Religion has been a major theme of artwork ever since humans gained the ability to express themselves through drawing and sculpture. To remove religion from art is like removing the saxophone from a jazz band; it can be done, but the sound will contain considerably less richness and texture.

That’s the problem with the grading policy of a Tomah High School art class that says, “Art work that has any violence, blood, sexual connotations, religious beliefs will not be accepted.” It’s a policy that should be reversed before it’s struck down in federal court.

The Tomah School District last month was slapped with a lawsuit over a drawing that displayed a cross and the words “John 3:16. A sign of love.” The student received a zero for the landscape assignment, and the family contacted the Alliance Defense Fund, which filed suit in federal court.

Had the student simply gotten a zero for including an extraneous object on a landscape drawing, the grade would have been appropriate. However, the grading policy prohibits any religious expression in artwork done anytime during the course. The policy makes no sense, either from a constitutional or educational standpoint. The Alliance Defense Fund cited a 1969 U.S. Supreme Court case that said neither teachers nor students “shed their constitutional rights to free expression at the schoolhouse gate,” and Tomah’s grading policy is clearly censorship based on religious belief.

But it’s not just a First Amendment issue. The grading policy ignores thousands of years of art history. So many of the world’s most famous art is religious at its core, and to excise religious imagery from an art class is like teaching history but omitting all references to war. Art class is a creative endeavor, and students, whether they’re Christians, atheists, progressives or conservatives, should be given the widest creative latitude that still allows for an orderly learning environment. Do we really want an authoritarian classroom where students are discouraged from expressing profound and interesting beliefs? Today’s censorship of religious imagery could become tomorrow's censorship of artwork that opposes the American invasion of Iraq.

There is also the issue of the student ripping the policy in front of the teacher while other students were present. Here, the school district has a stronger case. The student could have challenged the policy without the brazen display of insubordination, and the school has the right to punish disruptive behavior in a non-discriminatory manner.

Is it ironic that a conservative legal group quoted one of the great liberal precedents from the Warren Court as the foundation of its case? Yes, but it’s a benign irony, and it’s heartening that a conservative group chose to embrace the most liberal vision of free expression. Obviously, school districts must place some limits on how students can express themselves, but schools should also prepare students to participate in our democracy by encouraging them to think broadly and express important ideas. By the standards of both free speech and educational excellence, the blanket censorship of religious art gets a zero.