Christian Legal System Case Study

This document supports limiting online student speech because the court ruled that even though it happened out of school, the school’s reason was strong enough to justify their actions toward K.K.

An examination of the First Amendment legal issues that arise when a student turns in an essay and the displaying of religious nature for an assignment will provide insight into how the First Amendment applies to classroom assignments. Each reason will provide important insight, information, and court cases to better help in giving a view of the first amendment in regards to religion and education.

Despite their opinions, free speech was a great way in this situation for students to rally together and publically inform the rest of campus of their beliefs. In the school newspaper, The Daily Emerald, CJ Ciaramelle wrote “About 300 students from across the campus community — student unions, Greek Life, the ASUO, the Survival Center, the Women’s Center — showed up at the meeting to protest the Forum” (1). Although the majority of people protested against the forum the right to free speech, it is important because it allows students to make decisions on their own and invite students to do the same.

Recently, students were instructed to write an essay along with a pictorial representation of the person they considered to be their hero. Since one student chose Jesus as his hero and submitted a drawing of the Last Supper, possible legal complications need to be considered before grading and displaying the assignment. An examination of First Amendment legal issues that arise when a student submits an assignment of religious nature will provide insight into how the First Amendment applies in the classroom.

When law, a means that is there to protect everyone is brought into questioning, yet another conflict as a result of a change in progress is brought forth. It is the role of law and those who practice it to protect the equality of everyone. However, when a change is proposed concerning it, challenges also accompany it. One such event that is occurring in today’s society is the controversy of establishing a law school under a faith-based school’s regulation. Trinity Western University won approvals in December to open a law school over objections from lawyers, students and LGBT groups who are in opposition as TWU is known to discriminate against homosexuals. TWU is a faith-based school that forbids same-sex intimacy. Many concerned law professors are therefore pressing their provincial societies to rethink recognizing graduates from TWU. There is also clashes occurring between the choice of religious freedom and equality rights as lawyers are faced with the problem of choosing between the two freedoms under their duty to not discriminate. As this very controversial topic that

Reno, R.R. "Defending religious liberty." First Things: A Monthly Journal of Religion and Public Life 225 (2012): 3+. Academic OneFile. Web. 3 Mar. 2015.

The right to freedom of expression of ones religion is at stake in this case. Mrs. Williams has a right to express her religion freely. However, based upon the Establishment Clause which prohibits any law “respecting the establishment of religion”, she does not have the right to force others to conform to her way of thinking. At the same time, students and community members have a right to express their religion, too. They also have a right not to have another person’s religion forced on them. So there is only one individual right at stake here, but it is not possible to respect this right of behalf of all the claimants. While the majority of the community, the school board, and some students will feel that it is Mrs. Williams’ right to keep the bulletin board posted, some community members, students, and ACLU feel it is their right not to keep it posted.

In response to the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Santa Fe Independent School District V. Doe (SFISD V. Doe) case, Chief Justice Rehnquist commented, “It [the ruling] bristles with hostility to all things religious in public life” (“United”). Separating religion and state has always been a matter of concern for the United States, as shown by the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment of our constitution. Although there have been many cases revolving around the relationship between the church and the state, SFISD V. Doe is among the most notable. By examining the background, reflecting on the decision, and analyzing the impact of the SFISD V. Doe case,

A student at Westside High School requested to form a Christian Club that would meet after school. The club would be granted the same privileges as the other student groups at the school, but they did not have a faculty sponsor. Her request was denied by the principal stating that the club would violate the Establishment Clause and the School Board policy requiring a faculty member to sponsor the club. Mergens took her concerns to the School Board. The School Board upheld the principal’s decision. Mergens filed a lawsuit against the Board of Education of Westside Community Schools, for denying the request for a Christian

The decision in this case seems to have left public school students’ free speech rights in an ambiguous state. The Justices in support of the majority opinion—Justices Thomas, Alito, Kennedy, and Scalia—were thus

“Over the years, courts have ruled that college officials may set up reasonable rules to regulate the ‘time, place and manner” that the free speech can occur, as long as the rules are “content neutral,’ meaning they apply equally to all sides of issues” (Fisher, 2008). Speech codes and free speech zones on campus do exist for many reasons: many of the causes or topics that students or others looking to interact with students take up are controversial and can frequently take on less of an academic or social justice overtone and more of a hateful one. Hate speech is the greatest threat to freedom of speech on college campuses, and the limitations colleges and universities put on student’s verbal freedoms are largely in place as efforts to avoid it. Religion, in particular, is a hot topic on campuses and it has an unfortunate tendency to become more aggressive and argumentative than universities would like. However, under the First Amendment, individuals do have a right to speech that the listener disagrees with and to speech that is offensive and hateful. It’s always easier to defend someone’s right to say something with which you agree. But in a free society, you also have a duty to defend speech to which you may strongly object.

Universities that have been trying to quash free speech have encountered some court reversals of their attempts. But campus leftists have not given up. The newest university gambit to limit speech mirrors the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission guidelines concerning sexual harassment in the workplace, (creating a hostile environment) or they attempt to base their speech code on the "fighting words" doctrine enunciated by the Court in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire

Legal Question: The legal issue presented in this case ultimately questioned the University of Michigan’s admission policy which sought a more diverse student body. The court addressed whether the University of Michigan’s use of racial preferences in the admission process violated

& Martinez, 2003). The Supreme Court ruled that the University of California was wrong in the way they approached a special admissions program that was open only to minority applicants (Aguirre Jr. & Martinez, 2003). The ruling argued that the special admissions program violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (Aguirre Jr. & Martinez, 2003). Justice Lewis Powell, Jr. stated in his opinion on the Bakke case that quotas “would hinder rather than further attainment of genuine diversity” (Aguirre Jr. & Martinez, 2003, p. 141). Justice Powell, Jr. also wrote that race is only one part of many factors that an institution can consider in truly achieving a heterogeneous student population (Aguirre Jr. & Martinez, 2003). By siding with Bakke in this case, the Supreme Court essentially outlawed the use of racial quotas in admissions processes in higher education, yet universities took this as it is okay to use race as a selective factor as long as there are no quotas (Aguirre Jr. & Martinez, 2003).

There is currently a debate of whether Australia should introduce legislation allowing religious groups, including Muslims, Jews and others, to surrender themselves to the religious arbitration in areas of personal law, similar to the model that was in force in Ontario, Canada, from 1991 to 2005. Canada ultimately denied formal recognition of the religious arbitration but still accepted its existence only within the informal processes if the parties of the disputes are willing to use religious arbitration. The paper is to undertake a comparative examination of the model, as it existed in Ontario and the current position in Australia and examine the pros and cons for an