Student Sues School District and Teacher After Being Punished for Expressing His Religious Beliefs

[donsnow]

Good morning, all,

I’m glad the kid brought a suit against the teacher. The suit describes clearly the bullying we all receive from militant gays and from the militants in the different establishments who claim to support gay rights, whatever those are.

Why should any sector of our society, including gays and illegal immigrants, have different rights than the rest of us? We all have the same rights under the law and we all need to stand up for our rights and for the rights of the downtrodden. But, because of their militants, gays and illegals are abusing the same rights in others that they claim are abused in their lives. And, that’s not right.

So, there is injustice from both sides, on these rights issues.

God loves all of you, lurkers, too,
Don

 

[PaulinVA]

Yes, people demanding tolerance from others are the most intolerant people.

I find it interesting that TMLC decided to tie the NEA and the state and local union into the discriminatory atmosphere in the school district. That’s a conspiracy to deprive people of their constitutional rights. I wonder if they are going to use this in other parts of the country?

What the suit says is the teacher, who is the president of the local union, bullied a Catholic student on a day meant to combat bullying. The irony is thick.

Oh, and some gay guy filed a complaint against the lawyers in the TMLC suit for filing a lawsuit with discriminatory language against gays in it.

 

[sedonaman]

… who’s to say that the kid didn’t say something derogatory about the LGBT community? Something like “those f@gs are going to hell” IS insulting. In that case, yes, the teacher was justified in sending the teacher out of class.
…

I disagree whole-heartedly. Such a comment might be insulting, but the student was asked his opinion, and such a hypothetical response to the teacher’s inquiry would be protected speech. Whether speech is insulting or not is not and cannot be a criterion for determining what speech is protected because sensitivities vary widely. For example, I could claim that “those f@gs are going to hell” is a theological statement.

The idea behind the First Amendment is to protect unpopular speech; popular speech needs no protection.

Perhaps I missed it, but no one picked up on the idea that education is all about the pursuit of truth, not advocacy. Even if the student was out of line, it is no excuse for the government, represented by the teacher, the school, and the whole school district, to engage in advocating a particular political point of view. They are all guilty of political advocacy and deserve to have the book thrown at them for abusing their authority.

 

[sedonaman]

…And it [the assembly] referenced the incident between Defendant McDowell and Plaintiff D.K.G. to support the claim that hate speech was masquerading as religious speech.

Speech codes should be called what they are: “Intent-to-persecute” codes.

1. Upon mentioning the October 20, 2010 incident, a large number of students turned their attention to Plaintiff D.K.G., causing him to get up and leave the assembly due to the pressure and embarrassment.

Thus adding insult to injury.

 

[Yerusalyim]

I feel as if we only have half of the story… who’s to say that the kid didn’t say something derogatory about the LGBT community? Something like “those f@gs are going to hell” IS insulting. In that case, yes, the teacher was justified in sending the teacher out of class.

Also, what’s with everyone talking about the “alleged” bullying of lesbians and gays? It’s not “alleged”, it actually happens. People ARE picked on due to their orientation and their orientation alone, and pretending it doesn’t happen doesn’t solve anything.

If that were the case…had the child used the word fag, it would be all over the news…the school would have let it slip…besides…the other kid was kicked out of class simply for supporting the one with the opinion. But that takes us back to the first question…the economics teacher had NO BUSINESS discussing sexuality at all.

Second…people ARE picked on due to a whole host of issues…not just sexuality. Bullying is a problem regardless of the reason be it sexual orientation, RELIGION, weight, appearance, etc…and the teacher displayed a prime example of it. In the schools I’ve worked in gays and lesbians are not bullied…it’s the “in thing” for a lot of kids.

 

[Orogeny]

Also, what’s with everyone talking about the “alleged” bullying of lesbians and gays? It’s not “alleged”, it actually happens. People ARE picked on due to their orientation and their orientation alone, and pretending it doesn’t happen doesn’t solve anything.

People are picked on due to their size and size alone. People are picked on due to their religious beliefs and their religious beliefs alone (ie the plaintif in the case being discussed). People are picked on due to their socioeconomic status and their socioeconomic status alone.

People are picked on for a lot of reasons, and only one of those reasons is their sexual orientation. I know. I was the recipient of bullying based on my size and my family’s lack of money. I don’t believe that it would have been worse if it had been based on my heterosexuality.

By the way, I really just kinda blew it off and avoided situations where I might be picked on whenever possible. Nothing really needed to be solved by adults.

Peace

Tim

 

[incense]

People are picked on due to their size and size alone. People are picked on due to their religious beliefs and their religious beliefs alone (ie the plaintif in the case being discussed). People are picked on due to their socioeconomic status and their socioeconomic status alone.

People are picked on for a lot of reasons, and only one of those reasons is their sexual orientation. I know. I was the recipient of bullying based on my size and my family’s lack of money. I don’t believe that it would have been worse if it had been based on my heterosexuality.

And everybody’s name was distorted in some way to be derogatory. And the kid down the street use to push other kids off their bikes, I thought because she was just plain mean. But maybe she thought we were all homosexuals.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

How many of us would be willing to raise a hand in agreement after seeing what happened to a fellow student?

You mean after seeing a fellow student disrupt class because he doesn’t like the fact that his teacher is wearing a purple shirt in honor of Tyler Clementi? Daniel Glowacki deserved to be booted from the classroom for disruption and insubordination. The only thing the teacher did wrong was perpetuate the problem after Glowacki walked out the door.

 

[LiveCatholic]

You mean after seeing a fellow student disrupt class because he doesn’t like the fact that his teacher is wearing a purple shirt in honor of Tyler Clementi? Daniel Glowacki deserved to be booted from the classroom for disruption and insubordination. The only thing the teacher did wrong was perpetuate the problem after Glowacki walked out the door.

haha, I didn’t know the school in question was a Victorian English boarding school or a Prussian military academy. “Insubordination?”–are you kidding? *And if expressing a viewpoint in conflict from your instructor, especially when it is neither documented fact or a point in the lesson plan, is considered ‘intolerable disruption,’ then the intellectual breadth of the American high school will be limited to the opinions and knowledge of the empty-headed, 20-something B.Ed who coasted through university to a salaried career with the local school district. *

This kind of leaden-handed discipline has no place in this century, and anyone with a progressive bone in their body can see this.

 

[Allegra]

You mean after seeing a fellow student disrupt class because he doesn’t like the fact that his teacher is wearing a purple shirt in honor of Tyler Clementi? Daniel Glowacki deserved to be booted from the classroom for disruption and insubordination. The only thing the teacher did wrong was perpetuate the problem after Glowacki walked out the door.

Unless you have extra information that hasn’t been presented, there is nothing to suggest that the boy disrupted the class in anyway. The teacher was the one who brought up the subject and he offered a different point of view. There isn’t anything in the law suit that suggests the boy was offensive or disrespectful. Disagreeing with his teacher when directly asked his opinion certainly doesn’t constitute insubordination.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

The teacher was the one who brought up the subject and he offered a different point of view.

That is incorrect. The student started the confrontation by questioning why the teacher should be allowed to wear a purple shirt with a rainbow flag on it after he had instructed one of the student’s classmates to remove a confederate flag belt buckle because it was deemed offensive by the school board. The teacher merely explained the difference between the two flags before the student blurted out “I don’t accept gays.” and, when instructed not to make such remarks in his classroom, the student repeated it and attempted to use his religion as justification. This is a cut and dry case of a teacher attempting to maintain order and authority in his own classroom; nothing more. And, despite this kid’s claims, there is nothing about Catholicism which prohibits its followers from treating gay people with dignity and respect.

 

[LiveCatholic]

That is incorrect. The student started the confrontation by questioning why the teacher should be allowed to wear a purple shirt with a rainbow flag on it after he had instructed one of the student’s classmates to remove a confederate flag belt buckle because it was deemed offensive by the school board. The teacher merely explained the difference between the two flags before the student blurted out “I don’t accept gays.” and, when instructed not to make such remarks in his classroom, the student repeated it and attempted to use his religion as justification. This is a cut and dry case of a teacher attempting to maintain order and authority in his own classroom; nothing more. And, despite this kid’s claims, there is nothing about Catholicism which prohibits its followers from treating gay people with dignity and respect.

…

This account is based on…?

You’re right on the dignity and respect thing, though.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

This account is based on…?

The teacher’s recollection of events. Which, I might add, seems to be a lot more fresh and coherent than what the student is claiming in a lawsuit filled with “or words to that effect” because he can’t even remember what the teacher actually said.

 

[sedonaman]

That is incorrect. The student started the confrontation by questioning why the teacher should be allowed to wear a purple shirt with a rainbow flag on it after he had instructed one of the student’s classmates to remove a confederate flag belt buckle because it was deemed offensive by the school board. The teacher merely explained the difference between the two flags before the student blurted out “I don’t accept gays.” and, when instructed not to make such remarks in his classroom, the student repeated it and attempted to use his religion as justification. This is a cut and dry case of a teacher attempting to maintain order and authority in his own classroom; nothing more…

This is another attempt to re-write history of what happened to fit an ideology. Liberals are not interested in eliminating oppression; they just want to oppress those who disagree with them.

And, despite this kid’s claims, there is nothing about Catholicism which prohibits its followers from treating gay people with dignity and respect.

Where did the student say anything against gays? He said he was opposed to the lifestyle, and so is the Church.

 

[PaulinVA]

That is incorrect. The student started the confrontation by questioning why the teacher should be allowed to wear a purple shirt with a rainbow flag on it after he had instructed one of the student’s classmates to remove a confederate flag belt buckle because it was deemed offensive by the school board.

See, this teacher wore a purple shirt to have the opportunity to talk about gay rights in the classroom. When a student confronted his diatribe, he was unable to rationally and coherently explain the difference between a rainbow symbol that offends some people and a confederate flag that offends other people. The teacher was unprepared to finish the teachable moment he started, and freaked out.

The teacher merely explained the difference between the two flags before the student blurted out “I don’t accept gays.” and, when instructed not to make such remarks in his classroom, the student repeated it and attempted to use his religion as justification. This is a cut and dry case of a teacher attempting to maintain order and authority in his own classroom; nothing more. And, despite this kid’s claims, there is nothing about Catholicism which prohibits its followers from treating gay people with dignity and respect.

Once the teacher starts the discussion, he has to let it travel to it’s conclusion.

It’s actually a very good question: Why is the confederate flag considered a racist symbol by some, but not all, people? Why is the rainbow flag or a purple (gay) tshirt supposed to be perceived by*** all ***as a positive symbol?

An intelligent teacher could have had a very good discussion based around these issues.

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

An intelligent teacher could have had a very good discussion based around these issues.

Yes, he would have. By banishing the student, the teacher demonstrates the intolerance that, ironically, he is attempting to refute. Further, the event was entirely precipitated by the teacher for failing to teach the required curriculum in economics and going on agenda based diatribe. I’m uncertain the teacher’s “recollection” will be ultimately considered an accurate portrayal of events. If the boy was disruptive, dismissing a fellow classmate does not follow. May the young man be successful in his legal action.

 

[sedonaman]

See, this teacher wore a purple shirt to have the opportunity to talk about gay rights in the classroom.

I think it was more to show that he was on the “politically correct” side of the issue.

When a student confronted his diatribe, he was unable to rationally and coherently explain the difference…

That’s because political correctness does not have a rational nor coherent message. That is why it is called political correctness and not logical correctness or truthful correctness. A given statement might be true, but it just isn’t politically acceptable according to some ideology. That’s why political correctness can rightfully be defined as a crusade to ignorance characterized by a rejection of truth when it conflicts with ideology. [See *The Emperor’s New Clothes]. That’s why anyone with an ounce of sense finds such statements repulsive and rejects them.

… The teacher was unprepared to finish the teachable moment he started, and freaked out.

That’s because it was not a teachable moment; its purpose was indoctrination. You are correct. He was stymied by the incoherence of his own message.

It’s actually a very good question: Why is the confederate flag considered a racist symbol by some, but not all, people? Why is the rainbow flag or a purple (gay) tshirt supposed to be perceived by*** all ***as a positive symbol?

Because the teacher said so. I don’t want to sidetrack the discussion, but consider evolution as an example. If the school was requiring that all students accept evolution as fact, then what they are telling the students is that all human knowledge is complete in that topic. What teacher of any quality is ready to make such a declaration about his subject?

An intelligent teacher could have had a very good discussion based around these issues.

Maybe. A really intelligent teacher would teach his subject and not advocate a political position.

---

*What started as a demand for basic civil rights has mutated into a liberal demand to overturn the whole society along with its traditions and norms, its standards and laws, its history and heroes.

The indispensable condition of any traditionalist movement, as well as of our personal spiritual survival, is that we say NO to the prevailing values of the liberal order and that we KEEP saying NO.*

 

[sedonaman]

Yes, he would have. By banishing the student, the teacher demonstrates the intolerance that, ironically, he is attempting to refute. …

He, the school, and the whole school district should save the world on their own time.

 

[Allegra]

That is incorrect. The student started the confrontation by questioning why the teacher should be allowed to wear a purple shirt with a rainbow flag on it after he had instructed one of the student’s classmates to remove a confederate flag belt buckle because it was deemed offensive by the school board. The teacher merely explained the difference between the two flags before the student blurted out “I don’t accept gays.” and, when instructed not to make such remarks in his classroom, the student repeated it and attempted to use his religion as justification. This is a cut and dry case of a teacher attempting to maintain order and authority in his own classroom; nothing more. And, despite this kid’s claims, there is nothing about Catholicism which prohibits its followers from treating gay people with dignity and respect.

It seems to be that you are adding alot more into the story than what was presented online. First of all, we don’t know for certain that the school board had banned Confederate flags. I will grant you, this symbol is frequently used by people who promote white supremacy, but that is not the only thing it represents, especially in the south. The issue of Confederate flags has been brought up before our school board before more than once and they have always determined that banning them would be an infringement of free speech, though I always try to encourage others to consider how their free speech may be interpreted inaccurately by others.
We don’t really know what the tone of the student was, however, presuming he was speaking in a respectful tone, his question was a valid one and his teacher’s justification was merely that HE PERSONALLY felt offended by one symbol and not the other, therefore one was correct and the other wasn’t. Obviously, this isn’t the best answer and most likely, had the teacher not be caught on the spur of the moment, he may have handled the situation differently.
However, he did not, and the student told him that he “didn’t accept gays”, (Clearly, not the most articulate way to state his position, but we’re talking about a teenage boy here. However, he still was not using profane, vulgar, or threatening language or anything which could be construed as lacking in dignity or respect.) He then apparantly explained that homosexuality is not accepted by his religion. (Which is true.) This all happened within the context of a day the school had set aside to promote homosexuality to the students, so the subject had already been brought up and was being discussed specifically in that class. So, yes, the teacher began the discussion.

PS- The teacher’s authority in his classroom does not extend to forcing his own political and religious beliefs on his students.

 

[sedonaman]

It seems to be that you are adding alot more into the story than what was presented online.

As I stated before, this is to make the “facts” fit his ideology.

First of all, we don’t know for certain that the school board had banned Confederate flags. I will grant you, this symbol is frequently used by people who promote white supremacy, but that is not the only thing it represents, especially in the south. The issue of Confederate flags has been brought up before our school board before more than once and they have always determined that banning them would be an infringement of free speech, though I always try to encourage others to consider how their free speech may be interpreted inaccurately by others.

Correct. Free speech is not contingent on someone being offended. To be banned, the speech must present a clear and present danger, such as incitement to riot.

… his teacher’s justification was merely that HE PERSONALLY felt offended by one symbol and not the other, therefore one was correct and the other wasn’t. …

Lots of things offend me, but I don’t see anyone rushing in to assuage my hurt feelings. What makes this teacher think he is so special that his feelings should be spared ideas he doesn’t like?

However, he did not, and the student told him that he “didn’t accept gays”…

Actually, he said he didn’t accept homosexuality. See paragraphs 51 and 52 of the suit.

This all happened within the context of a day the school had set aside to promote homosexuality to the students, so the subject had already been brought up and was being discussed specifically in that class. So, yes, the teacher began the discussion.

There was a subsequnet assembly of students in which the defendant was personally humiliated. See paragraphs 61 and 62.

PS- The teacher’s authority in his classroom does not extend to forcing his own political and religious beliefs on his students.