Christian School Clothing

Apparently, not just the Catholic and other parochial students get to wear Christian clothing to school. 

Kerusso makes Christian themed t-shirts, hats and accessories that any kid could wear to public school. While I could not find any specific example of a public school student being asked to remove their Kerusso t-shirt, a Kerusso press release seems to encourage confrontaion:

"Kerusso Challenges Students to Share Their Faith on Campus! ... Students have First Amendment rights on a public school campus that cannot be denied without reason. Among their rights regarding religion on campus is the free distribution of Christian literature when class is not in session. In addition, students have the freedom to communicate Christian messages through apparel and/or school supplies and the freedom of voicing to others their beliefs as long as it does not interfere with class time. ... "

I certainly wouldn't expect a school to arbitrarily ask a student to remove a Christian themed t-shirt any more than I would an atheist themed t-shirt. However, many schools have policies prohibiting sayings on t-shirts. I think I see an issue coming.

The company markets primarily to teens and their designs are pretty cool. However, I am a little confused about the marketing of this item to teens:

3 Blade Pocket Knife # KNIF102
This high-quality Pocket Knife is a gift that he will treasure and use for years to come.

Kerusso claims that it is a secular company and that it's employees so not have to believe in Christ. However, it should be noted that "kerusso" is the Greek word for "preach."

Another Fine Post from: No 2 Religion - Just Say No!

Several School Districts Violating Civil Rights of English Language Learners

Image by Old Shoe Woman via Flickr

The Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights is looking in to eight school districts nation-wide for possible civil rights violations in their English Language Learner (ELL) programs.
Working with English Language Learners, Second Edition: Answers to Teachers' Top Ten Questions 
The following school districts are being investigated to make sure they are giving equal educational access to ELL students:

Los Angeles Unified School District
Hazelton (Pa.) Area School District
DeQueen (Ark.) Public Schools
New London (Conn.) Public Schools
Tigard-Tualatin (Ore.) Public Schools
Lake Washington (Wash.) School District 

Two other districts Tulsa (Okla.) Public Schools and Dearborn (Mich.) Public Schools are in the midst of compliance reviews.

Another Fine Post from: No 2 Religion - Just Say No!

Related articles

• Number of ed civil rights complaints on the rise (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• Boston schools failed non-English speakers (reuters.com)
• Arizona's ELL Programs May Violate Federal Civil Rights (No 2 Religion)

Finally Someone Gets It

Image via Wikipedia

I have posted a couple of times recently (here and here) about corporal punishment in schools. Well, finally someone gets it and has proposed legislation to stop its use.

From ACLU.org:

WASHINGTON – Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) today introduced the Ending Corporal Punishment in Schools Act, a bill that would eliminate the use of corporal punishment in public and private schools that serve students receiving federal services. The American Civil Liberties Union strongly supports the bill, and urges Congress to swiftly pass the legislation.

 

“Children have the right to learn in a safe, supportive environment that allows them to reach their full academic potential; the Ending Corporal Punishment in Schools Act will help create the kind of classrooms they need,” said Laura W. Murphy, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. “The American Civil Liberties Union has fought long and hard to make corporal punishment in schools a thing of the past, and we urge Congress to finally put an end to this cruel and outdated form of punishment and swiftly act to pass this bill.”

 

Corporal punishment is a legal form of discipline in 20 states, and according to U.S. Department of Education data, it is disproportionately used against African-American students and students with disabilities. There is currently no federal ban on the use of corporal punishment against students, despite evidence that the practice injures students and hinders achievement in the classroom. The ACLU, along with dozens of coalition partners, sent a letter to Rep. McCarthy voicing strong support for the bill.

 

In addition to banning corporal punishment in public and private schools that receive federal funds, the bill also establishes a grant program for school-wide positive behavior supports, an evidence-based approach to school discipline which allows schools to proactively target potentially problematic behavior and develop approaches that can improve school climate and academic outcomes by reducing school discipline referrals.

 

“By adopting positive behavior supports and abandoning ineffective and brutal discipline, schools can create environments that encourage academic success rather than hinder it,” said Deborah J. Vagins, ACLU Legislative Counsel. “It’s time that Congress step in to end this arcane and destructive practice so that our schools can be places where students and educators interact in positive ways that foster students’ growth and dignity.”

Related articles by Zemanta

• Corporal Punishment Ban Praised by Secular Coalition for America (secularnewsdaily.com)
• New Bill Seeks to Ban Corporal Punishment in Schools (education.change.org)

School Superintendent, Former Baptist Minister Resigns Over Relationship

Although, this started almost a year ago in my own backyard I could not post about it because of my employers involvement in the case. Now that it is resolved here are some of the details as reported by CalCoast News reporter Karen Velie:

An investigation authorized by the San Miguel School Board resulted in charges for terminating Superintendent Dean Smith. Smith, 55 agreed to resign rather than face termination for an inappropriate relationship with a former student.

Smith, a former Baptist minister, recently left his wife of more than 30 years for a young woman he began “mentoring” while she was in the sixth grade. Supporters of Smith claim the relationship did not become intimate until after she turned 18.
Earlier this year, board members took their concerns to the San Luis Obispo County Sheriff’s Department. The investigation, which included interviews with Smith, the young woman and her mother, concluded that nothing illegal occurred.
“We found no evidence of criminal activity,” said Rob Bryn, sheriff’s public information officer.

Smith, when principal of Templeton Middle School, first met and began spending time with the young woman when she was in sixth grade in about 2003. Smith continued his relationship with the girl after he left Templeton Middle School for his position as superintendent in San Miguel. The young woman graduated from Templeton High School in June, shortly after she turned 18 and in July, Smith took her to a San Luis Obispo County Office of Education board meeting. When some of his fellow area superintendents realized the teenager accompanying Smith was not his niece, they began questioning what Smith was doing there with the teenager.

Additional articles:

Scandal plagued school superintendent replaced

Details of superintendent’s relationship with student released

Itawamba Teen's Rights Were Violated

Image by Creativity+ Timothy K Hamilton via Flickr

There is an update in the Itawamba County School District case. The judge said her rights were violated. Unfortunately, the prom is still off. How small of the school district to take away the prom for all just because they do not one person to attend.

Lesbian Prom Date Ban VIOLATED Constance McMillen's Rights, Judge Says

JACKSON, Miss. — The prom's still off at a Mississippi high school
that canceled it instead of letting a lesbian student bring her
girlfriend, but a federal judge ruled Tuesday that the district's
actions did violate the teen's constitutional rights.

U.S. District Judge Glen H. Davidson refused the American Civil
Liberties Union's demand to force the Itawamba County school district
to put on the April 2 prom. However, he said canceling it did violate
18-year-old Constance McMillen's rights and that he would hold a trial
on the issue.

That would come too late for the prom to be salvaged at Itawamba
Agricultural High School. Still, Kristy Bennett, ACLU Mississippi legal
director, called the decision a victory.

The American Civil Liberties Union sued the district to force it to
put on the prom and allow McMillen to bring her girlfriend and wear a
tuxedo. School officials said in U.S. District Court this week that
they decided to cancel it because McMillen's challenge to the rules had
caused disruptions.

The judge noted that McMillen has been openly gay since she was in
the eighth grade and that she intended to communicate a message by
wearing a tuxedo and escorting a same-sex date.

"The court finds this expression and communication falls squarely within the purview of the First Amendment," Davidson said.
As for McMillen, she said she was happy about the ruling but doesn't
know what to expect when she returns to school. She attended classes a
day after the March 10 decision to cancel the prom. But she said the
hostility and comments from other students led her to miss school. She
skipped class on Tuesday to go to the doctor and the fight is taking a
toll, she said. "My nerves are shot," she said.

District officials said in a statement that they were ready to get back to educating students.

Davidson said a private prom parents are planning will serve the same purpose as a school-sponsored one. He wrote that "requiring defendants to step back into a sponsorship role at this late date would only confuse and confound the community on the issue."

McMillen isn't sure if she'll go to the dance.

"I'm going to school tomorrow (Wednesday) and will get a feel of how everybody feels about me. That will help me make my decision about whether I'm going to the private prom," McMillen said. "I want to go because all my junior and senior class will be there, but I don't want to be somewhere I'm not welcomed."

Ben Griffith, the school district's attorney, said his clients were pleased with the ruling.

"What we're looking at now is the fact that the case is still on the docket for a trial on the merits," Griffith said.

McMillen first approached school officials about bringing her girlfriend in December, and again in February. Same-sex prom dates had been banned in the past, but she had hoped school officials would grant her request.

"I thought maybe the policy had been in place for a different reason," McMillen testified at a hearing on the ACLU lawsuit. "I wanted to let them know how it made me feel. I felt like I couldn't go to the prom."
She was told two girls couldn't attend together and she wouldn't be allowed to wear a tuxedo, court documents show. The ACLU issued a demand letter earlier this month and the district responded by canceling the event. McMillen, who lives with her grandmother and has a 3.8 grade point average, has kept her 16-year-old girlfriend out of the spotlight at the request of the girl's parents.

District officials said they felt not hosting the prom was the best decision "after taking into consideration the education, safety and well being of our students." Superintendent Teresa McNeece said it was "a no-win situation."

The 715-student high school is located in Fulton, a town of about 4,000 in rural, north Mississippi. The entire county school district has 3,588 students.

The case is typical of what's happening in schools across the country, said Charles Haynes, senior scholar for The Freedom Forum First Amendment Center.

"This case is different because this is not just dress, it is a higher claim of personal identity," Haynes said. "I think that if the student prevails in this case, it will send a message to school districts that they need to accommodate students now who are openly gay and lesbian and want to participate in student activities," Haynes said.

Her case has become a cause celebre.

She has appeared on the "The Early Show," "The Wanda Sykes Show" and "The Ellen DeGeneres Show" to talk about how she is fighting for tolerance. DeGeneres presented her with a $30,000 college scholarship from Tonic, a digital media company. A Facebook page set up by the ACLU for McMillen has over 400,000 fans.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Lesbian and ACLU Sue When School Says No Prom for You (No 2 Religion)
• US school 'violated lesbian student's rights' (guardian.co.uk)

Gay Teen Can Take Date To Prom But Gets Booted From Home

First we have a school district that does the wrong thing and now we have a school district that does the right thing but the parents do the wrong thing (see bolded text below).

Gay-rights backers reach out to Bleckley senior

By JULIE HUBBARD - jhubbard@macon.com

Gay-rights supporters from across the country are offering to buy everything from boutonnieres to dinner for a Bleckley County High School senior who was granted permission to take his boyfriend to the prom.

At least two supporters have offered to rent a stretch limo for Derrick Martin and his boyfriend.

Martin asked his principal this year if he could take another male to his senior prom, set for April 17.

At first school officials told the 18-year-old that the town of Cochran, with a population of 5,200, wasn’t ready for it.

The high school only had a policy that barred bringing a date older than the age of 21, so school officials subsequently told Martin they granted his request.

Many gay-rights activists are now posting the story on their Facebook pages. And an Atlanta filmmaker said he hopes to document the story.
“I sent flowers to his high school,” said Randi Reitan, a resident of Eden Prairie, Minn., who sent a bouquet of yellow flowers with a rainbow-colored balloon to Bleckley County High on Tuesday to show her support.

“We have a gay son. I wish he could’ve danced with a young man at his prom,” Reitan said.

She also has offered to buy Martin and his date, who is from Tift County, boutonnieres to wear on prom night.

Drew Dowdell from Pittsburgh is setting up a link on his Web site for people to leave donations for Martin to help buy the 18-year-old a limo ride to the prom.

“I want to help Derrick have the best prom he can because I worry that anti-gay people in his school will be doing their best to ruin it for him,” Dowdell said. “I’m proud that he was willing to go to the school to make an issue about it.”

Martin said he got 54 messages Tuesday on Facebook.

“I appreciate it,” he said. “I was speechless that they said they would buy me dinner or buy me a tux in case someone messed mine up.”


But because of the media attention, Martin’s parents have kicked him out and the teen is staying with a friend, he said.

Martin said he pushed to take his boyfriend to the dance after hearing about a girl in Mississippi who asked to take her girlfriend to the prom.
Her school eventually canceled the dance rather than allow them to attend together.

“Maybe (other gay students) will think if Bleckley County will let them, maybe my school will,” Martin said.

School Superintendent Charlotte Pipkin said the move is a first for Bleckley County.

“I’m not aware of it having happened in the past,” she said.
School officials have said they have no plans to cancel or change plans for the prom.

Related articles by Zemanta

• How Did Derrick Martin's Parents Celebrate His Gay Prom Win? By Kicking Him Out (queerty.com)
• Georgia High School Officials Allow Gay Prom Date (lezgetreal.com)

Spanking Still Happens in Public Schools?

Image via Wikipedia

Sometimes when I read something I just say WTF? I am pleased to see that a group is trying to reduce corporal punishment in schools. But, excuse me, shouldn't we be trying to eliminate it completely? Honestly, why is this still done at all?

Groups Aim Again to Reduce Spanking in N.C. Schools

By The Associated Press

Raleigh, N.C.

Children's advocates in North Carolina are this year seeking a spanking ban on students with disabilities after losing political tussles over corporal punishment in public schools the past few years.

Equipped with a report showing corporal punishment was used more than 1,400 times in 26 school districts last school year, speakers at a General Assembly education committee asked lawmakers Wednesday to consider a paddling ban for children with physical, mental or learning challenges when they reconvene in Raleigh in May.

There are better and more positive ways for teachers and administrators to deal with these children for their disruptive behavior than hitting them, said Sheri Strickland, president of the North Carolina Association of Educators and a longtime teacher of disabled children, which comprise about 13 percent of the state's public school population.

"I didn't hit my children for not knowing how to read ... and I wasn't going to hit my children for not knowing appropriate behavior," Strickland said. "We know that it's critical to a child's academic success to have positive contact with caring adults."

The new effort comes after the Legislature has declined to approve broader spanking bans. The House rejected in 2007 a statewide prohibition in all 115 school districts as opponents argued current state law should remain in place giving local education boards the choice to decide whether spanking is effective.

The House approved by a wide margin last year a bill giving parents the option of exempting their children from corporal punishment in the district where such a penalty is still carried out, but the Senate narrowly defeated the idea.

Now advocates have scaled back their request.

"That's our limited request to you to consider in this session," Tom Vitaglione, a senior fellow at Action for Children, told legislators.
Thirty states and the District of Columbia have barred corporal punishment in the public schools, according to The Center for Effective Discipline, an Ohio-based group seeking to end the practice.

Data on corporal punishment are hard to accumulate in North Carolina because local districts aren't required to report to the Department of Public Instruction on its use.

Action for Children contacted each school district and found 89 either ban corporal punishment outright or don't use it. Fourteen districts banned the practice in the past three years, the report said.

Of the other 26 districts, the number of times the punishment was administered during the last school year ranged from once in the Randolph County Schools to 325 times in the Burke County Schools. Three county systems — Burke, Nash (296 times) and Robeson (167) — comprised more than half of the punishments, the report said.

Some education oversight committee members expressed shame that North Carolina still allowed corporal punishment.

"To me it is an embarrassment for the state of North Carolina that we continue to participate in this type of behavior," said Rep. Susan Fisher, D-Buncombe.

But others were concerned about endorsing a change when there's no detailed information about whether the children received paddling several times, why students receive the punishment or how many are identified as disabled.

"We need to proceed with caution," said Rep. Laura Wiley, R-Guilford, who supports an outright ban but points out children with a reading disability could dodge punishment even though the difficulty has no connection to poor behavior.

Vitaglione said a U.S. Department of Education report determined students with disabilities received corporal punishment on 290 occasions in 2006 in North Carolina.

Rep. Curtis Blackwood, R-Union, criticized the choice of words in the Action for Children report, which he said was trying to arouse emotions so people would support the change.

Arthur Stellar, who was named Burke County Schools superintendent last fall, said he is personally opposed to corporal punishment and wants to talk to system officials about the policy but mentioned there are other pressing priorities. There also would need to be an alternative punishment model in place and support for the change from parents.
"If they objected that strongly, it would have been gone a long time ago," he said in a phone interview.

Principal Gets Christmas Right

Image via Wikipedia

Much to the chagrin of parents and at least one board member, Principal Erik Brown, has chosen to make Walsh Elementary School's Christmas celebration into a Winter Festival.

Principal Under Fire Over Christmas Spirit

By YVONNE NAVA

Updated 11:27 AM EST, Tue, Dec 8, 2009

A Waterbury principal won’t be getting a holiday card from some parents this year. Erik Brown, of Walsh Elementary School, is being criticized for his downplaying of Christmas symbols.

"If a symbol of Christmas takes away from the joy and spirit of Christmas, then those symbols have to go," Brown told the Republican American. "I'm going to pick kids over the symbols of Christmas."

The hubbub began last week, when Board of Education member Paul D’Angelo told others about his plan to get Brown to allow teachers the freedom to celebrate the holiday, the paper reports. D'Angelo also circulated a policy proposal to the Board on Monday that would allow educators freedom to observe holidays as they saw fit.

Soon after, a firestorm of complaints ensued. The elementary school has received endless e-mails and calls from as far away as Delaware, the Rep-Am reports. And it's been covered all over,  including in the Digital Journal.

The messages were nasty and, according to school staff, one person on the other line said “Merry (expletive) Christmas.”

So far, the district has no official policy and principals in the city's 30 schools and educational programs decide what's appropriate.

"As long as the line is not crossed between "teaching" about a holiday and "endorsing" the religion, this is acceptable, but no public school should promote any religious observance," the holiday gatherings memo on the school district Web site says.

Principal Brown says Jehovah's Witnesses are a big part of their school. They find secular Christmas decorations like Santa offensive distractions from Christ. Other parents agree.

"It's ridiculous," said Lisa Enwerem, who attended a student awards ceremony Monday. "There is separation of church and state, and this is a public school."

On the other hand, many other parents thought extra focus on Christmas would be nice.  Walsh parents and teachers who have spoken out on the issue seem to support Brown.

Walsh's upcoming "Winter Festival" will include songs from Kwanzaa, Hanukkah and Christmas. Shortly after becoming principal, Brown ditched Santa Claus to have someone dressed as Frosty the Snowman pass out gifts at the festival.

What Could Possibly Be Wrong With Handing Out Bibles In High Schools?

In an article in the Atlanta Journal Constitution by Maureen Downey she ponders why Georgia public schools still allow bibles to be handed out. Downey goes on to give a little history or our "Christian Nation".

Handing out Bibles at a high school: Why do we keep doing this in Georgia?

4:00 am November 27, 2009, by Maureen Downey

The zest with which Georgia schools test the church-state divide never fails to stun me.
I wonder if other states grapple with this issue or is this unique to the Bible Belt?
With the threat of litigation, public schools ought to think very carefully about allowing any religious group access to students and the possible charge of proselytizing on school grounds.
Yet, a north Georgia parent sent me a note that Bibles were handed out at her high school last week. She is a Christian and reveres the Bible, but doesn’t think the high school was the right place to hand it out.
Her concern mirrors my own: Our schools are attended by students of all faiths and traditions. All those faiths and belief deserve respect. We risk making many students feel like outsiders when we elevate one religion above all others.
Consider the 1656 warning by devout Baptist Roger Williams, the founder of Rhode Island, on the consequences of mixing religion and government: “God requireth not an uniformity of religion to be enacted and enforced in any civil state; which enforced uniformity, sooner or later, is the greatest occasion of civil war, ravishing of conscience, persecution of Christ Jesus in his servants and of the hypocrisy and destruction of millions of souls.”
More than a century later, Thomas Jefferson allayed the fears of the Baptist Association that the newly birthed United States of America was planning to designate a national religion. Responding to the worried Baptists, Jefferson wrote, “The First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between Church and State.”

Many of you will argue that America was created as a Christian nation. But the 1797 treaty between the United States and Tripoli, written under President George Washington and signed by his successor, John Adams, says that “the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”
But what about the phrase “one nation under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance and “In God We Trust” on our currency? Both grew out of the anti-Communist fervor of the McCarthy era.
In 1954, politicians tacked “under God” onto the pledge; three years later, they engraved “In God We Trust” onto paper money. Concerns were raised even then about blurring the line between church and state, but no lawmakers wanted to risk casting a vote against God.

James Madison believed that the only way to preserve both religion and government is to maintain a safe distance between them. “The tendency to a usurpation on one side or the other, or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them, will be best guarded against by an entire abstinence of the Government from interference in any way whatever, ” wrote Madison, “beyond the necessity of preserving public order, and protecting each sect against the trespasses on its legal rights by others.”
Madison got it right. Too many of our schools are getting it wrong.
Why?

Special Rights for the Religious in Public Schools

The religious right is trying and succeeded in some cases in getting laws passed in some states that gives special rights to the religious in public schools. These special rights don't really give them any more rights than is already allowed under the First Amendment. However, these laws allow the religious to be protected in what has been traditionally a secular space. Sandhya Bathija of Americans United writes in a blog post about what is happening in Massachusetts and has happened in other states.

Bogus Bill in Boston: Religious Right Targets Mass. Public Schools


November 13, 2009
 
It’s not often that Massachusetts falls under Americans United’s microscope. But this week, the Massachusetts Family Institute (MFI) has brought the New England state to our attention.
The group, a state affiliate of James Dobson’s Focus on the Family, has succeeded in finding bipartisan  sponsors for legislation that will “ensure the existing free speech rights of religious students” while they are in school.
The proposal, according to the Boston Globe, will require school districts to create policies to allow “a limited public forum and voluntary student expression of religious views at school events, graduation ceremonies, and in class assignments, and non-curricular school groups and activities.” The bill was written by MFI public policy director Evelyn Reilly.
It’s nothing we haven’t seen from the Religious Right before. In fact, it sounds strangely similar to a “Religious Viewpoint Antidiscrimination” measure that was passed by the Texas legislature in 2007.
According to Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s Web site, this law “does not expand religious expression in schools,” but makes it so children are “not shielded from religious expression nor exposed solely to secularism in our schools.” Perry, a Religious Right favorite, believes that mere “discussion does not lead to indoctrination; rather, it leads to open-mindedness and personal and educational betterment.”
It’s the same old song creationists have been singing for a long time. For years, it’s been a Religious Right tactic to push for teaching the “strengths and weaknesses” of evolution in an effort get religion into the science classroom. These “viewpoint anti-discrimination” bills are just another backdoor effort to do the same.
That’s why Americans United warned against the Texas measure in 2007 and another similar bill that was vetoed by Gov. Brad Henry in Oklahoma in 2008. Henry said the bill, if signed into law, could lead to “an explosion of costly and protracted litigation.” But finding Henry’s veto “totally bogus,” State Rep. Sally Kern introduced a different version of the bill again in 2009. It failed again.
Six other states also introduced similar measures earlier this year, including Georgia, South Carolina, Mississippi, Indiana, Kentucky and Arizona.
“This is a concentrated movement to force public schools to create forums exclusively for religious speech,” said AU State Legislative Counsel Dena Sher. “Students have a First Amendment right to voluntarily pray or read their Bibles in the public schools, but some people are using these bills to proselytize fellow students.”
We already know that students can talk freely about their religion at school and participate in after-school religious activities, such as Bible study.  But the courts have always drawn a distinction when students are addressing a captive audience, such as at graduation, said Ronal Madnick, president of the Massachusetts chapter of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
“You can’t do it where people have to be in attendance,” Madnick told the Globe.
This proposed legislation specifically states that students should be free to express religious views at school events. That doesn’t sound like the bill is trying to “ensure existing free speech rights” but rather expand them beyond current constitutional parameters.
Besides, we know it would be pointless to pass a bill that merely restates current law. Much more is at stake here, and knowing who’s behind it all, we have a pretty good idea just what that is.

High School Football and Prayer

I have no problem with student led prayer, although I think it is pointless, it is a personal activity. What I have a problem with is a public school or public official sponsored prayer. While the article shows that some schools have student led prayers at football games, these prayers are conducted over the school's public address system. This action amounts to implicit, if not explicit, endorsement of religion by the school. I see no difference between this action and the action in Georgia.

In the article below, Gulf County Superintendent Tim Wilder said, “We have always supported it. Our board supports it. If we find out we’re doing something illegal, we’ll consult our attorney.” No one has ever complained about the prayers..." Just because no one has complained does not mean it is Ok. In fact the article notes that in 2000 the Supreme Court ruled that a school in Texas violated the establishment clause by allowing students to pray before football games over the public address system.

When is it OK to pray in school?

Prayer in public schools is a contentious subject in Northwest Florida

By Katie Tammen and Will Hobson / Florida Freedom Newspapers

Port St. Joe’s last home football game of 2009 began like any other, with player introductions and a prayer.
The public address announcer introduced each senior individually, then handed the microphone to a local minister.
The din of the crowd dropped to murmurs. Most of the people in the stands bowed their heads. A few players dropped to one knee.
“Father, we do thank you for the blessings of this day,” said Troy White of New Life Christian Center, a non-denominational Port St. Joe church. White thanked God for the athletes, asked Him to guide the seniors as they made career and college choices, to keep the players safe, and to bless everyone at the game.
“This we ask you in Jesus’ name. Amen,” White concluded.
Christian prayer prior to football games is a tradition in the South. But prayers like the one said at Port St. Joe over the school-owned public address system also might violate the “establishment clause” of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Gulf County School District officials believe the pre-game prayers are both positive and legal.
But similar practices elsewhere have landed school districts in divisive lawsuits that can cost districts hundreds of thousands of tax dollars.
“They’re setting themselves up for a legal fight, and that’s just unfortunate,” said Charles Haynes, a senior scholar at the First Amendment Center, a nonpartisan organization with offices in Washington D.C. and Nashville, Tenn. “No one wins with these lawsuits.”

Contentious topic

Prayer in public schools is a contentious subject in Northwest Florida.
A U.S. District Judge placed the Santa Rosa County School District under a court order in January that prevents officials from sanctioning or leading religious activities.
In response, Santa Rosa County students began leading voluntary prayers this fall before high school games.
Meanwhile, 100 or so miles to the east, Florida Freedom reporters observed pre-game prayers this fall at schools in Gulf, Washington and Jackson counties. They all followed a similar pattern.
At Graceville High School in Jackson County, a student led a prayer over the public address system before the Oct. 2 game against Blountstown. The student asked the “Heavenly Father” to keep the players and the crowd safe.
That same night a student also led a prayer over the public address system in Gulf County before Wewahitchka High School played Bozeman, asking for the safety of the players and crowd, but making no mention of a deity.
A week later, the announcer at Wewahitchka’s game against Liberty County offered a prayer to Jesus Christ over the public address system.
Washington County students frequently lead Christian prayers over the public address system at Chipley and Vernon games. Typically, the crowd is asked to stand and bow their heads by the announcer before a student prays.
School officials in all three counties said they intend to continue the practice.
“We support it (the prayer),” said Gulf County Superintendent Tim Wilder. “We have always supported it. Our board supports it. If we find out we’re doing something illegal, we’ll consult our attorney.”
No one has ever complained about the prayers, the officials said.
“If anything, I’ll hear about it if they don’t pray,” said Washington County Superintendent Sandra Cook.

What’s legal?

The U.S. Supreme Court has made a number of rulings about what is and is not legal when it comes to prayer in schools.
Still, questions abound.
“There are lots of people, who if they feel strongly about something, really don’t care what the Supreme Court says,” said Douglas Laycock, a University of Michigan Law School professor who specializes in the First Amendment. “If they want to find a way to keep doing it, they will. That’s been the history of this litigation ever since the Supreme Court started deciding these cases in 1962.”
The legal debate hit Northwest Florida in August 2008 when the American Civil Liberties Union, on behalf of some students, sued Santa Rosa County schools for promoting Christianity. After a five-month legal battle, the district admitted liability and agreed to abide by a court order that prevented school officials from promoting any religion.
This fall, Santa Rosa County high school students began leading football crowds in the Lord’s Prayer – a practice that the students involved say is voluntary, doesn’t involve use of the public address system, and is not sanctioned by school officials.
The trouble arises, according to some legal scholars, when students are allowed to use a school’s public address system to lead the prayers, as they are in Chipley, Graceville, Port St. Joe, Vernon and Wewahitchka. The public address system is school property, and use of it to pray implies school endorsement, said Haynes, who has written extensively about religion in schools.
The legal basis for this argument was established in 2000 when the Supreme Court ruled that a school in Santa Fe, Texas, violated the establishment clause by allowing students to pray before football games over the public address system.
“Religious liberty is about keeping the government out of our religious choices and commitments,” said Laycock, who wrote a brief in the Santa Fe case. “We leave religion to individual families and churches, and you just can’t deliver a prayer for a large crowd in a way that is consistent with the religious liberty of everybody there.”
Under current interpretation of the law, Haynes said the only way prayers over the school public address system can be constitutional is if they are part of a free-speech forum. To be considered a free-speech forum, several considerations need to be met.
“Does the school give the microphone over to any and all students on all occasions or a student, who, wink, wink, was going to give a prayer?” Haynes asked.
Another important factor is the schools’ past actions.
“History counts,” said Haynes. “What is the pattern here in this community?”
If a lawsuit is filed, a district is likely in for a long and expensive legal battle. Santa Rosa Schools spent more than $440,000, and their case didn’t even go to trial.
Neither Haynes nor Laycock definitively said that Northwest Florida schools are in violation of the law by allowing prayers over the public address systems. But both questioned the legality of the practice.
“I don’t think the school is wise to be cute about this, to try to find some way to get around the law,” Haynes said. “It’s possible that they could get away with it, but I think they know what they’re doing.”

Not so crystal clear

Most school administrators said as long as pregame prayers are student-led, and the content is not previewed or approved by school staff, then they are respecting both the establishment clause and the free speech requirements of the First Amendment.
Graceville Principal Chris Franklin said he worries that stopping a student from praying over the public address system would violate that student’s right to free speech.
“We don’t want to do anything wrong, but we have to respect students’ rights,” he said.
Some legal experts support Franklin’s understanding of the law.
“It’s not an automatic violation of the so-called separation of church and state because religious remarks come over the PA system,” said David Cortman, senior legal counsel with Alliance Defense Fund. “The more particular facts should be applied, not an erroneous broad brush, which is why the Santa Fe case doesn’t apply as particularly to these situations as Adler v. Duval County.”
The 2001 ruling Cortman cited was one of two made by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta after the Santa Fe case that allowed prayer over public address systems at school events as long as the prayers were student-led with no school approval.
“There’s a difference between government-sponsored religion and going so far as to limit private religious speech. I think the ACLU continues its seek-and-destroy mission of all religious speech,” Cortman said.

Read the full article and see the accompanying video here.

Of Rainbow's, Tuxedo's and Gays

Image via Wikipedia

The ACLU has been tracking stories of discrimination of gay public school students. It bothers me to no end that stories like this are all to frequent. But, it does not surprise me that both of these stories take place in the south - no offense to my southern atheist friends. Will these people ever learn!

What Were They Thinking?!?
Banning Tuxedos and Rainbows

Earlier this month, the ACLU heard of a story about a young woman—a straight A student, goalie on the soccer team and a trumpet player—who was denied a photo in her school yearbook because she was wearing a tuxedo.
School officials told Ceara Sturgis, an openly gay senior at Wesson Attendance Center in Wesson, MS, that her photo would not appear in the yearbook because in it she is wearing a tuxedo, not the traditional drape worn by other female students. Assistant Superintendent Robert Holloway informed Ceara's mother that there was no policy in the student handbook requiring females to wear drapes.
 
>>Learn more about the case in Mississippi.

This reminds us of another ridiculous case in Florida where school officials tried to limit the self expression of students by banning rainbows—any kind of rainbow—including Reading Rainbow, the Apple logo and Pink Floyd t-shirts.

Thankfully, the case in Florida ended in a victory for First Amendment rights.

Check out the video to see the school board fight the insidious “Reading Rainbow” logo.

The ACLU is fighting for the First Amendment rights of students throughout the country. Trying to remove photos of women in tuxedos and rainbows at schools makes us really wonder: What were they thinking?!?

Wheels on the Bus Go Round and Round

It is good that school officials in a predominately Mormon area can still keep things secular.

Bus driver disciplined for asking kids to sing
by Jeremy Foster/KTAR (October 21st, 2009 @ 3:27pm)

MESA, Ariz. - A school bus driver in the East Valley is in trouble after asking LDS students on the bus to sing religious songs on the way to school.

Kathy Bareiss, with Mesa Public Schools, says while most of the students on board were Mormon, not all of them were.

"It's not appropriate to ask children what their religion is," Bareiss told KTAR. "The bus driver has been disciplined and we are sending him for some training."

She says some students weren't happy with the bus driver for asking them about their religion.

"Unfortunately there were some students who were not LDS and they were uncomfortable in the situation," said Bareiss.

The children on the bus attend Hermosa Vista Elementary School in Mesa.

Kansan's with Less Education Want Creationism Taught in Schools

A recently published survey conducted by the Docking Institute of Public Affairs at Fort Hays State University in Hays, Kansas shows that the lower the education achieved the more likely a Kansan is to support the teaching of creationism in Kansas' public schools. The following is excerpted from pages 43-45 of the Kansas Speaks 2009 report:

Some interesting variations were found in opinions of teaching evolution and creationism in public schools between respondents with varying levels of education. Respondents with no college education tended to prefer that either creationism or neither perspectives be taught. Very few of these respondents wanted evolution taught. Respondents with some college, but less than a bachelors degree, were most likely to prefer that both perspectives be taught and were more evenly divided among those preferring that only one of the two perspectives be taught.

Male and upper income respondents tended to prefer that either evolution or both perspectives be taught in public schools, while females and lower income respondents tended to prefer that creationism or neither perspective be taught.

Update - Special Area Provided for Religious Signs at Football Games

A couple of weeks ago I posted about the Special Area Provided for Religious Signs at Football Games. Apparently, the debate is still going on although no one has yet sued they are certainly playing the First Amendment card on both sides.

John Pless of WTVC-TV NewsChannel 9 posted the following article on the continuing saga in Catoosa County.

Who Is Right About The Law, Cheerleaders, The Bible?

The debate over Bible verses posted at one high school's football games rages on with both sides making passionate arguments while petitions are being tossed around. But lost in all the emotion is the law and what the courts say the First Amendment means.
So who is right, and will anyone spend the huge amount of money and time to challenge the court's interpretation of the law? So far no one has sued.
Ringgold Attorney Matthew Bryan, who has recently spoken on behalf of the cheerleaders actions, said Wednesday "let me clarify that I am not ready to pursue this in the courts and I don't know whether a group of people is or not."
But Bryan does want to clarify his interpretation of the law -- the First Amendment to the Constitution -- that so many people at Tuesday night's Catoosa County School Board meeting shared. They don't like the School District putting an end to a practice on the Lakeview Forth Oglethorpe High School football field.
Before home games players would run through a banner peppered with verses from the Bible and erupt on the field in a show of "Warrior" team spirit. But the School District says it gives the appearance of the public school promoting a religion.
"The issue is going to be, are the signs private student speech or are they state sponsored speech," Bryan said.
Byan said the banners are an expression of private student speech. He said similar legal battles over religion vs. public schools have resulted in the courts favoring expression of religion in some cases. In other cases, Bryan said the courts sided with public schools.
Each case that has been tried and adjudicated revolves around very particular, unique issues and circumstances that are very different from each other -- whether it's an issue of what a student wears, says or expresses and how those thoughts and opinions are expressed.
Here's how the attorney for the Catoosa County School District sees this particular issue with the cheerleaders.
"The engaging of pre-game activities at a football game, that the school is sponsoring the religious activity, that's the heart of the matter," Rezno Higgins said.
Of course lawyers and the courts have different interpretations of what the First Amendment to the Constitution means. While there have been plenty of cases decided that involve religious issues and public schools there has never been a case involving cheerleaders or banners with Biblical verses on the playing field.
What has been so puzzling to parents and students is the School District will allow religious expresion in the stands, outside the stadium and on t-shirts -- all in plain view of anyone attending the game -- but not on the playing field which is also in plain view.
"The activity in the stands, the activity right outside the stadium, the activity off the field and off the sidelines does not give the impression to a casual observer that the school is sponsoring the religious activity," Wiggins explained.
But Bryan said cheerleaders are being denied their right to freely express their private views, according to the way he reads some past court decisions.
"We don't have the school system having anything to do with the message and these banners are not going up because of some policy the school system has in order to promote religion," Bryan said. "Without these two factors it remains private student speech and so has First Amendment protection."
For either side this would be a difficult case to prepare and argue before the courts. Similar lawsuits against school boards involving religious issues take years to settle and cost between $350,000 and $1-million.
Wiggins said complications, costs and time consumed increase in these type of cases because organizations and special interest groups file motions and orders with the court that have to be settled before the main case can be heard and resolved.
"Every dollar that's spent on attorney fees and defense of legal costs in this matter is a dollar that doesn't go for the education of students," Wiggins said.

Related articles at News Channel 9:
http://www.newschannel9.com/news/support-985255-game-cheerleaders.html
http://www.newschannel9.com/news/school-985252-signs-game.html
http://www.newschannel9.com/news/school-985156-support-students.html

Special Area Provided for Religious Signs at Football Games

Image by WRBC via WRBC

When I first read the article below I said WTF? Then I realized that the school had already done the right thing and banned the religious banners. However, due to a complaint they allowed them back, although about 50 yards away, they are still on the school grounds. WTdoubleF? What part of keeping religion and its influence out of public schools don't they understand?!

While the district superintendent supported her decision to not allow the banners with case law, she none the less appreciated the students "christian values". However, one of the best quotes comes from a cheerleader at the high school, "It was heartbreaking to know that our school system is just conforming to the nonbelievers and letting them have their way when there's so many more people wanting the signs. Our freedom of speech and freedom of religion is being taken away." Fail!


The following is the article from Fox News online:

A public high school in Georgia that recently banned banners containing Bible verses from being displayed at its football games will designate an area roughly 50 yards away from the field for cheerleaders, students and others to erect signs with religious themes, the school's principal said Wednesday.

The decision comes after a group of cheerleaders were told they could no longer display the religious banners — a mainstay at the school for eight years — on the football field at Lakeview-Fort Oglethorpe High School in Fort Oglethorpe, Ga. The ruling caused an uproar in the community.
Jerry Ransom, the school's principal, said he expects the newly designated area, on the school's lawn, will see a large turnout.
"I expect a lot of kids to have signs and T-shirts," Ransom told FOXNews.com on Wednesday. "We've designated an area to hold the 'run-through' signs outside the stadium for those who want to display Christian signs or Muslim signs or whatever they want to do.
"We've got a big front yard here, and we're going to try and accommodate everyone."
Click here for a video.
Ransom said the religious-themed banners, which the school's cheerleaders hand-craft during the summer, have been a fixture at the school's football games since shortly after the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. He said he had not received any complaints from football players or other students regarding the signs.

One of the signs that was banned from the football field was a "run-through" banner displayed before a game on Sept. 18. It read: "I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called in me Christ Jesus."
Hundreds of people rallied at the high school on Tuesday to support the cheerleaders, who were told last week that they could no longer display the religious-themed signs during Friday night games.
One of those supporters said the decision to ban the signs infringed on the students' freedom of speech.
"Our Constitution does guarantee that our federal government will not establish a religion," youth pastor Jeremy Jones told the Chattanooga Times Free Press. "It will also make sure that we are allowed to exercise it without interference from the government. That is what we need to fight for, folks."
Jones, one of the rally's organizers, said Catoosa County Schools Superintendent Denia Reese violated the students' right to freedom of religion when she ruled last week, following a complaint to the district, that the banners could no longer be shown, since they violated federal law by promoting religion at a school function.
Reese, who could not be reached for comment on Wednesday, ignited the controversy three days later when she released a statement regarding the banners.
"Personally, I appreciate this expression of their Christian values," Reese said in a statement. "However, as superintendent I have the responsibility of protecting the school district from legal action by groups who do not support their beliefs."
Reese's statement also noted that the U.S. Supreme Court and Court of Appeals have ruled that religious activities at high school football games create the "inescapable conclusion" that the school endorses such activity. Violations can lead to costly lawsuits or the potential loss of federal funding, she said.
"I regret that the cheerleaders can not display their signs in the football stadium without violating the first amendment," Reese's statement continued. "I rely on reading the Bible daily, and I would never deny our students the opportunity to express their religious beliefs."
Taylor Quinn, a cheerleader at the school, said she understood Reese's decision but was "angry" about it nonetheless.
"I'm sad and angry about it, because we're silenced for what we believe in," she told the Chattanooga Times Free Press. "It was heartbreaking to know that our school system is just conforming to the nonbelievers and letting them have their way when there's so many more people wanting the signs.
"Our freedom of speech and freedom of religion is being taken away."
Fort Oglethorpe Mayor Ronnie Cobb reportedly disagrees with the ban and will call on City Council officials to support the cheerleaders' right to display the signs.
Meanwhile, Ransom said he expects a fiery crowd Friday night when the Lakeview-Fort Oglethorpe Warriors meet the Ridgeland Panthers.
"That's our big rival," he said. "So on top of everything else, it's going to be a big game no matter what."

Creationists Continue to Dictate Luisiana Science Education Policy

Press release from the Louisiana Coalition for Science

Baton Rouge, LA, September 28, 2009 — On September 16, the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education (BESE) ignored the recommendations of science education professionals in the Louisiana Department of Education (DOE) and allowed the Louisiana Family Forum (LFF), a Religious Right lobbying group, to dictate the procedure concerning complaints about creationist supplementary materials used in public school science classes under the 2008 Louisiana Science Education Act (LSEA). At BESE’s September 16 Student/School Performance and Support (SSPS) Committee  meeting, DOE presented recommendations for reviewing such materials (see attached DOE proposal). However, DOE’s recommendations were amended to include changes proposed by SSPS Committee chair Dale Bayard, the LFF’s point man at BESE (see attached draft). BESE committee members approved the changes without opposition after hearing testimony by creationists who attended the meeting. As a result, the prerogatives of the DOE professional science education staff have been severely undermined, as explained below. The audiotape of the meeting shows that Bayard and the LFF pulled off a royal snow job.

Read the complete text here.

A Quick Email to the Illinois Family Institute

I was appalled at what was written about Hemant so I sent a short email to the IFI after reading Hemant's post. Here is what I sent, nothing fancy but just something to let them know how I felt:

"I was deeply disturbed to read the professional hit piece penned by Laura Higgins on Hemant Mehta "The Friendly Atheist". Not only was it highly unprofessional to personally attack Hemant over his critique of IFI but the attack on his professional character for something unrelated to "The Friendly Atheist" was particularly egregious."

However, I also wanted to add a few things here:

Higgins wrote:

"Parents have a justifiable concern that the personal views of teachers may find their way into the classroom, either through curricular choices or classroom commentary. Those parents who want nothing more than that their children will believe in God may find someone whose mission in life is to persuade young people to reject a belief in God to be a poor role model."

I couldn't agree more with the first part of her statement as I am very active in finding out the philosophy of my daughter teachers. However, I would be concerned with a teacher that talked about God and their personal beliefs in the classroom.

"Many parents would recoil at having their children spend a school year under the tutelage of a teacher--particularly a charismatic teacher--who in his or her free time blogs favorably about racism and travels the length and breadth of the country preaching racism. Similarly, some parents may recoil at having their children spend a year under the tutelage of a teacher who spends his free time blogging favorably about atheism and homosexuality and traveling the length and breadth of the country preaching favorably about atheism."

I think it is more likely that parents would recoil at the thought of a teacher who spends there free time blogging about religion, Creationism, and Intelligent Design and traveling the country speaking favorably about these unsupported topics.

"Moreover, my fervent hope is that more parents will become involved in public school issues, including asserting their rights regarding the teachers under whose tutelage they place their children."

I certainly hope parents because organizations like the IFI have been pushing for a role in our children's public education for too long.

What I found most interesting though was in her Bio.

"Prior to working for the Illinois Family Institute (IFI), Laurie worked full-time for eight years in the writing center of Deerfield High School, a public high school located in a Chicago suburb."

As a former public school employee she should know how damaging her comments could be to a teacher. Also, I wonder if Ms. Higgins ever spoke about religion in her job.

"Laurie is the Director of the Division of School Advocacy (DSA) for IFI. The newly established Division of School Advocacy is committed to assisting Illinois residents address issues related to the breakdown of Judeo-Christian family values and community standards in public education."

And lastly what breakdown in Judeo-Christian values is she advocating? Aren't public schools supposed to be secular?

---

Sorry, I thought I was done. While trying to find a picture of Ms. Higgins (which I didn't find) I did find many articles by and about Ms. Higgins and her very vocal fundie opinions about schools while she worked as a teacher aide. Here are links to a few:

http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2007/01/deerfield_high__1.html

http://archives.chicagotribune.com/2007/mar/08/news/chi-0703080239mar08

http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/8987/

OK that's enough. I need to go to bed.