Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Student Sues Wisconsin School After Getting a Zero for Religious Drawing

page: 1
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Student Sues Wisconsin School After Getting a Zero for Religious Drawing


www.foxnews.com

MADISON, Wis. — A Tomah High School student has filed a federal lawsuit alleging his art teacher censored his drawing because it featured a cross and a biblical reference.

The lawsuit alleges other students were allowed to draw "demonic" images and asks a judge to declare a class policy prohibiting religion in art unconstitutional.

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.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 08:42 AM
link   
I think there is a major doulble standard here. Other children are aloud to draw buddah but this boy can't draw a cross. I think these people are picking on this kid. Why is he singled out? I hope he wins this lawsuit and really shakes them up.

www.foxnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 08:48 AM
link   
To be honest he deserves a zero not because of the religious overtones but because the picture really isn't very good. If you ask me he needs to get over it and move on.



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 08:52 AM
link   
I agree with Naboo. The boy receiving a 0 for that project had less to do with any religious overtones and more to do with it sucking.



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 08:53 AM
link   
I can agree that if the policy is NO religious icons, then there should be NO religious icons. But, I didn't see where it stated that the Buddah and demons where a part of art class projects. The buddah was in the social studies class and the demons were in metal shop. Now, if the art teacher let someone draw buddah and gave them anything but a zero, I could side with this. Maybe I missed something in the article?



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 08:55 AM
link   
did any of you actually look at the drawing? look at the cross. see the symbols surrounding the cross? to me it reminds me of the standard kkk symbol of a burning cross.



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 08:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Naboo the Enigma
 

Well, I agree that the picture isn"t great, and if the grade was based on art I would understand. But I believe it wasn't. These teachers are picking on this kid, and I know how it feels to be singled out in school. It sucks. Why would his teacher tell the boy he had signed away his constitutional rights. He's just being picked in my opinion.



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 09:02 AM
link   

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.


Not because it 'sucked'!


Sometime after that meeting, the boy's metals teacher rejected his idea to build a chain-mail cross, telling him it was religious and could offend someone, the lawsuit claims. The boy decided in March to shelve plans to make a pin with the words "pray" and "praise" on it because he was afraid he'd get a zero for a grade.


Another example of bias, apparently!


The lawsuit also alleges school officials allow other religious items and artwork to be displayed on campus.

A Buddha and Hindu figurines are on display in a social studies classroom, the lawsuit claims, adding the teacher passionately teaches Hindu principles to students.

In addition, a replica of Michaelangelo's "The Creation of Man" is displayed at the school's entrance, a picture of a six-limbed Hindu deity is in the school's hallway and a drawing of a robed sorcerer hangs on a hallway bulletin board.

Drawings of Medusa, the Grim Reaper with a scythe and a being with a horned head and protruding tongue hang in the art room and demonic masks are displayed in the metals room, the lawsuit alleges.


What????
If these 'art' projects are allowed, Our traditional art (for the U.S.) MUST ALSO!



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 09:03 AM
link   
I wonder if this student is for the constitutional amendment for banning gay marriage? I bring this up because I find it funny that these religious people want to "pick" on others but when they get caught up in it, it's "boo-hoo, they are picking on me". I agree. Get over it.



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Clearskies


The lawsuit also alleges school officials allow other religious items and artwork to be displayed on campus.

A Buddha and Hindu figurines are on display in a social studies classroom, the lawsuit claims, adding the teacher passionately teaches Hindu principles to students.


How does that equate to an art "project"?


In addition, a replica of Michaelangelo's "The Creation of Man" is displayed at the school's entrance, a picture of a six-limbed Hindu deity is in the school's hallway and a drawing of a robed sorcerer hangs on a hallway bulletin board.


Again. Not a student's art project.


Drawings of Medusa, the Grim Reaper with a scythe and a being with a horned head and protruding tongue hang in the art room and demonic masks are displayed in the metals room, the lawsuit alleges.


Now, if true, I can agree with the lawsuit. If that stuff is allowed in the art room, then Christian stuff should be allowed to "hang" in there also.

But, I still haven't heard anything that says that these were student's art projects.



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 09:50 AM
link   
You know what? Teachers have enough crap to deal with and if a teacher asks you to do something so they don't have to deal with people complaining about why there is a BURNING CROSS in your picture then TAKE IT OFF.

For crying out loud! The teacher gave him a zero because he refused to obey her wishes. NOT because of the cross. If he wants to draw flaming crosses at home then FINE. But keep it out of the schools and have a little respect for teachers.

OH WOW! There were pictures of Buddha in a SOCIAL STUDIES classroom? I can't believe it!



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 10:02 AM
link   
As an artist, I'm incensed.

I was always under the impression that art was supposed to stimulate and provoke people into thinking outside of their own respective boxes.

Boo! for this "teacher".

She/He sounds more like a morality cop masquerading as an educator.



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 10:10 AM
link   
Boo for this teacher?

How about BOO to people who have no courtesy? How about the idea that being an artist doesn't mean that you have to be a rude A-HOLE? When you are in school - you need to think about the big picture. This teacher didn't say that the kid could not draw this at home or anywhere else.

What would have happened on parent/teacher conference night when this teacher had to explain to 26 angry sets of parents why there is a picture of a burning cross on her wall? For the sake of some 14 year olds artistic expression?

You want to be an artist kid? Learn to express yourself within the limitations of your environment. All the greats have.



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 10:18 AM
link   
reply to post by TruthWithin
 


I expressed my opinion. I didn't challange your right to free expression.

But apparently, free expression doesn't count for much in the eyes of the world today. Everything has to be prepackaged to suit the whims of the outspoken and selfish.

Just don't complain when the tables are turned and not in your favor.

Peace.

GE



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 10:36 AM
link   
Sorry but everyone who agrees with the teacher here...why?

I am Christian but I would allow the picture, if we are to say no to a picture because it may upset Christians then why not go to the strictest Christians we can find and ask what they don't like and get rid of it.

Then there will only be a few people left on this planet, everyone sees something they don't like everyday, it is the teacher and the students that should 'get over it'.



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by GENERAL EYES
Just don't complain when the tables are turned and not in your favor.


That also applies to Christian students. Eh?



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Millin showed the student a policy for the class that prohibited any violence, blood, sexual connotations or religious beliefs in artwork.


The kid signed it. So, yes, get over it.



[edit on 4/2/2008 by Griff]



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 10:40 AM
link   
The teacher asked the students to make drawings of landscapes. What kind of landscapes do you see with burning crosses on them?

The student was told to make a landscape, yet he also included a Biblical reference on there, even though that's not what the project called for. Since the teacher asked him not to do it, but he did it anyway, he brought the zero on himself.

Now regarding the other artwork containing Buddah, Vishnu, and etc, if it was done when the teacher asked for a different subject to be drawn, then he can't complain, but if they were also drawn with the "landscape" subject was called for, then this student has a valid point regarding the censor of Christian art.



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJMessiah
The teacher asked the students to make drawings of landscapes. What kind of landscapes do you see with burning crosses on them?



None, but I do see a landscape in that picture, unless it had to be a REAL landscape then it is a 'landscape' drawing that happens to have a structure in the shape of a cross on it.

And yes fair enough if he signed something saying no religious pictures, I mean saying it may offend people is no excuse.

[edit on 2-4-2008 by umbr45]



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 10:48 AM
link   
This has nothing to do with art, the curriculum, the teacher etc.

This lawsuit is a transparent ploy by the fundies to try and get Christan dogma and doctrine, allowed in the public school system.

I think that would be great as long as you allow Wicca, VooDoo, Shaman ism, Judaism and any other spiritual belief equal time.

If the student had of left out the cross and the Bible references, he might have gotten a better grade, perhaps a B- but noooo, he had to wear his religion on his sleeve even though he knew the consequences of his actions. This is just another test in the courts.



[edit on 2-4-2008 by whaaa]





new topics




 
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join