OPINION & EDITORIAL
Common sense 4 Jesus
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Badger Herald Editorial Board:
- Still miffed (May 7, 2008)
- A lacking response (May 6, 2008)
- The block is hot (May 2, 2008)
- Madison's Downtown: The Musical (May 1, 2008)
- The real 'State of the ASM' (April 29, 2008)
Related Stories:
- Tomah ignores student's rights (April 3, 2008)
- Write a letter, start a firestorm (December 1, 2005)
- Small towns key for equal rights (February 15, 2007)
- Readers offer destructive criticism (April 4, 2008)
- It's been how long? (March 13, 2002)
Share This:
by Badger Herald Editorial Board
Friday, April 4, 2008
These are busy times for Tomah. Ed Thompson, Tommy’s little brother, was just elected to his second stint as the city’s mayor. Tomah Memorial Hospital’s book fair is right around the corner. And a student filed a federal lawsuit against the city’s school district after his arts teacher gave him a zero on a class assignment.
This latter event may seem frivolous — even absurd — on its face, but it’s not. The assignment was to draw a picture of a landscape. The student did so, and he included a cross and a reference to a biblical verse in the drawing. The teacher, Julie Millin, told the student to remove the religious imagery, and when he refused, she gave him a zero. She cited a class policy, signed by all students, prohibiting the inclusion of religious beliefs in artwork.
Public schools are no strangers to First Amendment issues, as anyone familiar with the phrase “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” can tell you.
The seminal case on the issue is 1969’s Tinker v. Des Moines School District, in which three students were suspended for wearing black armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled the suspension violated the students’ free speech rights. Schools may suppress student expression only to maintain discipline or avoid a substantial disruption to the learning environment, the court said. “[S]tate school officials cannot suppress expression of feelings with which they do not wish to contend,” absent this justification.
What’s more, in a 2003 document titled “Guidance on Constitutionally Protected Prayer in Public Elementary and Secondary Schools,” the U.S. Department of Education made clear that students have the right to “express their faith in their class work and homework.”
In light of this, the art class’s policy is indefensible. It serves no purpose other than to prevent the school from dealing with topics it wishes to avoid. Like the political speech in Tinker, the Tomah student’s religious speech is constitutionally protected.
Equally troubling is the school’s rationale behind the policy. Tomah High School Assistant Principal Cale Jackson allegedly told the student his drawing infringed on the rights of other students. Ms. Millin later backed this assertion up. This argument is bizarre — nobody has a “right” to not be offended — and hypocritical, because the school displays Buddhist and Hindu figurines, according to the lawsuit.
It is true that schools are not complete free speech zones. Schools can regulate lewd and indecent speech, for instance. But the Tomah student’s artwork obviously does not fit in this category. Nor is the drawing impacted by the court’s narrow ruling in the “Bong Hits” case, in which the court said (very questionably) the sign advocated illegal drug use and therefore could be regulated.
Unfortunately, taxpayers will be the ones footing the legal bill incurred by the Tomah School District’s incompetence. Let us hope someone (maybe Mr. Thompson?) can teach school officials there a bit of common sense.
Anonymous (April 4, 2008 @ 12:01pm):
"She cited a class policy, signed by all students, prohibiting the inclusion of religious beliefs in artwork."
Based on this agreement, the student broke the contract. The student is wrong. If the student couldn't adhere to the rules, he should have dropped the class.
Using religious immagry could be problematic, especially when you consider recent "artworks" of the prophet Mohammed and Virgin Mary. I have to agree with this art class's policy. Do your religious artwork elsewhere, perhaps the Sistine Chapel needs another coat of paint?
Anonymous (April 4, 2008 @ 1:30pm):
The student is a minor and can't enter a legally binding contract.
Anonymous (April 4, 2008 @ 2:45pm):
"The student is a minor and can't enter a legally binding contract."
I agree, students/minors should not learn to be accountable for their actions and have no recourse for their actions; they should be taught that someone's word is worthless and any agreement can be broken. They should just expect authority to bend over backwards and cater to their precious feelings.
Sorry, snowflake, keep up the good work.
Anonymous (April 5, 2008 @ 7:40pm):
Even if the student did violate the contract he signed, the fact that the school felt a need to force students to sign away their 1st amendment right to free speech is troubling.
Anonymous (April 6, 2008 @ 11:08am):
Their first amendment rights were not "signed away." The student could have made a Jesus picture anywhere in the United State, just not in that art class.
Fire in a movie theater.
Cindy Carnes (April 6, 2008 @ 3:39pm):
You are correct that contracts are not binding on minors, but in addition, a contract must be entered into with free will. The option of not signing the agreement would have entailed not being able to attend a public school class. No other option was offered. If there was another art class that allowed "contraversial" topics, then that might have been reasonable.
Since when do we need to deny our faith in order to acquire a public education?
Anonymous (April 7, 2008 @ 8:08pm):
Couple of things:
a) it was an optional class- not mandatory.
b) the task at hand was to draw a landscape-neither text nor religious icons are part of that. Though IMO he should just have gotten a C- for failing to perform the assigned task
c) I don't think censorship is a good idea. That contract should be torn up, as the student did. However, I am afraid that as a result of this lawsuit they will maintain the "no violence, no sex" censorship and make (yet again) exceptions for religion.
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
