Thursday, October 24, 2019


Three Education Lawsuits Worth Watching

In the coming months, many lawsuits will make their way through state, federal, and even the U.S. Supreme Court. Three cases in particular have the potential to shape the future of religious freedom, due process, and freedom of speech in education:

Religious Freedom

This year the U.S. Supreme Court will consider Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue. The case asks whether a Montana rule that forbids state scholarship dollars from going to religious schools violates the freedom of religion clauses or equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Montana’s scholarship program gives students an opportunity to attend schools their families might not otherwise be able to afford. Parents Kendra Espinoza, Jeri Anderson, and Jaime Shaefer, plaintiffs in the lawsuit, share that even with the state’s scholarship program, they struggle to send their children to Stillwater Christian School. They say the sacrifice is worthwhile because their children are thriving.

Shortly after the program began, Montana’s Department of Revenue prohibited recipients from using their scholarships at religious schools like Stillwater. The law aligns with the state’s “Blaine Amendment” which prohibits state funds from going to religious entities and means families like the Espinozas, Andersons, and Shaefers can no longer use state scholarships to give their children the education they feel is best.

Across the country, 37 states have similar laws blocking state aid from going to religious schools. If the Supreme Court strikes down Montana’s law, it could open the door to greater education options for state scholarship recipients across the nation.

“This could be the most impactful Supreme Court case since the pivotal Zelman decision in 2002 which ruled that state-level voucher programs are constitutional,” said John Schilling, President of the American Federation of Children about the Espinoza case. “This Montana case has the opportunity to definitively establish that religious schools cannot be excluded from school choice programs by virtue of their religion.”

Due Process in Education

Not all significant education lawsuits are decided at the Supreme Court. The first-of-its-kind class-action lawsuit, John Doe v. Michigan State University could shape due process in the age of #MeToo.

John Doe was a sophomore at Michigan State when he was accused of sexual assault. His complaint states that he was suspended on the word of an investigator who served as prosecutor, judge, and jury—without a hearing to confront or question his accuser.

Doe argues that Michigan State ignored due process in its pursuit to find him guilty and thereby alleviate the pressure the school faced with the Nassar scandal, Department of Education investigation, and reports alleging high levels of unredressed sexual assault on campus.

“Unfortunately, the misapplication of Title IX has reached new depths at Michigan State,” said Andrew Miltenberg, the lawyer who filed the lawsuit. “Michigan State, in trying to distract attention from its own misdeeds, is consistently and systemically using Title IX as a weapon of law against its accused students, with life-altering consequences for these young men and women.”

Whether Doe wins or loses, the case offers a word of caution to colleges and universities facing pressure to find and punish sexual assault. In their pursuit of justice, institutions of higher education must remain vigilant in upholding those processes that defend the innocent.

Free Speech in Education

A third significant case, Speech First, Inc. v. Gregory L. Fenves, questions whether University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (UIUC) policies violate First Amendment speech protections.

In December 2018, the nonprofit education research organization Foundation for Individual Rights in Education released a study which found that 89.7 percent of American colleges and universities restrict protected student speech. According to a 2018 Gallup poll, 61 percent of students agree that the climate on their campus prevents some people from expressing their views.

Speech First contends this is the case at UIUC. In its complaint, Speech First notes that anonymous student “bias” reports are investigated by a UIUC campus Bias Assessment Response Team (BART). These investigations may incur No Contact Directives, sanctions that prohibit students from interacting with one another, without giving students the chance to question their accusers. In addition, bias reports remain on students’ academic records, impacting their scholarship options, study abroad applications, and other academic efforts.

“On a regular basis, the University of Illinois sends a clear message to students who wish to engage in political and religious speech. There are some views that are welcome and others that are not,” said Speech First President and Founder Nicole Neilly, “Students deserve to express themselves and voice their opinions without fear of investigation or punishment – which is why these policies must be reformed.”

A win against UIUC would build on a recent victory against the bias response team at the University of Michigan and encourage the more than 230 schools with similar bias response teams to re-evaluate their policies in light of constitutional free speech protections.

SOURCE 






Student gov trashes conservative 'coming out' event

The Student Government Association (SGA) at Texas State University has introduced a resolution to condemn a conservative group for a tabling event titled “Conservative Coming Out Day,” which allowed conservative students to "come out" and share their views on campus.

Hosted by the Young Conservatives of Texas (YCT) at Texas State, the event coincides with "National Coming Out Day" for individuals who have not publicly "come out" as LGBT.

The resolution accuses YCT of “homophobia,” “bias,” and “violating the shared values” of the school. The resolution also specifically says the YCT’s “continued belittlement of LGBTQIA+...make[s] it harder for LGBTQIA+ students to feel welcome on our campus.”

YCT released a statement standing by its event and noted that there were even Log Cabin Republicans in attendance. The Log Cabin Republicans is an organization that represents LGBT conservatives.

“The event in question, Conservative Coming Out Day, was a demonstration of how many conservative students are afraid to discuss their political beliefs on campus,” the statement reads. “We are proud to have invited Log Cabin Republicans (LCR) with the intent to ensure that nothing that took place could have in any way been harmful to the LGBTQIA+ community. Had any SGA members actually spoken with us prior to writing this virtue-signaling piece, they would have known that.”

In response to the SGA resolution, the YCT announced that it no longer recognizes the student government as legitimate.

“The Young Conservatives of Texas at Texas State University hereby denounces, condemns, and refuses to recognize the Texas State University Student Government as a legitimate, reasonable, and responsible organization.”

YCT President Sebastian Quaid told Campus Reform that the Texas State SGA “routinely” abuses conservative students.

“The final tipping point is when we did our annual Conservative Coming Out Day event this year with our local Log Cabin Republican President, Michael Cargill. [We were] told by the SGA that we are the reason LGBT students commit suicide,” Quaid said. “This was too far...it is incredibly dangerous for one organization to push such rhetoric and we can no longer stand by and watch as they try to burn our school to the ground.”

Quaid also asked other students to denounce SGA. “I implore other students to denounce this ridiculous organization as well.”

According to the YCT Twitter feed, the group also faced threats for putting on the event.

SOURCE 






Australian preschool is accused of 'manipulating' kids by encouraging them to petition for the Aboriginal flag to be raised permanently on the Sydney Harbour Bridge

Preschool staff have been accused of manipulating three-year-olds who are petitioning to have the Aboriginal flag flown permanently on the Sydney Harbour Bridge. 

Children aged three to five at Kelly's Place Children's Centre in Crows Nest on Sydney's North Shore have been supporting a petition by Aboriginal activists since early this year.

They have been walking up and down station platforms and sitting outside their houses to get as many signatures as possible.

Last month the children visited the NSW state parliament and presented their signatures to Labor leader Jodi McKay who supports the idea.

More than 120,000 have signed the petition started by activist Cheree Toka - but many do not approve of children getting involved.

Respected child psychologist Dr Michael Carr-Gregg said they are being used by their teachers.  'These children do not even have the cognitive ability to understand what a petition is,' he told the Daily Telegraph.

Referencing 16-year-old climate activist Greta Thunberg's speech at the UN last month, he added: 'I think the idea of roping children into political campaigns seems to be in vogue. Children should not be used as props.'

Institute of Public Affairs executive director John Roskom agreed, saying the children are 'being manipulated by adults in positions of responsibility for the adults' own political purposes'.

NSW Education Minister Sarah Mitchell said she was 'deeply concerned' that young children were being politicised. 

A spokesman for the preschool denied that the children were being used and said the idea to support the petition came from the youngsters themselves.

He said: 'One of the children noticed there was no Aboriginal flag on the Harbour Bridge and said that was disrespectful.

'He was four-and-a-half at the time and came in and told the other children that was disrespectful.'

'They went through the process of learning who to speak to - and they achieved what they wanted. They were incredibly empowered by their abilities.'

SOURCE  



No comments: