Introduction
This essay is about the stance I take on grading a student’s essay about their hero Jesus and displaying their pictorial portrayal of him in the Last Supper in the classroom while taking into consideration the legal ramifications that could arise from this situation in the classroom from the other students that may find the picture to be offensive. I will take into consideration the information that I find about the First Amendment in the U.S. Constitution that explains the student’s right to religious freedom of expression in school. There will be three legal cases that explain how the student’s work is protected under the First Amendment of the Constitution, while they demonstrate how they did or did not meet the academic standards that are set by the teacher for the assignment and how it caused an issue with the student. In addition, the legal cases will help to explain the stance that has been taken in this essay on the student’s religious freedom of speech on this assignment.
Students Religious Writing and Art Work
In this situation, the student fulfilled the requirements for the assignment by choosing a hero and showing in pictorial form why they consider this person to be hero. This student is not breaking any rules by showing their religious beliefs in their classwork because it is in correlation with the assignment’s requirements while they are also being protected under the First Amendment of the Constitution. “The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference” (Cornell University Law School, 2012). The student’s artwork of their hero is just further explaining how Jesus is a hero through the selfless role...
... middle of paper ...
...or other students in the classroom to accept their religious faith through their artwork of Jesus the student is giving an example in their artwork of why they see him as a hero. Part of this decision was based on the student’s freedom of religious expression under the U.S. Constitution that protects them from being reprimanded from expressing their religious views in the classroom as long as they are not seen as being profane to others in the school community. The other part of this decision came from the three court cases that showed how the students were being offensive to others in the school community through their work without fully considering the views of others in the school community. The student in this scenario was considerate of the others students because they created their artwork to display a positive message that teaches a universal message of peace.
In a case similar to Fraser, a student was sent home twice for wearing a Marilyn Manson t-shirt with a three-faced Jesus on the back. The t-shirt also referenced biblical statements that were deemed inappropriate and disruptive to the learning environment. The court found that the school had the right to impose action for words or phrases that were considered vulgar and offensive. Just as with the Fraser case, the ethical significance is that students do not have the right to wear articles of clothing that depict messages or images in an offensive, public manner.
Over five years have passed since high school senior Joseph Frederick was suspended for 10 days by school principal Deborah Morse after refusing her request to take down a 14-foot banner he was displaying at a school-sanctioned event which read “BONG HiTS 4 JESUS.” Born as a seemingly trivial civil lawsuit in which Frederick sued the school for violating his First Amendment rights to free speech, the case made its way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, and the long-awaited ruling of Morse v. Frederick has finally been released. In a 5-4 split decision, the court ruled in favor of Morse and upheld the school board’s original ruling that Morse was acting within her rights and did not violate Frederick’s First Amendment rights by taking away his banner and suspending him for 10 days. The controversial decision has led followers of the case to question the future of student speech rights.
"Protecting Freedom of Expression on the Campus” by Derek Bok, published in Boston Globe in 1991, is an essay about what we should do when we are faced with expressions that are offensive to some people. The author discusses that although the First Amendment may protect our speech, but that does not mean it protects our speech if we use it immorally and inappropriately. The author claims that when people do things such as hanging the Confederate flag, “they would upset many fellow students and ignore the decent regard for the feelings of others” (70). The author discusses how this issue has approached Supreme Court and how the Supreme Court backs up the First Amendment and if it offends any groups, it does not affect the fact that everyone has his or her own freedom of speech. The author discusses how censorship may not be the way to go, because it might bring unwanted attention that would only make more devastating situations. The author believes the best solutions to these kind of situations would be to
First Amendment Rights of Public School Students How the judicial branch rules in cases relating to the 1st and how they relate that to all the rights of public school students. This includes anything from flag burning to not saluting the flag to practicing religion in school. The main point of this paper is to focus on the fact that schools have a greater ability to restrict speech than government. Research Question Does government or school districts have the ability to restrict free speech? This is a very important question because this gives great power to one over the other.
The issue at hand is one of teacher endorsement and whether or not displaying a student’s religious work represents a personal endorsement from the teacher regarding religion or religious practices. Because the works of all students are displayed, the teacher is neither presenting nor endorsing a personal belief. If there is a concern over student interpretation of a teacher displaying the work, teachers can take an educational tact by explaining to students that a religious story presented by a student is their personal story and not a story of the teacher’s or the school, thus allowing the student’s work to be presented without violating the Establishment Clause (Ross, 2014). This piece of writing and the artwork that went with it are a personal belief to the student and represent who the student considers to be a hero, and do not represent the beliefs of the teacher or the school. Justice O’Connor explained this as an endorsement test, asking two questions: “whether government’s purpose is to endorse religion and second, whether the statue actually conveys a message of endorsement” (Schimmel, 1994, p. 16). In this case no endorsement is made because the teacher displays all student work and is in no way advancing a personally held belief. Having examined the appropriateness of displaying the student’s work, the next step is to determine how the First Amendment applies to
Imagine a time when one could be fined, imprisoned and even killed for simply speaking one’s mind. Speech is the basic vehicle for communication of beliefs, thoughts and ideas. Without the right to speak one’s mind freely one would be forced to agree with everything society stated. With freedom of speech one’s own ideas can be expressed freely and the follower’s belief will be stronger. The words sound so simple, but without them the world would be a very different place.
Chapter three of Civil Liberties: Opposing Viewpoints inspired me to research today’s issues of school prayer. To understand how we got to where we are today, I first delved into our countries history of court cases pertaining to rulings on prayer in schools. Lastly, to update my audience on how our lives are being affected today, I directed my efforts toward finding current situations. By analyzing these situations, I gained knowledge for a better understanding of why society needs to be aware of these controversies. I don’t think there should be any form of organized prayer in today’s public schools.
Minersville provides a very interesting backdrop to subsequent cases with graver overtones of censorship. The Minersville case was brought by the father of Lillian and William Gobitis, on their behalf, against the public schools of Minersville, Pennsylvania. The Gobitis children, Jehovah's Witnesses, were brought up to believe that scripture forbade saluting a flag. They refused to observe the Pledge of Allegiance and were expelled from the public school system, forcing their father to enroll them in private schools (23-25).
Prohibiting School Prayer Threatens Religious Liberty. Civil Liberties. Ed. James D. Torr. -. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2003.
In the United States, free speech is protected by the First Amendment in which it states, “Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion … or abridging the freedom of speech.” Now, nearly 250 years into the future, the exact thing that the Founding Fathers were afraid of is starting to happen. Today, our freedom of speech is being threatened through different forces, such as the tyranny of the majority, the protection of the minority, and the stability of the society. Now, colleges and universities in the United States today are also trying to institute a code upon its students that would bar them from exercising their right to speak freely in the name of protecting minorities from getting bullied. This brings us into
College campuses have always been the sites where students can express their opinions without fear. There have been many debates about the merits of allowing free speech on campus. Some students and faculties support allowing free speech on campus, while others believe that colleges should restrict free speech to make the college’s environment safer for every student. Free speeches are endangered on college campuses because of trigger warning, increasing policing of free speech, and the hypersensitivity of college students.
Some older students in Buffalo are not eager towards the new policy with ID. Kenneth Hanes a fifteen-year-old ninth-grader said, “It’s too Big Brother for me. Something about the school wanting to know the exact place and time makes me feel like an animal.” Kenneth viewpoint was issued with an organization similar to A.C.L.U, an organization that stands for a students rights and liberties guaranteed for every individual by the Constitution and laws held by the U.S, and a non-profitable group that issues “digital rights”, Electronic Frontier Foundation. While the Constitution protects the rights of a student, school districts have the right to make rules, even those that can take away students’ Amendment Rights, to prevent disruptions towards
In recent news there was a controversy over art shown in Santa Fe Community College’s gallery. The artist Pat Payne created obscene religious pictures that for the most part were mocking the Catholic religion. I feel that there is no need for artwork to be censored if in an appropriate place. Placing paintings that may seem to be obscene in an art museum, gallery, or anywhere else that attract mostly mature individuals is appropriate and obviously placing those same pieces of art in an elementary school would be inappropriate. My point being that artworks of any type being placed in Santa Fe’s art gallery should not be an issue. The majority of individuals looking at Santa Fe’s gallery are older and mature, and if children are being brought into a place like this, ad...
the school should be disrespectful of the important role religion plays for many students. Courts
Preamble When in the course of High School athletic events, when student athlete rights are neglected or abused, it is our job as players to make amends. High School sports are a once in a lifetime opportunity that aid in the self-improvement/self-discovery spectrum of High School students. They give students athletes the chance to improve fitness, create friendships and make memories. Do they not?