Summary Of The Cidney Fisk Case

Oliver Wendell Holmes High School took part in a community wide health fair. The school set up a booth and asked their students to participate. The teachers gave extra credit to the students that attended the health fair, and the student would have to sign in at the schools booth to verify their attendance. Susie Speeker, a student at Oliver Wendell Holmes High School, attended the fair with her family. While at the community wide health fair, Susie held up a sign which stated marijuana should be legalized for compassionate use. A fellow student that attended the same school as Susie took a picture of her holding the sign and published it in the school newspaper. The principal of the school saw the photo and suspended Susie for violating the schools policy by promoting illegal drugs at a school function. Since Susie’s suspension, she claims that she has been harassed by other students and teachers at her school. Susie claims that her grades have dropped which could result in limited college choices. As a result, Susie claims her civil rights under 42 U.S.C § 1983 were violated.

Jeffery Calkin, the defendant, leased a vehicle for our client, Sage Rent-A-Car Inc., and was involved in a car accident with the plaintiff, Jane White. A negligence suit was filed by Ms. White against Mr. Calkin and our client, Sage Rent-A-Car Inc. The suit claims that our client is required to carry insurance and therefore has a duty to assume responsibility for this accident under the provisions of the Mandatory Financial Responsibility Act (MFRA).

In a country founded for the desire of freedom of religion, it seems a large step back has been taken when the federal government holds the education of America’s youth to a Christian moral viewpoint. Several lawsuits have been successfully brought against abstinence only programs for forcing religious viewpoints. Perhaps not directly religious in nature, abstinence only education muddies the line between separation of church and state. While they are few and far between some religions do not discourage premarital sex, and others encourage polyamorous relationships with multiple women. These may be the minority but to force christian fundamentals on their children is a violation of their rights and breeds discrimination towards them.

As I sided with the students in the case of Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier, I represent the minority opinion. While proponents of the school district’s decision would say that since the newspaper is being published by the school and the school is paying for it, the school should be able to dictate what can and cannot be put into the paper. By those same guidelines, the owner of any newspaper should be able to cut content from his newspaper simply because he did not like what it said. While it makes sense for the school board to cut the content that contained remarks about one student’s parents without their permission (as this may actually have been illegal), the section on teen pregnancy should not have been an issue. While younger students may indeed have read it, that would not have been an issue, as they have probably already heard about these things anyway. The main problem I have with this

Two visits with James Rusk, and his paramour Sherri Heath were held on February 2, 2017 and February 7, 2017. Both visits took place at James’s residence located at 750 East 22nd Street, Erie, Pennsylvania. Mr. Rusk’s home is an apartment complex. Mr. Rusk lives in an apartment downstairs, while his brother Carl Hannah lives in the upper level of the apartment.

In the well-known case of of Tinker Verses Des Moines Independent Community School District, the Supreme Court remarked, “it can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” While shedding your thoughts and freedom of speech or expression at “the schoolhouse gate” can be difficult, the district did have the right to not renew the teacher’s contract. I think that it is important to keep my mind what the judge stated in the facts above, “teachers … do not have a right under the First Amendment to express their opinions with their students during the instructional period.” The teacher gave her opinion and an idea of her political view by stating

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits teachers from expressing their religious preference while teaching or performing duties as a teacher. However, Title VII requires accommodations of “all aspect of religious observance…” if it does not produce undue hardship on the employer. Based on student performance, required ritual times and declining enrollment, the school district is experiencing hardship, but there are several factors that may constitute a more in-depth review of what is happening with the teacher and her class. For example, I would recommend that she complete her rituals before classes start, during lunch and at the end of the school day. This will provide the required reasonable accommodations for her religious

In recent years teaching or the individual practice of religion in school has become a very controversial topic. There are many different views on this matter and even more opinions on how it should be handled. There are people on both sides of the spectrum, there are those who believe that it should be taught and allowed in school, and there are those who believe it should not be taught or practiced in school. There have been cases brought to court about how religion should be taken out of schools, or if it should be allowed. There are many differences that cause concern between public schools and private or religious schools regarding education. For example, could it be that single – sex schools (which are only seen in private

It should also be noted that Lt. Fisk states all action taken against him are related to he going to WPD Internal Affairs reporting Officer Corruption. Issues with Fisk’s performance began prior to this and he himself has documented that he has been told an investigation case was going to be taken away from his case load and reassigned do to issues with him completing his investigation.

Federal funding has played a large role in this increase, as monetary incentives have been the driving force behind much of the change. To put it in numbers, the amount of federal dollars going to schools that adopted abstinence only programs almost tripled in the seven years between 1998 and 2005, increasing from 60 to 168 million dollars a year (Santelli, 75). And among United States school districts that changed their policies, twice as many chose to adopt a curriculum that more heavily focused on abstinence only until marriage as moved towards a more comprehensive program (Landry). This disturbing statistic shows how effective the religious right has been in pushing abstinence only programs in face of a dearth of evidence as to their effectiveness. This effectiveness is mainly due to intense lobbying funded by individuals and organizations on the far right. One man, Raymond Ruddy, has personally put 1.5 million dollars towards advocacy and lobbying for abstinence only programs (Eaton). While lobbying like this commonly happens on both sides of the aisle, in this case public opinion goes against what people like Raymond Ruddy say is necessary. According to a recent study, "Ninety-eight percent of parents say they want HIV/AIDS discussed in sex education classes; 85% want 'how to use condoms' discussed; 84% think sex education should cover 'how to use and where to get other birth control,' and 76% want

These programs are promoting marriage and using fear tactics in regard to having sex before marriage. These abstinences programs come into the school and force their opinion onto the students that they should abstain until they are married. Programs like this are making students sign forms stating that they will abstain from premarital sex. Students

I believe that all schools should teach an inclusive form of sexual education. I believe that teaching abstinence is not working in the slightest because the rate of teenagers who are sexually active is gradually increasing. Since teens are participating in sexual intercourse, we need to teach them how to have sex safely. Schools need to teach a form of sexual education that will fully cover how to prevent teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases and infections. The abstinence-only-until-marriage programs need to be replaced because they contain inaccuracies and flaws, the popular opinion of the American society differs from our state policies, and the government and taxpayer’s money could be better

The Abstinence only programs do not use anything outside of some skewed statistics and half-truths at best to argue that comprehensive sex education is detrimental to the students that receive it in any form. They use fear as the primary driving force behind the movement along with language that make it hard to debate without looking bad. According to Advocates for Youth research that was published in Comprehensive Sex Education: Research and Results the more information a student has the less likely they are to participate in risky activities, have fewer sexual partners and lower teen pregnancy/STI rates (Advocates for Youth, 2007). While Advocates for Youth are supporters of completely comprehensive sex education in American schools there are other programs the discuss abstinence plus programs which identify abstinence as the preference but agree with the need for the student to be educated in STI prevention, correct condom use and birth control options for the student. In the article “Community Attitudes Toward School-Based Sexuality Education in a Conservative State” Dunn, Thompson, M’Cormack and Yannessa discuss this fact. They identify that even in a conservative state such as South Carolina many of the parents agree that there needs to be a supplement to abstinence only in order to make

A pro-life teacher lost her job at a private school in British Columbia after a student complained that she had voiced out her opinion on abortion during a law class.

People believe more sex education classes can decrease sexual risk like teen pregnancy and reduce HIV/AIDS ( “Pro and Cons of Sex Education in School”) For example Smith argues that if more of these classes were taught in more schools teen pregnancy rates would drop (Smith) Yes , there are a lot of teens in exposure of teen pregnancy because they are curious or just pressured into doing stuff and they do not know the risks . ( “Pro and Cons of Sex Education in School”) However some students can’t take the classes because they have religious beliefs in their households ( “Pro and Cons of Sex Education in School”) Parents that agree that schools should have