Story originally printed in the Tomah Journal or online at www.tomahjournal.com
Published - Sunday, April 06, 2008
School art project sparks lawsuit
School art A U.S. Supreme Court precedent from the 1960s will be used in the case of a Tomah High School senior who contends the school district denied his freedom of religious expression.
An attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal advocacy group representing the student, said Tuesday that Tinker v. Des Moines Community School District, a landmark 1969 case that upheld a student’s right to free speech, will be applied on behalf of a student who received a failing grade for an art project that included religious content. The family of “A.P.” filed a federal lawsuit Friday in the U.S. District court in Madison.
The Alliance Defense Fund claims that “A.P.” received a zero for a landscape drawing that contained a cross and the words: “John 3:16. A sign of love.” It also contends that Tomah High School art teacher Julie Millin has a written grading policy says “art work that has any violence, blood, sexual connotations or religious beliefs will not be accepted.” The Alliance Defense Fund provided the Tomah Journal with copies of A.P.’s artwork and the grading policy.
The complaint asserts that “Students do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gates,” which paraphrases Justice Abe Fortas’ majority opinion in Tinker. That case upheld the right of students to wear black armbands in protest of the Vietnam War.
“Tinker remains good law,” Alliance Defense Fund attorney David Cortman said. “I think Tinker is important because it safeguards the rights of students. When you have compulsory education and tell students they have to be in school, you can’t tell students while they’re there that they have no right to speak.”
In addition to failing to receive credit for his art project, A.P. also received a detention when he tore the grading policy in Millin’s presence during class. Cortman defended A.P.’s action as “symbolic speech,” which has been upheld by the Supreme Court in several cases, including the 1990 case that legalized burning the American flag.
“It was done as a form of protest,” Cortman said. “It wasn’t done in defiance. He said, ‘I’m not giving up my First Amendment rights.’”
The lawsuit further contends:
*High school art teacher Marge Genrich censored another of A.P’s projects in her jewelry/art metals class.
*School officials allow other religious items and artwork to be displayed on campus.
*High school assistant principal Cale Jackson told A.P. that his religious expression infringed on the rights of other students.
The lawsuit also claims that Jackson ran Millin’s policy past legal counsel and determined A.P.’s work could be legally censored.
The school district Wednesday responded with a press release that didn’t challenge any of the lawsuit’s specific claims but said it would “vigorously defend itself against the charges in the complaint.”
“To meet our responsibilities, students are required to follow the rules of conduct for their classrooms and the instructions that their teachers give them for class assignments,” the statement said. “While the district respects all students’ religious freedoms, those freedoms are not a license for students to force the school to display religious messages of their choosing or to force the school to accept schoolwork that deliberately defies the rules of the class and the requirements of the assignment.”
The family of A.P. which lives in Camp Douglas, is seeking:
*Full academic credit for A.P.’s project.
*Removal of any record of any disciplinary action taken against A.P. in regard to the matter.
*A ruling that high school art teacher Julie Millin’s grading policy prohibiting religious expression violates the First and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.
*Recovery of legal fees.
Cortman said the family isn’t seeking any monetary damages beyond recovery of legal fees. The complaint seeks “requested nominal damages of one dollar.”
The Tinker case came up again last year, when the Supreme Court ruled in Morse v. Frederick that a student who held a sign “Bong Hits for Jesus” could be disciplined. The majority opinion said discipline in that case could be reconciled with the Tinker ruling, but Justice Clarence Thomas, in a concurring opinion, disagreed. He called for Tinker to be overturned.
“In short, in the earliest public schools, teachers taught, and students listened,” Thomas wrote. “Teachers commanded, and students obeyed. Teachers did not rely solely on the power of ideas to persuade; they relied on discipline to maintain order ... As originally understood, the Constitution does not afford students a right to free speech in public schools.”
All stories copyright 2006 Tomah Journal and other attributed sources.