What you did and what the principal did were two different things-you were not suggesting a compromise of beliefs, merely a more respectful way of expressing them. Presumably, you did not tell a student that they could not say that the Amish are wrong to impose their views on their children in ways which would leave them unable to earn a living should they leave the Amish fold()Other than by doping a TV reality show of course.) The principal was suggesting-and for a middle school student the suggestion carries more weight than a law professor's remark to law student- that she yield her beliefs about the respect due the United States in the interest of not offending others. And it is worth noting that the principal did not speak to other students about respecting the dissenter's beliefs. In general, it is my experience that school officials care little about dissenter's rights and a lot about order. In student free speech cases, it is routine for school officials to suppress unpopular speech on the ground that it will cause disorder from hecklers and say nothing about their obligation to train students for democratic give and take and respect for unpopular views. Either the Firth or Eleventh circuits (I forget which) recently called school officials on just this point. Marc Stern
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ann Althouse Sent: Friday, September 10, 2004 1:48 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Required to stand for the Pledge? "7th Circuit, discussing Lipp in Sherman" was not the most elegant prose. I meant that in Sherman the 7th Cir. was discussing Lipp. Lipp itself is 3d Circ. This seems like an excellent example of a good time for the school to just give an apology. But I wonder if there is any legal violation in talking to students about the advisability of being respectful to the feelings and beliefs of the other students. We were discussing US v. Lee in my Religion and the Law class yesterday, and one of the students was characterizing the Amish in a way that was a bit derisive and another student snapped at him. That was the first time in 3 years of teaching the course that there was ever any discomfort in talking about the sensitive topic of religion. As the class was leaving, I motioned him over and said something to the effect that people in the class are used to a tradition of speaking very respectfully about religious beliefs, and that he might want to tone it down lest people get mad at him. He's a law student of course, and the girl in the news is a middle school student, but I do feel that what I was doing was similar to what this principal did: encouraging a student to show more respect in the classroom. Ann On Sep 10, 2004, at 12:38 PM, marc stern wrote: > I agree that being sent to the principal's office is coercive( I am > married > to a high school principal so I may have a jaundiced view)and I > suppose that > if anything is settled law it is Barnette-and Lipp in the Seventh > Circuit > which of course includes Madison Wisconsin. For defeating a claim of > immunity that is probably enough. > But who can blame a teacher for dealing with a "problem" (=a new > situation) > by kicking it upstairs to the principal? One of the problems with civil > liberties litigation is that instead of holding entities liable for > what > their employees do ( out of concern for taxpayers),we tend to hold > individuals responsible for civil liberties violations and that > sometimes > leads to results that are not self-evidently fair and ask too much of > line > employees. On the facts as they are in the article, had the teacher > asked > the principal for guidance instead of sending the child to the > principal, > the result would have been more or less the same since the principal > was no > better informed than the teacher. And the Superintendent still sees no > reason to apologize for what the teacher or principal did-even though > their > actions were clearly unconstitutional. > Marc Stern > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ann Althouse > Sent: Friday, September 10, 2004 12:23 PM > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; > David Cruz > Subject: Re: Required to stand for the Pledge? > > I note that the 7th Circuit, discussing Lipp in Sherman (our "Under > God" > case) said "no pupil was compelled to recite the Pledge, to stand > during the > Pledge or place his hand over his heart, or to leave if he would not > join > in, and that no one was penalized in any way for remaining silent and > seated" and then added that "peer pressure" wasn't enough to amount to > compulsion. That was in 1992, post Lee v. Weisman. Being sent to the > principal and talked to is very disturbing to a student, and, as David > indicates, she was compelled to go the principal's office. > > Ann > > > > "David Cruz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> >> Yes, but can state-run schools' principals "call" students to their >> office >> (out of class, recess, or lunch, presumably) and "urge" them to stand? >> Ann distinguished (or repeated a distinction) between "requiring" and >> "urging." >> >> David B. Cruz >> Professor of Law >> University of Southern California Law School >> Los Angeles, CA 90089-0071 >> U.S.A. >> >> On Fri, 10 Sep 2004, marc stern wrote: >> >>> Lipp v. Morris, 579 F.2d 834 (3d Cir.1978) holds students cannot be >>> made > to >>> stand during the pledge. >>> Marc Stern >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ann Althouse >>> Sent: Friday, September 10, 2004 10:24 AM >>> To: conlawprof; Law & Religion issues for Law Academics >>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> Subject: Required to stand for the Pledge? >>> >>> A student cannot be forced to say the Pledge of Allegiance, but does >>> a >>> student also have a right to refuse to stand during the Pledge? In >>> this > case >>> in Madison, a student was not required to stand but was "called to >>> the >>> principal's office and urged to stand during the pledge even if she >>> chose >>> not to recite it." >>> >>> http://www.madison.com/wsj/home/local/index.php?ntid=9878&ntpid=3 >>> >>> You can't tell from the article whether the student's objection is >>> to the >>> "Under God" phrase or to showing respect more generally for the flag >>> or > for >>> the country. It's notable, though, that she was told "at least >>> stand to >>> show respect for your country." >>> >>> This story is front-page news here in Madison. >>> >>> Ann >>> >>> >>> Ann Althouse >>> University of Wisconsin Law School >>> Madison, WI 53706 >>> >>> (608)242-2444 >>> http://althouse.blogspot.com/ >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see >>> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw >>> >>> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as >>> private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are >>> posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can >>> (rightly > or >>> wrongly) forward the messages to others. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see >>> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw >>> >>> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as >>> private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are > posted; >>> people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or > wrongly) >>> forward the messages to others. >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see >> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw >> >> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as > private. >> Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; >> people > can >> read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) >> forward > the >> messages to others. > > _______________________________________________ > To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see > http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw > > Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as > private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are > posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can > (rightly or > wrongly) forward the messages to others. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see > http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw > > Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as > private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are > posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can > (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. > _______________________________________________ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. _______________________________________________ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
