High schooler suspended after preaching claims religious per

[doggie]

I can guess wha this kids parents are like. going to school hearing a soapbox preacher shouting has to be fun.

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/ ... 902419.php

An Everett high school student who claims he was wrongly suspended for loudly sharing his Christian faith has sued the school district, claiming his Constitutional rights were violated.

Michael Leal proselytized to his classmates at Cascade High School and passed out lengthy, mass-produced religious tracts, to the apparent annoyance of school administrators. Leal was suspended three times after he refused to tone down his freeform sermons and stop handing out Bible verses.

With the help of a national Christian rights organization, Leal filed a federal lawsuit Monday against the Everett School District, his school principal and others. In it, he contends he was subjected to religious discrimination during a months-long fight with school staff over his sermons and pamphleteering.

“It has been well established by court precedent that students do not leave their free speech rights at the schoolhouse door,†attorney Conrad Reynoldson said Tuesday. “Unfortunately certain officials at the school have a disagreement on this matter which is why it has become necessary to file this lawsuit.â€

[louisa05]

I can guess wha this kids parents are like. going to school hearing a soapbox preacher shouting has to be fun.

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/ ... 902419.php

An Everett high school student who claims he was wrongly suspended for loudly sharing his Christian faith has sued the school district, claiming his Constitutional rights were violated.

Michael Leal proselytized to his classmates at Cascade High School and passed out lengthy, mass-produced religious tracts, to the apparent annoyance of school administrators. Leal was suspended three times after he refused to tone down his freeform sermons and stop handing out Bible verses.

With the help of a national Christian rights organization, Leal filed a federal lawsuit Monday against the Everett School District, his school principal and others. In it, he contends he was subjected to religious discrimination during a months-long fight with school staff over his sermons and pamphleteering.

“It has been well established by court precedent that students do not leave their free speech rights at the schoolhouse door,†attorney Conrad Reynoldson said Tuesday. “Unfortunately certain officials at the school have a disagreement on this matter which is why it has become necessary to file this lawsuit.â€

The precedent Reynoldson cites is indeed true. But there is also extensive precedent that students cannot disrupt the learning environment in their exercise of those rights. Creating a hostile environment for students who do not believe as he does can easily be deemed disruptive of learning.

And I will never understand how anyone believes that this kind of behavior will bring converts. Who looks at these people and thinks "yes, that's what I want: a religion that requires me to make a jackass of myself as I harass people in public places!" ???? :angry-banghead:

[Firiel]

IMPORTANT: I think this kid is probably an obnoxious asshat.

After saying that, though, I think his actions DO fall under free speech. Free speech still applies to students in a school (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinker_v._ ... l_District). However, schools do have some ability to censor students which is likely the defense the school will be using (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bethel_Sch ... _v._Fraser AND http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morse_v._Frederick).

I'm a big fan of reminding people that free speech doesn't mean speech without consequences, but because high schools are extensions of the government, I would think that a school telling a student he CANNOT say something is much more problematic (regarding the issue of free speech) than a network cancelling a show because of the statements of an actor (*cough* Phil Robertson *cough*).

EDIT: The amplifier and anything he did during class seem like the things he has done that would fall outside of free speech and into disturbance. Not sure about the amplifier as it wasn't during the school day and seems no different than campus preachers on college campuses, but it would be disturbing.

[doggie]

it is ok to stand there and preach like a fool but if he his yelling it out and annoying people trying to learn then it is not. I can imagine how annoying his parents are.

I think these types of people really get high off of this behavior more so then any results it gets. they can get out there and show how great they really are and how great their faith it.

[browncoatslytherin]

if i was a high schooler attending that school, i would have started standing across from him and started preaching satanism or something like that. just to annoy the shit out of him. because i'm an ass like that. :P "oh, want me to stop? then you stop! don't wanna stop? then i'm gonna keep on." :roll:

[mirele]

EDIT: The amplifier and anything he did during class seem like the things he has done that would fall outside of free speech and into disturbance. Not sure about the amplifier as it wasn't during the school day and seems no different than campus preachers on college campuses, but it would be disturbing.

Anything he does to disrupt the school day is within the school's control and he can be (and SHOULD be) told to stop. Otherwise, it could be said that the school is endorsing the message, which might get them a letter from the ACLU. That said, these obnoxious asshats can preach before and after school. The father of one of my high school friends used to show up at the high school (this was after we had graduated) with a megaphone and big pictures of miscarried fetuses to protest abortion. There was nothing the school could do because he was on the public easement.

Frankly, this young man needs to understand that his general disruption of the learning environment is not doing his religious belief any favors. I'm sure his classmates think he's a jackass.

[louisa05]

IMPORTANT: I think this kid is probably an obnoxious asshat.

After saying that, though, I think his actions DO fall under free speech. Free speech still applies to students in a school (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinker_v._ ... l_District). However, schools do have some ability to censor students which is likely the defense the school will be using (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bethel_Sch ... _v._Fraser AND http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morse_v._Frederick).

I'm a big fan of reminding people that free speech doesn't mean speech without consequences, but because high schools are extensions of the government, I would think that a school telling a student he CANNOT say something is much more problematic (regarding the issue of free speech) than a network cancelling a show because of the statements of an actor (*cough* Phil Robertson *cough*).

EDIT: The amplifier and anything he did during class seem like the things he has done that would fall outside of free speech and into disturbance. Not sure about the amplifier as it wasn't during the school day and seems no different than campus preachers on college campuses, but it would be disturbing.

The issue will not be free speech of free exercise of religion. The legal precedents have consistently been that students cannot use those rights to "disrupt the learning environment". Preaching with an amplifier in the lunchroom can easily be construed as disruptive and likely in violation of school rules that do not pertain to religion or speech--could browncoatslytherin get a bullhorn and argue with him under school rules? Probably not. Could another student get a bullhorn and yell at everyone at lunch that they should quit playing sports and take up gaming? Probably not. In general, most high schools would not allow speaking through a bullhorn in the cafeteria where there is an expectation of an orderly and not excessively loud period in which to eat.

His attorneys would likely try to argue that the lunchroom is not a place for learning. In most high schools I sub at, if someone is using an amplifier to speak in the lunchroom, classrooms in the surrounding area would be able to hear, so there is that. (Both schools I taught at, that would not have been the case, so that will depend on the layout of the school). I think the "hostile environment" argument could come up, too, though.

If he were talking to kids at the lunch table or quietly passing out tracts in the hall, the school would not have a case for the reasons you cite.

[Firiel]

I really mean it when I say this kid is a jackass.

The issue will not be free speech of free exercise of religion. The legal precedents have consistently been that students cannot use those rights to "disrupt the learning environment". Preaching with an amplifier in the lunchroom can easily be construed as disruptive and likely in violation of school rules that do not pertain to religion or speech--could browncoatslytherin get a bullhorn and argue with him under school rules? Probably not. Could another student get a bullhorn and yell at everyone at lunch that they should quit playing sports and take up gaming? Probably not. In general, most high schools would not allow speaking through a bullhorn in the cafeteria where there is an expectation of an orderly and not excessively loud period in which to eat.

His attorneys would likely try to argue that the lunchroom is not a place for learning. In most high schools I sub at, if someone is using an amplifier to speak in the lunchroom, classrooms in the surrounding area would be able to hear, so there is that. (Both schools I taught at, that would not have been the case, so that will depend on the layout of the school). I think the "hostile environment" argument could come up, too, though.

If he were talking to kids at the lunch table or quietly passing out tracts in the hall, the school would not have a case for the reasons you cite.

I was under the impression that the amplifier thing was outside (being a bonfire) and at a school-sanctioned event, but completely outside of school hours:

In either case, trouble for Leal followed in October during an evening “bonfire and car bash event†at the high school.

According to the lawsuit, Leal began preaching to other students after handing out tracts during the school-supported, extracurricular event.

He was preaching on the Ten Commandments and other topics gleaned from tracts he carried when the school principal, Cathy Woods, confronted him and told him to stop, his attorneys told the court. He stopped briefly, but began again after other students began dancing.

The district contends Leal interrupted the event for 20 minutes, using an amplifying device to present his sermon. Patterson described it as a “substantial disruption†that continued despite emphatic requests from school staff.

I guess I really don't see the difference between standing outside at a public high school extracurricular event while being an asshat and standing outside on a public college campus while being an asshat. I mean this honestly, too, by the way. I don't like this kid. What do you all see as the difference in those situations? It seems the overwhelming response to this is that the school is in the right, so I'm curious what I'm seeing differently.

I can't know how disruptive his lunchroom activities were, but if it was just talking to people who didn't want to be talked to and annoying people by offering tracts, I'm not sure if that's enough. It depends on how much he was pursuing them, I think, and if his actions could be considered harassment.

His in-class conduct is the most reasonable cause for suspension. This sounds inappropriate:

Patterson said Leal shouted “Praise the Lord†when he and other students were told to get back to work during a senior seminar.

Shouting in class IS disruptive.

Additionally, teachers should be able to tell students to drop a discussion, move past a topic, or stop talking about something if it is disrupting the learning environment in their classrooms, so if he was proselytizing in class, he totally deserved to be suspended.

[louisa05]

I really mean it when I say this kid is a jackass.

I was under the impression that the amplifier thing was outside (being a bonfire) and at a school-sanctioned event, but completely outside of school hours:

I guess I really don't see the difference between standing outside at a public high school extracurricular event while being an asshat and standing outside on a public college campus while being an asshat. I mean this honestly, too, by the way. I don't like this kid. What do you all see as the difference in those situations? It seems the overwhelming response to this is that the school is in the right, so I'm curious what I'm seeing differently.

I can't know how disruptive his lunchroom activities were, but if it was just talking to people who didn't want to be talked to and annoying people by offering tracts, I'm not sure if that's enough. It depends on how much he was pursuing them, I think, and if his actions could be considered harassment.

His in-class conduct is the most reasonable cause for suspension. This sounds inappropriate:

Shouting in class IS disruptive.

Additionally, teachers should be able to tell students to drop a discussion, move past a topic, or stop talking about something if it is disrupting the learning environment in their classrooms, so if he was proselytizing in class, he totally deserved to be suspended.

If he is on school grounds and it is a school event and the event is literally, as reported, interrupted by his preaching, then he can be asked to stop or leave. It would not matter what the content of his interruption is. If the event were a concert or a play or athletic contest, would you also think he should be allowed to interrupt? Those also fall under the umbrella of being school-sponsored but after school hours. And some athletic contests (football, soccer, track, baseball/softball, etc...) are held outside, even.

[littleblueheathen]

This kid is fortunate. Back in the bad old days when I was in high school, we'd have just gotten a bunch of us togeter, waited for him after school, and beat the shit out of him. :evil:

[BrownieMomma]

I can't speak for any university except my alma mater.

There is a designated free speech area. It's right in the middle near the student center. I don't know all the rules about it, I'm sure there must be some. I work here now, occasionally there's something going on but not even on a weekly basis.

Students wouldn't be permitted to disrupt class or activities.

[Terrie]

Simply put, I will not believe the kid's versions of events without outside corroboration. There are two many cases of people acting like asses so they can sue and play martyr.

[Firiel]

If he is on school grounds and it is a school event and the event is literally, as reported, interrupted by his preaching, then he can be asked to stop or leave. It would not matter what the content of his interruption is. If the event were a concert or a play or athletic contest, would you also think he should be allowed to interrupt? Those also fall under the umbrella of being school-sponsored but after school hours. And some athletic contests (football, soccer, track, baseball/softball, etc...) are held outside, even.

Okay, looking at the precedence, I see that the Tinker vs. Des Moines as described here (http://www.firstamendmentschools.org/fr ... spx?id=404) says in one place that "substantial disruption of school educational activities" is a problem but in another that "substantial disruption of school activities." If the latter is the case, then the school definitely had the right to suspend him.

So I can see why he was suspended.

It seems squicky to me that the WBC somehow has First Amendment rights to yell slurs at grieving families, but a kid can't piss off his classmates by ruining their bonfire. Are protesters offered more rights than regular folks? If the kid were holding a sign, would he have been able to do this? Maybe if he were off school property?

[BrownieMomma]

As I have understood it, school activities are an extension of the school day.

Would WBC be allowed to protest at a public school during the school day or even at after-school activities?

[louisa05]

Okay, looking at the precedence, I see that the Tinker vs. Des Moines as described here (http://www.firstamendmentschools.org/fr ... spx?id=404) says in one place that "substantial disruption of school educational activities" is a problem but in another that "substantial disruption of school activities." If the latter is the case, then the school definitely had the right to suspend him.

So I can see why he was suspended.

It seems squicky to me that the WBC somehow has First Amendment rights to yell slurs at grieving families, but a kid can't piss off his classmates by ruining their bonfire. Are protesters offered more rights than regular folks? If the kid were holding a sign, would he have been able to do this? Maybe if he were off school property?

School matters have been interpreted differently than other free speech/religious freedom cases for three reasons. 1-Students are a "captive audience" in that they are required to be there (mandatory education from 7 to 16 by law in most states--thus kids must be enrolled in schools or parents must prove in some way that they are homeschooling) and public school is the only free choice. 2-Students, as minors, are more impressionable than adults and are easily influenced. (This is why you don't want your child's public school kindergarten teacher exercising her freedom of religion by leading the class in the sinner's prayer). 3--As a public institution, if the school allows religious teaching or favors one religion in an official capacity or on its property, it can be an unconstitutional establishment of religion by a government entity.

The WBC crowd protesting a funeral is not targeting only minors or a captive audience of any sort, has to remain only on public property (they cannot be on the property of the church, synagogue, funeral chapel or whatever the venue is) and are not typically in a situation where it could appear that their actions are endorsed by any government/ local authorities. None of that makes them any less disgusting. But the two situations are simply not comparable. If they come directly on to the property of a school and disrupt a school sponsored activity, then their protest would also become a different matter.

[Idolatry]

Too bad bullying is out of style now. That's free speech too.

[Firiel]

School matters have been interpreted differently than other free speech/religious freedom cases for three reasons. 1-Students are a "captive audience" in that they are required to be there (mandatory education from 7 to 16 by law in most states--thus kids must be enrolled in schools or parents must prove in some way that they are homeschooling) and public school is the only free choice. 2-Students, as minors, are more impressionable than adults and are easily influenced. (This is why you don't want your child's public school kindergarten teacher exercising her freedom of religion by leading the class in the sinner's prayer). 3--As a public institution, if the school allows religious teaching or favors one religion in an official capacity or on its property, it can be an unconstitutional establishment of religion by a government entity.

The WBC crowd protesting a funeral is not targeting only minors or a captive audience of any sort, has to remain only on public property (they cannot be on the property of the church, synagogue, funeral chapel or whatever the venue is) and are not typically in a situation where it could appear that their actions are endorsed by any government/ local authorities. None of that makes them any less disgusting. But the two situations are simply not comparable. If they come directly on to the property of a school and disrupt a school sponsored activity, then their protest would also become a different matter.

Okay, thank you for the explanation! I didn't necessarily think the WBC was comparable, but I was interested as to what the actual differences were, and you laid it out well.

Like I said, the disturbance thing is the one that makes me feel this isn't any sort of free speech violation, especially since I see that it applies to non-educational school sponsored activities. I'm not sure about 2 and 3 on the list above. Those seem like they would apply more for adult to student faith interactions, which are definitely not okay because of the reasons you mentioned. I was always under the impression that students could talk to each other about their faith, hold Bible studies, and even proselytize (because there was no power differential and because the school wasn't sponsoring it in any way).

Then there's this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bethel_Sch ... _v._Fraser): "the process of educating our youth for citizenship in public schools is not confined to books, the curriculum, and the civics class; schools must teach by example the shared values of a civilized social order."

They are teaching by example that not being an asshat is a shared value of a civilized social order. :P

Someone mentioned a "free-speech" zone for dumb, yelling preachers on college campuses. Is it typically the case where there is a designated yelling zone for asshats to say what they want? If that's the case, that marks a distinction between what they do and what this kid was doing.

[louisa05]

Okay, thank you for the explanation! I didn't necessarily think the WBC was comparable, but I was interested as to what the actual differences were, and you laid it out well.

Like I said, the disturbance thing is the one that makes me feel this isn't any sort of free speech violation, especially since I see that it applies to non-educational school sponsored activities. I'm not sure about 2 and 3 on the list above. Those seem like they would apply more for adult to student faith interactions, which are definitely not okay because of the reasons you mentioned. I was always under the impression that students could talk to each other about their faith, hold Bible studies, and even proselytize (because there was no power differential and because the school wasn't sponsoring it in any way).

Then there's this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bethel_Sch ... _v._Fraser): "the process of educating our youth for citizenship in public schools is not confined to books, the curriculum, and the civics class; schools must teach by example the shared values of a civilized social order."

They are teaching by example that not being an asshat is a shared value of a civilized social order. :P

Someone mentioned a "free-speech" zone for dumb, yelling preachers on college campuses. Is it typically the case where there is a designated yelling zone for asshats to say what they want? If that's the case, that marks a distinction between what they do and what this kid was doing.

They can. The school cannot suspend this kid for talking to kids at the lunch table about his faith in a normal conversation. He could also start a Bible study after school (IF other after school clubs are allowed and take place on the campus) and would be free to hang signs (as policy allows for any other gathering or group) and invite classmates. What he can't do, under precedents so far, is derail a class discussion with his attempts to evangelize or talk about religion, disrupt class or a school event, or harass other students. Of course, in general, schools try to keep all students from doing those things whether they are derailing, disrupting or harassing about religion or why the local college football team's coach needs fired or anything else. And that is the precedent that the court has been very clear about. If schools would not allow a student to behave in such a way to promote a random cause or in general, then they do not have to allow it for religious purposes either.

I once attended a seminar for history and government teachers at the University of Virginia in which a half day was spent with a constitutional law professor talking about the First Amendment and schools. That is the source of my knowledge about the matter, for the record.

This kid, frankly, in my opinion totally outside the legal issues, needs to grow up and realize that you can't bully people into accepting your belief system. It absolutely does not work, and instead of hiring a lawyer and turning him into a persecuted martyr for the faith, the adults around him need to teach him how to treat others with dignity and compassion. He might find a few converts that way.

[Firiel]

They can. The school cannot suspend this kid for talking to kids at the lunch table about his faith in a normal conversation. He could also start a Bible study after school (IF other after school clubs are allowed and take place on the campus) and would be free to hang signs (as policy allows for any other gathering or group) and invite classmates. What he can't do, under precedents so far, is derail a class discussion with his attempts to evangelize or talk about religion, disrupt class or a school event, or harass other students. Of course, in general, schools try to keep all students from doing those things whether they are derailing, disrupting or harassing about religion or why the local college football team's coach needs fired or anything else. And that is the precedent that the court has been very clear about. If schools would not allow a student to behave in such a way to promote a random cause or in general, then they do not have to allow it for religious purposes either.

I once attended a seminar for history and government teachers at the University of Virginia in which a half day was spent with a constitutional law professor talking about the First Amendment and schools. That is the source of my knowledge about the matter, for the record.

This kid, frankly, in my opinion totally outside the legal issues, needs to grow up and realize that you can't bully people into accepting your belief system. It absolutely does not work, and instead of hiring a lawyer and turning him into a persecuted martyr for the faith, the adults around him need to teach him how to treat others with dignity and compassion. He might find a few converts that way.

I really appreciate the information. That's what I thought were the general guidelines regarding talking to other students and starting Bible studies.

Thanks for taking the time to explain it-- again, I appreciate it.

And I also agree. Even if the court upholds this kid's argument (which I now think it shouldn't because of the disruption of a school event), he needs to learn a few important lessons on treating the people around him with respect.

[Trynn]

I don't recall my university havin a designated zone, but they did allow the Gideon's to stand on EVERY corner of campus with bibles to hand out. I didn't typically mind, as they were very respectful, but I get uncomfortable when people I don't know try to talk to me.so I have mixed feelings about them, but in general I don't mind the Giddeons.

The University did allow the Muslim student organization to hand out Koreans at he student fair though, so they weren't just favoring Christianity.

[Firiel]

The University did allow the Muslim student organization to hand out Koreans at he student fair though, so they weren't just favoring Christianity.

:lol: :lol: :lol: ;)

My university allowed random yelling guys, and that one was a public university. So I was just wondering what the general rules are for that.

[browncoatslytherin]

one community college i went to allowed campus crusade for christ to meet in an unused classroom, same as any other club or organization. it's been so long since i've been there, i don't remember any other policies.

the one i ended up graduating from was a little different. it was a vocational school that had only accelerated programs, so we were different than a four-year school. i don't remember any specific policies about that kind of thing, but that may have been because it was pretty much a non-issue. students were taking three or four classes a week at four to five hours a pop, taking midterms at week five of classes and finals on week ten of classes. we didn't really have any motivation to do anything but try to keep up!

[louisa05]

I really appreciate the information. That's what I thought were the general guidelines regarding talking to other students and starting Bible studies.

Thanks for taking the time to explain it-- again, I appreciate it.

And I also agree. Even if the court upholds this kid's argument (which I now think it shouldn't because of the disruption of a school event), he needs to learn a few important lessons on treating the people around him with respect.

I taught in a private school. But I spent time on this stuff with my students in government class because of the very widespread notion that there can be no religious expression in public schools and, thus, Christians are persecuted there. This was even expressed with outrage by my students in Catholic school. So when we did the First Amendment, I spent time on these issues with them so they would understand that 1--religious expression within certain boundaries is allowed in public schools and 2--the boundaries are reasonable. I find, for example, that people who think teachers should be allowed to talk about their personal religious views in a public school classroom aren't really envisioning teachers trying to convert young children away from whatever their parents prefer and are teaching them. But that absolutely would happen if restrictions were lifted. I knew people when I taught at Christian school who said they would get a public school job in a heartbeat if they could suddenly legally teach religion to their students. And the ones most outspoken about that were all elementary teachers.

[gustava]

Although I'm not clear on details, I do know that public high schools and public colleges/universities have different legal obligations. What's allowed on a public college campus may not be permitted in a public high school.

[samurai_sarah]

I don't recall my university havin a designated zone, but they did allow the Gideon's to stand on EVERY corner of campus with bibles to hand out. I didn't typically mind, as they were very respectful, but I get uncomfortable when people I don't know try to talk to me.so I have mixed feelings about them, but in general I don't mind the Giddeons.

The University did allow the Muslim student organization to hand out Koreans at he student fair though, so they weren't just favoring Christianity.

Being half Korean, I strongly object! This sort of practice needs to stop! We have more important things to do than hanging around student fairs, waiting to be handed out. If we did that, we'd be letting down the side, when it comes to annoying Kidist. :lol:

Sorry, couldn't resist. :embarrassed: