A Wisconsin public school student is suing the the Tomah, Wisconsin school district because those wonderful, “tolerant” liberals are at their intolerant best:

Lunacy in a Wisconsin Classroom

You really need to read the whole article, but here’s an excerpt at the heart of this nonsense:

According to the lawsuit, the student’s art teacher asked his class in February to draw landscapes. The student, a senior identified in the lawsuit by the initials A.P., added a cross and the words “John 3:16 A sign of love” in his drawing.

His teacher, Julie Millin, asked him to remove the reference to the Bible, saying students were making remarks about it. He refused, and she gave him a zero on the project.

Millin showed the student a policy for the class that prohibited any violence, blood, sexual connotations or religious beliefs in artwork. The lawsuit claims Millin told the boy he had signed away his constitutional rights when he signed the policy at the beginning of the semester.

The boy tore the policy up in front of Millin, who kicked him out of class. Later that day, assistant principal Cale Jackson told the boy his religious expression infringed on other students’ rights.

Jackson told the boy, his stepfather and his pastor at a meeting a week later that religious expression could be legally censored in class assignments. Millin stated at the meeting the cross in the drawing also infringed on other students’ rights.


1. Students categorically do not sign away their constitutional rights as a result of taking a course in a public school. The idea is ludicrous on its face.

2. Both know-nothings, Cale Jackson and teacher Millin, suggest that this drawing “infringed on other students’ rights. Pray tell, how? What “right”? The right not to have to disagree with a message?

3. Assistant principal Jackson is clueless, just clueless, about the First Amendment “free exercise” clause. How does a man get into this position and be so without a shred of a clue? Or does this illustrate again some of the reason behind the abject failure of most public schools (again, again, again, I say “thank the Lord for the great Christians who go into the public school and make a difference!”) to provide a decent education.

5 responses »

  1. Byron says:

    I’m a catchy dude…

  2. Don says:

    Catchy title.

  3. Derlin says:

    The one thing “tolerance” groups find unacceptable is intolerance by others. Intolerance of violence against anyone of a differing view is one thing, but intolerance of agreeing to disagree is ridiculous.

  4. Ed Darrell says:

    I think there are problems with the school’s policy.

    However, schools are not churches. They are not complete, unfettered “free exercise zones.” The kid seems to have some anger issues, and at a minimum, shouldn’t a Christian protest through channels rather than tearing up documents in what most teachers would see as a provocative move?

    Be sure to get familiar with Settle vs. Dickson (Tennessee) School District, out of the 6th Circuit (if I recall correctly). Students may not try to play a Jesus card to get out of doing assignments as assigned. If the kids signed an agreement to leave out religious references, he has no right to insist on putting it back in. If the school’s policy is non-discriminatory, it may be upheld.

    One thing most people in education find offensive, even those among us who are Christian, is the constant attempts to avoid assignments and paper over misdeeds by waving the name “Jesus” around.

  5. Byron says:

    I think that I can agree that the kid didn’t handle everything correctly, and in one sense, no place in America is an unfettered “free exercise zone” (we can’t sacrifice children, even in our sanctuary). But it’s not a question of “avoiding” an assignment, but rather a question of one religious viewpoint being censored (while others were allowed).

    Further, what’s “religious”? We might call the student’s artwork “blatantly religious” in tone, and in one sense, I understand that, but the earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof; a sacred/secular distinction is non-existent (though that’s a tad off-topic). Fact is, though, that there were other “religious” things that were either on display or were drawn by students, with nary a peep from the teacher, apparently; they just weren’t Christian.

    Look, I have a bit of unease myself when some Christians want to play the martyr about everything. And the kid should have been punished for the defiant way he tore up the document. But that doesn’t mean that at its core, the policy is blatantly discriminatory and anti-First Amendment.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s