Posted: Wed Apr 14, 2010 6:16 am Post subject: Cam Matt Kyle and Sam Group
hey so it seems like in Pico vs. the Board of education the court ruled that the school could not ban certain books from the library. Im pretty sure that the other group will bring this up. The way i think to beat this is to point out that the precedent set in this case is inapplicable because our case deals with a matter of required reading. These students are being forced to select readings from this list. So its a matter of volunteer vs. required.
I think its also key we argue that the board of education thought these books, to be vulgar, obscene and repugnant to the values of the community and therefore educational unsuitable.
Just some thoughts.
They will definetly bring up the whole Supreme Court not obscenity thing which is dumb because no one knew that pre trial
We must also analyze and the learn that right that schools have to make rules regarding their school _________________ Cam Bauchner
After looking over Gambino v. Fairfax & Trachtman v. Anker I discovered a crucial point. Boiled down it comes to this:
-> A school has the final say on anything that is part of the curriculum. The curriculum belongs to the school so changing it does not violate a student's rights.
-> A school does not have the right to censor any "public forum", any meeting place, student published article, or other means of student expression even if the method is school funded.
What this means for us (respectively):
-> We have all the right in the world to remove certain books from the curriculum via removal from the reading list. Furthermore, in Palmer v. Board of Ed. a teacher disagreed with the curriculum established by the school (based on personal beliefs, in Palmer, freedom of religion, here, freedom of speech), and after the trial, it was ruled that she could not object to the school's curriculum.
-> We do not have the right to ban and/or remove specified books from the school library.
Posted: Fri Apr 16, 2010 7:00 pm Post subject: Palmer v board of ed case:
The last lines of this case say that Palmer has the right to practice her religion, as long as it doesn't have an impact on other people's learning. Obviously there is an impact on other people, because CUBE was complaining. If CUBE complains, then these books are impacting other people, and because the First Amendment is not absolute (as said by Tinker (which I will look up) ) if it is messing with others. It is certainly messing with others so it's the school's complete jurisdiction over the curriculum (as said by Palmer and probably others that I don't know right now) even if it contradicts the first amendment a little bit. Sorry for the rambling post, I was figuring it out as I went
Also here is the link to our google docs page which everyone should be able to edit if you didn't get the email...
Palmer v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago
In this case, Wayne Giampietro represented Joethelia Palmer, a Chicago Public Schools teacher who objected to participating in certain patriotic aspects of the curriculum as a result of her affiliation with the Jehovah’s Witness religion. Palmer viewed the teaching of patriotism as a kind of idolatry, and her religion forbade her from such activities as participation in the pledge of allegiance, singing of patriotic songs, and celebration of certain national holidays.
After Palmer was hired but prior to the commencement of classes, she described the situation to her principal; the school made attempts to accommodate her special circumstance, but the school system claimed that doing so could not be reasonably accomplished. The district court upheld the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, but Palmer pressed on to the appeals court. Giampietro argued that the offended curriculum was so broad and vague that it was incomprehensible. In the end, the school system won; the court felt that the plaintiff’s foreknowledge of the curriculum and the state interest in teaching the national heritage trumped her claims to religious freedom. Religious freedom, the court said, involves practicing one’s own religion, but not depriving others of knowledge because of it.
The plan for this weekend is to contribute any arguments you have found to either this forum or the Legal Brief by Sunday. This leave Monday as a day dedicated to writing and editing. It is vital that you let your arguments be known and read over the arguments of others.
so does everyone want to write a page for the legal brief about the stuff they researched and then one of us will combine it? _________________ Cam Bauchner
Posted: Sun Apr 18, 2010 4:39 am Post subject: opening statement
Cam, you weren't here on Friday, but we talked about having everyone writing the legal brief together. Meaning; if everyone types up their ideas for the argument (especially for the section on the right to remove the books from the library which will be our struggle to argue...) onto the google docs site ^^^ then A: everyone knows the argument and is on the same page, B: everyone contributes to the work, and C: if one person finds a good point that they think should be put into the argument, then they can simply add it in. I'm going to start writing some of it right now, but PLEASE don't take my work for the final project.... I don't have faith that it will be very good, hopefully just a springboard for a good brief
yeah that is a great site thanks! And the google docs.. This is the link: http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AboLY2WAtOjkZGhqaG14cDNfMTNmNzdxNG5kbQ&hl=en and you should be able to simply click it and use/edit the document. If not, send me an email (sam.c.mccallum@gmail.com) and I'll try to get it to work. Also if you don't want to use google docs just post what you have on here, that's fine with me.
In Tinker; "There is no indication that the work of the schools or any class was disrupted." It was ruled that the students were protected under the first and fourth amendments, especially due to the fact that there was no disruption in their actions. However, in our case, the organization CUBE and perhaps others were effected by the books on the reading list and in the library. There are exceptions to the first amendment if, in the act of free speech, others are offended (this is like yelling fire in a crowded theater. IF ANYONE KNOWS WHERE THAT IS I CAN'T CITE IT). Schools have the right, even the obligation, to take measures to appease those who are offended by their curriculum. Although it is necessary for students to have a wide range of knowledge, that knowledge must not be gained at their own or others' expense. The students in Tinker were found to be protected by their rights, because "But, in our system, undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance is not enough to overcome the right to freedom of expression." This statement clearly implies that it is enough to overcome first amendment rights if people are openly offended. As it was previously stated, the organization CUBE voiced their objection to the curriculum of the Happy Valley School District, and as such the Board of Trustees must respond, in this case by removing the offensive books from the reading list and library.
This is my own idea and as of now I have no evidence to back it. If anyone else can find evidence that would be great. So I was thinking of using the Parental censorship right; that parents can choose to censor what their children are exposed to, at the parents' discretion. It stands to reason that schools have at least some of this same right, especially if parents of the students voice objections to the curriculum. It is (should be) the school's obligation to respect the censorship that parents believe necessary for their children, even if it means removing books from the library etc. How does that sound/can we find evidence to back it up?
That is what I've added to the brief... How does it sound, as a suuuper rough draft of course?
@smccallum2011
The students in Tinker were found to be protected by their rights, because "But, in our system, undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance is not enough to overcome the right to freedom of expression." This statement clearly implies that it is enough to overcome first amendment rights if people are openly offended.As it was previously stated, the organization CUBE voiced their objection to the curriculum of the Happy Valley School District, and as such the Board of Trustees must respond, in this case by removing the offensive books from the reading list and library.
I like this argument although it needs some clearing up in the colored section. Their isn't enough explanation given as to why "this statement clearly implies that it is enough to overcome the first amendment". This is partially due to the wordiness of the original text as well as any pronouns referring to said wordy text. Perhaps it might be clearer reworded as:
So in our case, the question must be asked: whose freedom of expression is at stake here? Although the Appellant may tell you that it is the students and teacher who are the victim here, it really is the parent's expression that is at risk here. Members of (C)itizens for (U)plifting and (B)ettering (E)ducational are all from the Happy Valley community, some of them are even parents of students. They serve the purpose of upholding community values and the power parents to control their own (Meyer v. Nebraska) so that school's do not indoctrinate the children.
In cases like Tinker v. Des Moines or Pico, the state school acted of its own accord in oppressing the freedom of expression of students. But here in Board v. Libertine, the school board has acted at the request of the community, while Loraine Libertine has acted in defiance of the curriculum established by the school board. In fact, her defiance of the curriculum is similar to Palmer v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago. In Palmer, a teacher refused to teach what disagreed with her religion which led her to justify herself using the freedom of religion. Here, Libertine has refused to teach the amended reading list because it disagrees with her own opinions and expressions, and means to justify herself by declaring a breach of her rights provided by the freedom of speech. The ruling declared, "Religious freedom involves practicing one’s own religion, but not depriving others of knowledge because of it." so in this case the freedom of speech should not force the students to read material outside of the communities interests.
Okay, that ended up being more than just a short edit... kinda loses it in the last sentence or two, so maybe someone could pick up where I left off.
BTW, writing this has given me some ideas for an opening statement- I'll get back to you with a draft.
i wrote a thing for section 3, check it out and see how you like it. Im almost at two pages for the big part and ill probablay submit it sometime tonight. I have a great case that was the same year as this called Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1983) heres the description
Administrators may edit the content of school newspapers.
The principal of Hazelwood East High School edited two articles in the school paper The Spectrum that he deemed inappropriate. The student authors argued that this violated their First Amendment right to freedom of speech. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that administrators can edit materials that reflect school values.
really helps with proving that schools have the ppwer to protect students from vulgarity whch is what happening here _________________ Cam Bauchner
So in our case, the question must be asked: whose freedom of expression is at stake here? Although the Appellant may tell you that it is the students and teacher who are the victim here, it really is the parent's expression that is at risk here. Members of (C)itizens for (U)plifting and (B)ettering (E)ducational are all from the Happy Valley community, some of them are even parents of students. They serve the purpose of upholding community values and the power parents to control their own (Meyer v. Nebraska) so that school's do not indoctrinate the children.
In cases like Tinker v. Des Moines or Pico, the state school acted of its own accord in oppressing the freedom of expression of students. But here in Board v. Libertine, the school board has acted at the request of the community... while Loraine Libertine has acted in defiance of the curriculum established by the school board. In fact, her defiance of the curriculum is similar to Palmer v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago. In Palmer, a teacher refused to teach what disagreed with her religion which led her to justify herself using the freedom of religion. Here, Libertine has refused to teach the amended reading list because it disagrees with her own opinions and expressions, and means to justify herself by declaring a breach of her rights provided by the freedom of speech. The ruling declared, "Religious freedom involves practicing one’s own religion, but not depriving others of knowledge because of it." so in this case the freedom of speech should not force the students to read material outside of the communities interests. I think this part is unclear, and when I read it I felt that it was pointless, and not even totally on our side. Everything else, however, seemed very good. I think it would be good to add explicitly the fact that CUBE complained because they were effected, and freedom of speech has limitations if others are too greatly effected.
And Cam, yeah that case looks really good. Kudos! Also I'll look back at what's been done later tonight, but I must depart to the wonderful land of math homework... gah...
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
