« Getting Ready for the Women's Tackle Football Season | Main | Out Cold Without a Comment Script »
April 1, 2008
Confused Americans for Truth - Free Speech and Public Education
In the fall of 1966, for reasons I do not completely understand, the young lady who taught sixth-grade English at Maercker Junior High School informed Bruce that he was prohibited from writing about cats. At the time, Bruce argued-- correctly in my opinion-- that cats were wonderful creatures with fascinating personalities who should be celebrated as protectors of mankind instead of being condemned as predators. What he didn't do, because it was an entirely different world back then, was to sue the school for abridging his right to free speech.
A Wisconsin high school student is currently playing the free-speech card because he wanted to use a cross and a bible verse in an art project. A free-speech lawsuit gets the kid a lot of media attention, and there's a certain satisfaction in the idea that you can hoist the ACLU on its own petard. Nonetheless, Jesus had very strong opinions about living within the system and abrogating revenge. In this situation, he's spot on. Nobody's opinion will be changed by this lawsuit. Nothing will be fixed or improved by this lawsuit. See, the very act of bringing the lawsuit shows you have surrendered to the principle of our one-size-fits-all public education system. It is that system, not its rules, that brutalizes young men who are better at relating to cats than to people.
The No Child Left Behind act was designed to solve our education problems by increasing a parent's choices in situations where the public school does not do an adequate job. The education establishment, however, has been working hard to discredit this process. While we're getting our revenge, an important opportunity is slipping through our fingers.
If you tell liberals that it's wrong to suppress Christian symbols in art class because the social studies teacher has Hindu sculptures on display, then their response will be to remove the Hindu stuff. To them, fairness is always about more control, not less. Instead of moral outrage, we need positive proposals. Moral outrage is flashier and gets better press coverage, but it is the positive proposals that make tomorrow better than today.
After all, it does little good to win a battle when you've already conceded the war.
Respectfully submitted,
Ferdinand T. Cat
# At Tue 12:52 PM | Permalink | Trackback URI | Comments (1) | More Confused Americans for Truth | Tags: Christianity church and state conservative education free speech philosophy public schools religion
Trackback Pings
» 10,000; Thank You! from Rosemary's Thoughts
Someone visited me today from one of my other sites, Loving God Holy, and they were the 10,000th visitor! Thanks to all of you who have made this bumpy transition work for me ... [Read More]
Tracked on April 2, 2008 12:46 AM
Comments
Basically, the timeline goes something like this:
Day one:
1.0 Student attends class.
1.2 Teacher presents syllabus on day one which proscribes sexual, gory, violent and religious subject matter.
1.3 Student agrees to syllabus as presented.
Some point later in the semester:
2.0 Student refrains from producing several pieces to adhere to the conditions in the syllabus.
Some point after that:
3.0 Student adds a cross and a biblical citation into a landscape drawing.
3.1 Teacher instructs student to remove it, citing syllabus
3.2 Student tears up syllabus
3.3 Student ears a zero.
Why is anyone suing over this? Why did a lawyer take the case? Why was it not laughed out of court?
The existence of other religious imagery on school grounds are not relevant-- Hindu imagery in the social studies class and a reproduction of the ceiling of the sistine chapel were not art projects for this particular class (unless they're teaching some very competent forgers)
The argument that "demonic" drawings were accepted and the syllabus was therefore unfairly enforced is shaky at best. I doubt the students who produced the horned demons practice devil worship in any meaningful way, and absent the intent to proseletize for Satan, I don't see how it constitutes a breach of the syllabus.
What's at stake here is the ability of teachers to set forth course requirements. If little Herman goes to a history class and is offended that subject Y is not covered as extensively as subject X, does that violate the little Herman's free speech rights given the fact that most history classes require written essays?
Or if asked an essay question ("what do Martin Luther King Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi have in common?") little Herman gives a factually correct but meaningless answer ("They are both people who have not been in my kitchen."), does little Herman have the right to sue if he loses points for his creative answer?
If the student in this case wins, it nullifies the student-teacher agreement. Syllabi become meaningless. As a more immediate concern, students in this class would not only be allowed to draw crosses, but also pictures of nude women having their throats cut while being raped.
I doubt the student filing the lawsuit has considered that, or that his parents would be amused to find what their insistence on unfettered free speech for high-schoolers would bring about.
Posted by: Greg D at April 4, 2008 8:26 AM
Leave a comment
Leave a comment