, not the state.

quote:

My statement - that "The teacher, as representative of the state, has no free speech rights - the amendment does not apply protection to him in any way" - is still correct.

Nope . . . sorry.



gengwall -> RE: Student Sues 'Anti-Christian' Teacher Over Remarks in Class (4/29/2008 3:58:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02

quote:

ORIGINAL: gengwall
The first amendment applies to citizens and protects them from the state. A teacher is an agent of the state.

No, the 1st Amendment is not limited to U.S. citizens alone.
Secondly, it protects us from the Congressional infringement, not the state.
Class assignment - please review the Incorporation Doctrine derived from the 14th Amendment and over 50 years of jurispridence identifying schools as part and parcel of the Congressional law the 1st Amendment protects us from.

Schools are a product of legislation and therefore are subject to the same 1st amendment restraints that the rest of the government, i.e. the "state", is subject to (certainly, you knew that I was using the term "state" in its "separation of church and 'state'" context). Teachers, as the legal executors of the "law" as it applies to schools, are just as liable and bound as are police, executives, and any other government authorities. The states and even local governments are incorporated into and subject to the provisions of the bill of rights by the 14th amendment (like it or not, that is the reality). In terms of the 1st amendment, that incorporates every legislative body in the country, including your local school board, into the "Congress" as it is referenced in the amendment. So, even your local kindergarten teacher is "the state", or, an administrator of "Congressional" law, as it were, in relation to students ("the people") and is subsequently bound by the 1st amendment.

As such, a teacher, in their official capacity, can not promote any religion without violating the establishment clause of the 1st amendment, just as a policeman or mayor or govenor or president can not. They also can not promote no religion or "irreligion" over religious belief. In particular, a teacher is in a highly authoritarian position over a captive audience acutely susceptible to influence and who wields a very punative sword (student grades) and therefore is rightly subject to the utmost scrutiny over adherence to the establishment clause of the first amendment.

(Your point regarding the amendment's application to "the people" vs. citizens alone is a red herring. Since the student, and for that matter, the teacher, in question, are citizens, I used that term. But if it makes you happy, I will refer to them as "the people" or "persons" from now on.)



1dblthnk02 -> RE: Student Sues 'Anti-Christian' Teacher Over Remarks in Class (4/29/2008 8:10:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: gengwall
Schools are a product of legislation and therefore are subject to the same 1st amendment restraints that the rest of the government, i.e. the "state", is subject to (certainly, you knew that I was using the term "state" in its "separation of church and 'state'" context).

Just being clear . . .
And I do understand that public schools are federally funded, and therefore subject to the separation of church and state.

quote:

As such, a teacher, in their official capacity, can not promote any religion without violating the establishment clause of the 1st amendment

The teacher in question did not promote religion.

quote:

They also can not promote no religion or "irreligion" over religious belief.

I guess that this is the hair we are splitting: was he trying to dissuade his students from the Christian faith? When he asked them to remove their "Jesus glasses," was he in fact saying, "Renounce your faith?"
I don't think so. But it was verbally predatory and out of line ethically. I just don't think that he can be stuck with a 1st Amendment violation.

quote:

But if it makes you happy, I will refer to them as "the people" or "persons" from now on.

Don't knock yourself out. I was delineating for the purpose of accuracy.



SovereignIsHe -> RE: Student Sues 'Anti-Christian' Teacher Over Remarks in Class (4/29/2008 8:40:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: benelchi

quote:

ORIGINAL: SovereignIsHe

quote:

ORIGINAL: mapachito13

quote:

ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02

I'm not sure that anti-Semitism is considered racism.



It could be considered "hate speech" if he phrased it a certain way. Just turn him over to the JDL and they have a battery of lawyers that exist just to take these holocaust naysayers on in court.


From the folks who cried "We have no king but Ceaser..., "Crucify him, crucify him..."

Talk about irony…[8D]

John


Statements like this are one of the reasons that they need "a battery of lawyers"; that this would come up in a Christian forum really saddens me because it is statements like this that continue to perpetuate racism generation after generation. As Christians we should be the light that God uses to illuminate this kind of error, not the people who propagate it.


So their denial is ok, but one of the holocaust isn't? Talk about your double-standards...


John



gengwall -> RE: Student Sues 'Anti-Christian' Teacher Over Remarks in Class (4/29/2008 11:13:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02

I guess that this is the hair we are splitting: was he trying to dissuade his students from the Christian faith? When he asked them to remove their "Jesus glasses," was he in fact saying, "Renounce your faith?"
I don't think so. But it was verbally predatory and out of line ethically. I just don't think that he can be stuck with a 1st Amendment violation.
And hence the need for the suit. I don't pretend to know the outcome of the case. But the fact the court denied the motion to dismiss seems to indicate there is grounds enough to at least hear both sides and render a decision.

As a side note, the combination of factors that empower a teacher make even the slightest remarks subject to constitutional scrutiny. You acknowledge the remarks are predatory and unethical. If the mayor of your town or the govenor of your state made such remarks (as former Governor Ventura did here in MN), you would brush them aside and not think twice because those words have no real authority over you; they are just some politician shooting their mouth off. But if that person is in fact in direct authority over you, is held up as someone who should be respected and whose words should be adhered to, is speaking to you as a member of a captive audience who has no choice but to sit and listen, AND has the power to affect your personal future via the grade you receive, those words take on significantly new meaning and force. Student speech is rightly limited in the classroom to the topic at hand. But teachers are also under a greater thresshold of responsibility in their communication because of the unparalleled position they hold over their students and the unique and speech limited environment those students find themselves in. In light of this vast discrepancy in power between student and teacher, teachers, more so than probably any other government employees and authorities, need to leave their personal religious propoganda and endorsements (either for or against) at the schoolhouse gate.



1dblthnk02 -> RE: Student Sues 'Anti-Christian' Teacher Over Remarks in Class (4/29/2008 11:27:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: gengwall
But the fact the court denied the motion to dismiss seems to indicate there is grounds enough to at least hear both sides and render a decision.

There's no denying that.

quote:

In light of this vast discrepancy in power between student and teacher, teachers, more so than probably any other government employees and authorities, need to leave their personal religious propoganda and endorsements (either for or against) at the schoolhouse gate.

Actually, I agree 100%
However, I still find the teacher's comments more of an ethical breach than a Constitutional one. But, like you said, the court didn't dismiss the possibility otherwise.



Jhud -> RE: Student Sues 'Anti-Christian' Teacher Over Remarks in Class (4/30/2008 1:10:30 AM)

quote:

So their denial is ok, but one of the holocaust isn't? Talk about your double-standards...


What are you talking about?

Whatever some 1st century Jews said about Jesus is irrelevant to the historical reality of the holocaust.



gengwall -> RE: Student Sues 'Anti-Christian' Teacher Over Remarks in Class (4/30/2008 9:57:27 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02

quote:

ORIGINAL: gengwall
But the fact the court denied the motion to dismiss seems to indicate there is grounds enough to at least hear both sides and render a decision.

There's no denying that.

quote:

In light of this vast discrepancy in power between student and teacher, teachers, more so than probably any other government employees and authorities, need to leave their personal religious propoganda and endorsements (either for or against) at the schoolhouse gate.

Actually, I agree 100%
However, I still find the teacher's comments more of an ethical breach than a Constitutional one. But, like you said, the court didn't dismiss the possibility otherwise.
I think we are both content to wait and see, but I should mention one more thing. Although the "Jesus glasses" remark seems to be trivial and isolated, we must remember that this along with the large volume of other remarks cited in the complaint are from just one day of class with this teacher. And, far from being an exception, the complaint contends this is a typical day in that class. So, if we are to accept those assertions as fact, we could expect that the "Jesus glasses" comment is but one in a long string of religious disparagements. In fact, that is exactly what the complaint states - that it was the constant denegration of Christians day after day that finally placed this student under such an emotional burden and academic dilema.



mapachito13 -> RE: Student Sues 'Anti-Christian' Teacher Over Remarks in Class (4/30/2008 10:02:44 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

So their denial is ok, but one of the holocaust isn't? Talk about your double-standards...


What are you talking about?

Whatever some 1st century Jews said about Jesus is irrelevant to the historical reality of the holocaust.


I think he is talking about the denial by the Jewish people that Jesus is the Messiah but like you said it's irrelevant. The only problem with that comparison is that Jews don't deny Jesus existed whereas holocaust naysayers say that tragedy was media fabrication.



1dblthnk02 -> RE: Student Sues 'Anti-Christian' Teacher Over Remarks in Class (4/30/2008 10:09:46 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: gengwall
And, far from being an exception, the complaint contends this is a typical day in that class.

If so, then it is beyond all question whether or not this guy should be canned. A few heads should also roll in the administration for not taking this matter by the horns a long time ago.

quote:

In fact, that is exactly what the complaint states - that it was the constant denegration of Christians day after day that finally placed this student under such an emotional burden and academic dilema.

I can't believe that this is what our schools are coming to. Even when I was in school during more "revolutionary" times, religious cracks were taboo. Back in those days, you could hardly even refer to God outside of church.



gengwall -> RE: Student Sues 'Anti-Christian' Teacher Over Remarks in Class (4/30/2008 10:14:52 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02

quote:

ORIGINAL: gengwall
And, far from being an exception, the complaint contends this is a typical day in that class.

If so, then it is beyond all question whether or not this guy should be canned. A few heads should also roll in the administration for not taking this matter by the horns a long time ago.

quote:

In fact, that is exactly what the complaint states - that it was the constant denegration of Christians day after day that finally placed this student under such an emotional burden and academic dilema.

I can't believe that this is what our schools are coming to. Even when I was in school during more "revolutionary" times, religious cracks were taboo. Back in those days, you could hardly even refer to God outside of church.
What is truly interesting, and a great example of Christian grace, is that the suit is not calling for the teacher's dismissal. All that is asked is that the teacher cease making such remarks and receive training on what is and isn't appropriate conduct in the classroom.

FYI the "relief" requested in the complaint

quote:

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request the following relief:
a. That this Court permanently enjoin Defendants, their agents, servants, employees, officials, or any other person acting in concert with them or on their behalf, from continuing to make statements in the classroom that are hostile towards religion and favor irreligion over religion;
b. That this Court enter a Declaratory Judgment stating that Defendants’ policy or practice of acting with hostility towards religion and favoring irreligion over religion violates the First Amendment to the United States Constitution;
c. That this Court grant Plaintiffs an award of nominal damages against Dr. Corbett, as an individual;
d. That this Court award damages in an amount to be determined by the finder of fact in accordance with the proof, plus interest at the legal rate until paid against Dr. Corbett, as an individual;
e. That this Court award the Plaintiffs’ costs and expenses of this action, including a reasonable attorneys’ fee award, in accordance with 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and other applicable law against all Defendants;
f. That this Court grant such other and further relief against Defendants as the Court deems equitable, just, and proper, including but not limited to requiring the School District to institute a training and monitoring program;
g. That this Court adjudge, decree, and declare the rights and other legal relations of the parties to the subject matter here in controversy, in order that such declarations shall have the force and effect of final judgment; and
h. That this Court retain jurisdiction of this matter as necessary to enforce the Court’s orders.



1dblthnk02 -> RE: Student Sues 'Anti-Christian' Teacher Over Remarks in Class (4/30/2008 10:25:47 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: gengwall
What is truly interesting, and a great example of Christian grace, is that the suit is not calling for the teacher's dismissal.

Not according to that article. It says:
"Farnan’s family has filed a federal lawsuit against the Capistrano Unified School District, claiming Corbett's remarks violated the First Amendment, which prohibits laws 'respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.' They are demanding that Corbett be fired."

quote:

All that is asked is that the teacher receive training on what is and isn't appropriate conduct in the classroom.

Again, the article says:
"The Farnans say that if the school agrees to put Corbett through sensitivity training and requires him to apologize to the students he offended, then the family would consider dropping their lawsuit."

The school will probably take the deal after the publicity dies down, if they haven't already.



1dblthnk02 -> RE: Student Sues 'Anti-Christian' Teacher Over Remarks in Class (4/30/2008 10:34:29 AM)

quote:

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request the following relief:
a. That this Court permanently enjoin Defendants, their agents, servants, employees, officials, or any other person acting in concert with them or on their behalf, from continuing to make statements in the classroom that are hostile towards religion and favor irreligion over religion;
b. That this Court enter a Declaratory Judgment stating that Defendants’ policy or practice of acting with hostility towards religion and favoring irreligion over religion violates the First Amendment to the United States Constitution;
c. That this Court grant Plaintiffs an award of nominal damages against Dr. Corbett, as an individual;
d. That this Court award damages in an amount to be determined by the finder of fact in accordance with the proof, plus interest at the legal rate until paid against Dr. Corbett, as an individual;e. That this Court award the Plaintiffs’ costs and expenses of this action, including a reasonable attorneys’ fee award, in accordance with 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and other applicable law against all Defendants;
f. That this Court grant such other and further relief against Defendants as the Court deems equitable, just, and proper, including but not limited to requiring the School District to institute a training and monitoring program;
g. That this Court adjudge, decree, and declare the rights and other legal relations of the parties to the subject matter here in controversy, in order that such declarations shall have the force and effect of final judgment; and
h. That this Court retain jurisdiction of this matter as necessary to enforce the Court’s orders.

It would appear that the article got it wrong-- and you, too.
They are seeking monetary damages from the teacher, not just sensitivity training. They are also demanding that he be muzzled, in a sense, from making any further religious commentary in class, but not that he be fired.

What I want to know is why they aren't getting after the school as well as the teacher.



mapachito13 -> RE: Student Sues 'Anti-Christian' Teacher Over Remarks in Class (4/30/2008 10:47:30 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: gengwall

What is truly interesting, and a great example of Christian grace, is that the suit is not calling for the teacher's dismissal. All that is asked is that the teacher cease making such remarks and receive training on what is and isn't appropriate conduct in the classroom.

FYI the "relief" requested in the complaint

quote:


c. That this Court grant Plaintiffs an award of nominal damages against Dr. Corbett, as an individual;
d. That this Court award damages in an amount to be determined by the finder of fact in accordance with the proof, plus interest at the legal rate until paid against Dr. Corbett, as an individual;e. That this Court award the Plaintiffs’ costs and expenses of this action, including a reasonable attorneys’ fee award, in accordance with 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and other applicable law against all Defendants;



What's your definition of damages? The legal definition is summed up in one word: money! So much for Christian grace!



gengwall -> RE: Student Sues 'Anti-Christian' Teacher Over Remarks in Class (4/30/2008 10:52:00 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02

It would appear that the article got it wrong-- and you, too.
They are seeking monetary damages from the teacher, not just sensitivity training. They are also demanind that he be muzzled, in a sense, from making any further religious commentary in class.

The monatary damages they are seeking directly are "nominal", plus attorneys fees. If the court chooses, it could award further damages, but they are not demanding them.

Now, it should be noted that the court could call for the teacher's removal as "such other and further relief against Defendants as the Court deems equitable, just, and proper". But the family is not calling for it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02
What I want to know is why they aren't getting after the school as well as the teacher.

The school is named in the suit as well.

quote:

ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02The school will probably take the deal after the publicity dies down, if they haven't already.

Considering the deluge of motions and other paperwork already submitted by the defendants, I don't see a settlement on the horizon. The next hearing regarding scheduling is scheduled for May 19th, so the case is moving forward. There is a motion pending for the teacher's union to intervene in the case. If the motion is denied, it may change the strategy of the defense, but not likely since there is no indication they asked the teacher's union to intervene.

What is really curious is that the family has demanded a jury trial. I am not sure what the strategy behind that is. It seems to me a judge would be better able to decipher the constitutional intricacies of such a case.



gengwall -> RE: Student Sues 'Anti-Christian' Teacher Over Remarks in Class (4/30/2008 10:54:14 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mapachito13

What's your definition of damages? The legal definition is summed up in one word: money! So much for Christian grace!
See above - "nominal" damages usually means $1.00. The request for attorneys fees is reasonable and puts no money in the families pocket. The court may award further damages but that is not what the family is demanding and I doubt any further damages would be awarded unless the court wants to "make an example" out of this teacher/school, which I doubt.



mapachito13 -> RE: Student Sues 'Anti-Christian' Teacher Over Remarks in Class (4/30/2008 12:13:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: gengwall

The monatary damages they are seeking directly are "nominal", plus attorneys fees. If the court chooses, it could award further damages, but they are not demanding them.

What is really curious is that the family has demanded a jury trial. I am not sure what the strategy behind that is. It seems to me a judge would be better able to decipher the constitutional intricacies of such a case.


The strategy of a jury trial is to be awarded more in damages than a judge would award for this type of case. Juries have been known to award more money than the plaintiffs ask for sometimes. Attourney's fees I can see, but damages? That's the "I won the legal lottery" syndrome that drives many a civil case. I call that greed. Or is he going to share the winnings/damages with the other students who were equally "traumatized"? [sm=icon_smile_cry.gif]



gengwall -> RE: Student Sues 'Anti-Christian' Teacher Over Remarks in Class (4/30/2008 12:23:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mapachito13

quote:

ORIGINAL: gengwall

The monatary damages they are seeking directly are "nominal", plus attorneys fees. If the court chooses, it could award further damages, but they are not demanding them.

What is really curious is that the family has demanded a jury trial. I am not sure what the strategy behind that is. It seems to me a judge would be better able to decipher the constitutional intricacies of such a case.


The strategy of a jury trial is to be awarded more in damages than a judge would award for this type of case. Juries have been known to award more money than the plaintiffs ask for sometimes. Attourney's fees I can see, but damages? That's the "I won the legal lottery" syndrome that drives many a civil case. I call that greed. Or is he going to share the winnings/damages with the other students who were equally "traumatized"? [sm=icon_smile_cry.gif]
You may be correct, in which case I would disagree with that part of the relief claim and withdraw my "Christian grace" praise, but it remains to be seen. I personally think a jury trial would be harder to prevail in, and therefore not worth the risk for the sake of a little money. Frankly, I don't even think a jury is going to be too prone to award large damages in this case, being able to see through any greed motives. I am actually surprised they included the "damages in an amount to be determined" request, something that the plaintiffs in the somewhat similar case in WI regarding religious art resisted doing (asking only for a $1.00 plus fees). It may be that they are greedy, but it may just as likely be that they would prefer to not take this all the way to court and are using the threat of further damages and the jury demand as a big stick to motivate the defense into a settlement. And, of course, it could all backfire. I have known of juries who accept the argument of a side to the legality of an issue but reject the level of injury claimed.



mapachito13 -> RE: Student Sues 'Anti-Christian' Teacher Over Remarks in Class (4/30/2008 1:17:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: gengwall

quote:

ORIGINAL: mapachito13

quote:

ORIGINAL: gengwall

The monatary damages they are seeking directly are "nominal", plus attorneys fees. If the court chooses, it could award further damages, but they are not demanding them.

What is really curious is that the family has demanded a jury trial. I am not sure what the strategy behind that is. It seems to me a judge would be better able to decipher the constitutional intricacies of such a case.


The strategy of a jury trial is to be awarded more in damages than a judge would award for this type of case. Juries have been known to award more money than the plaintiffs ask for sometimes. Attourney's fees I can see, but damages? That's the "I won the legal lottery" syndrome that drives many a civil case. I call that greed. Or is he going to share the winnings/damages with the other students who were equally "traumatized"? [sm=icon_smile_cry.gif]
You may be correct, in which case I would disagree with that part of the relief claim and withdraw my "Christian grace" praise, but it remains to be seen. I personally think a jury trial would be harder to prevail in, and therefore not worth the risk for the sake of a little money. Frankly, I don't even think a jury is going to be too prone to award large damages in this case, being able to see through any greed motives. I am actually surprised they included the "damages in an amount to be determined" request, something that the plaintiffs in the somewhat similar case in WI regarding religious art resisted doing (asking only for a $1.00 plus fees). It may be that they are greedy, but it may just as likely be that they would prefer to not take this all the way to court and are using the threat of further damages and the jury demand as a big stick to motivate the defense into a settlement. And, of course, it could all backfire. I have known of juries who accept the argument of a side to the legality of an issue but reject the level of injury claimed.


I read the legal verbage again and their is another item of note. The plaintiffs are only suing the teacher it seems for nominal damages. The other defendants are being sued for damages "to be determined by the finder of fact" (ie, the judge or the jury, in the case of a jury trial).

I guess the attourneys know that they can't squeeze too much out of a teacher's salary.



gengwall -> RE: Student Sues 'Anti-Christian' Teacher Over Remarks in Class (4/30/2008 1:37:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mapachito13
I read the legal verbage again and their is another item of note. The plaintiffs are only suing the teacher it seems for nominal damages. The other defendants are being sued for damages "to be determined by the finder of fact" (ie, the judge or the jury, in the case of a jury trial).

I guess the attourneys know that they can't squeeze too much out of a teacher's salary.

I think you read it wrong. Relief point d. is still directed at only the teacher as an individual. Point e. which is directed at all defendants, is only for attorney fees and court costs. I originally didn't have a carriage return in place so d. and e. ran together, which may have caused the confusion.

An aside - The first amendment center has several good articles on teacher's rights and the establishment clause: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/rel_liberty/publicschools/index.aspx



1dblthnk02 -> RE: Student Sues 'Anti-Christian' Teacher Over Remarks in Class (4/30/2008 5:25:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: gengwall
What is really curious is that the family has demanded a jury trial. I am not sure what the strategy behind that is. It seems to me a judge would be better able to decipher the constitutional intricacies of such a case.

That's just the problem: left up to a judge, the said magistrate will likely uphold CONNICK v. MYERS, 461 U.S. 138 (1983), which in turn upholds PICKERING v. BOARD OF EDUCATION, 391 U.S. 563 (1968), which in turn vindicates me when I say that 1st Amendment rights do apply to public employees even when they are on the job. This is from the Connick decision:

"In Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968), we stated that a public employee does not relinquish First Amendment rights to comment on matters of public interest by virtue of government employment."

Thus, if a decision favorable to the plaintiff is to be arrived at, it will have to be by appealing to the common emotions of a jury rather than to the jurisprudent logic of a judge.



gengwall -> RE: Student Sues 'Anti-Christian' Teacher Over Remarks in Class (4/30/2008 5:34:43 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02

quote:

ORIGINAL: gengwall
What is really curious is that the family has demanded a jury trial. I am not sure what the strategy behind that is. It seems to me a judge would be better able to decipher the constitutional intricacies of such a case.

That's just the problem: left up to a judge, the said magistrate will likely uphold CONNICK v. MYERS, 461 U.S. 138 (1983), which in turn upholds PICKERING v. BOARD OF EDUCATION, 391 U.S. 563 (1968), which in turn vindicates me when I say that 1st Amendment rights do apply to public employees even when they are on the job. This is from the Connick decision:

"In Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968), we stated that a public employee does not relinquish First Amendment rights to comment on matters of public interest by virtue of government employment."

Thus, if a decision favorable to the plaintiff is to be arrived at, it will have to be by appealing to the common emotions of a jury rather than to the jurisprudent logic of a judge.
I'm not so sure. Pickering doesn't deal with the unique forum found in the classroom setting, and doesn't deal with the establishment clause. I continue to assert that the k-12 classroom is an unprecedented situation that demands extra diligence on the teacher's part to not introduce establishment entanglements. I think a judge would see that clearly. I would not depend on a jury to see that.



mapachito13 -> RE: Student Sues 'Anti-Christian' Teacher Over Remarks in Class (4/30/2008 5:38:58 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: gengwall

I think you read it wrong. Relief point d. is still directed at only the teacher as an individual. Point e. which is directed at all defendants, is only for attorney fees and court costs. I originally didn't have a carriage return in place so d. and e. ran together, which may have caused the confusion.



I see it now! My bad!

Carriage return? Now that's a term I haven't heard (read) in a long time! Takes me back to the days of manual typewriters and carbon paper. That God for computers!



1dblthnk02 -> RE: Student Sues 'Anti-Christian' Teacher Over Remarks in Class (4/30/2008 5:41:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: gengwall
I'm not so sure. Pickering doesn't deal with the unique forum found in the classroom setting, and doesn't deal with the establishment clause.

It is a fairly narrow rendering, I will admit. But I found the Connick quote to be of particular interest where our discussion is concerned.

quote:

I continue to assert that the k-12 classroom is an unprecedented situation that demands extra diligence on the teacher's part to not introduce establishment entanglements.

This is why I say it is more of an ethical breach than a legal one. The teacher definitely has rights, but he shouldn't have used his rights to tease the establishment clause. Let him play with fire on his own time.



SovereignIsHe -> RE: Student Sues 'Anti-Christian' Teacher Over Remarks in Class (4/30/2008 8:07:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

So their denial is ok, but one of the holocaust isn't? Talk about your double-standards...


What are you talking about?

Whatever some 1st century Jews said about Jesus is irrelevant to the historical reality of the holocaust.



I just think it's ironic that the JDL will sue people for denying something given what they would deny... That's all, no biggie... The Jews of today still deny Jesus(right?) and if they could wouldn't they attempt to have him put to death for his great sin?

John



Page: <<   < prev  3 4 5 [6] 7   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI