Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 05-10-2003, 10:53 AM

Art is what you can get away with.

This is a case where a school district, acting as a careful employer, has decided that its employees should wear no religious symbols, whether worn as Art or as Religion, in order to avoid the appearance of impropriety. Some infidels wear crosses as jewelry with no meaning, but some Christians, as the one in the lead article, wear crosses to signify their faith.

This places a small restriction on the teacher's freedom of expression while on the job, but it is justified by the school's need to avoid any violation of church state separation, and to avoid having students feel that they might be punished for the "wrong" beliefs or rewarded for the "right" ones.

In most employment situations, this might be too restrictive, but the school district owes a duty to its students to avoid any hint of coercion.

Things are very different in a social setting or an art gallery, where you are free to criticise or disagree with the Art on the wall without worrying about being graded down.

I predict that is how the court is going to analyse the situation, using generally agreed on criteria, and I think that is the best way to balance the difference interests in this case.

Pro-religionists are trying to change the law on this question:

Bill to Protect Religious Expression on the Job Causes Concern

Quote:

The Workplace Religious Freedom Act, introduced recently by Sens. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) and John Kerry (D-Mass.), would require employers to "reasonably accommodate" workers who want to wear religious articles or take off time for worship services.

Current law mandates that employers allow such expression as long as it does not impose an "undue hardship" on the company. Supporters, however, say a 1977 Supreme Court ruling gutted the law by ruling that even a minimal cost to the employer could be considered an "undue hardship" that would trump a worker's rights.

The new bill would narrow the definition of "undue hardship" to something that imposes "significant difficulty or expense" on the employer or that would keep an employee from carrying out the job's "essential functions." The law does not apply to businesses with fewer than 15 employees.

. . .

Business lobbyists have stalled attempts to advance the bill for almost a decade. And the American Civil Liberties Union, which has defended the rights of religious employees in some cases, said the current bill is too broad.

Christopher Anders, the ACLU's legislative counsel, said the new law would, for example, allow worker actions that have not been protected under current law, such as those of a Catholic police officer in Chicago who refused to guard an abortion clinic, or a state nurse in Connecticut who, while visiting the home of a gay AIDS patient, condemned the man's lifestyle and told him to repent.

There are no protections in the bill to prohibit a worker from forcing religious beliefs on colleagues or from allowing a worker to dictate his or her duties because of religious or moral convictions, Anders said.

"One of the goals of the religious right is to use Title VII to get extra rights that would harm other people in the workplace," Anders said. "The courts have been telling them no," but if the bill passes, "the courts may not be telling them no."

Photocrat · 05-13-2003, 10:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto
It was pretty clear from the article in the OP that she was insisting on wearing the cross because she is a Christian.

Teachers do not have an absolute right to free speech in the classroom. Employers have the right to impose a dress code on employees, and that's what this is. Deal with it.

I didn't see the article you did, I saw it on CNN.

This, however, is a state action since it's a public school. The state can't do everything a private employer can (althought they sure as hell try to strip people of their constitutional rights sometimes...)

Would you be as okay with it if they were inconsistantly enforcing it *only* against non-Christian religions (e.g. what if they only did it against wiccan symbols)? The current administration may be more evenhanded (I wonder if they've ever reprimanded anyone else over this?) but as little as you trust people, I'd think you'd realize that it may well be used inequitably soon enough...

Frankly, I don't believe that the government should attempt to exert *any* force over what we do or do not believe. E.G. should 'make NO LAW' rather than trying to decide whatever the hell they think is most equitable and legislating that into something rediculous...

I'm still wondering what would happen if someone was able to present a reasonable arguement that all clothes were seen as 'religious' items to some group. I'd love to see them weasel out of that one...

Toto · 05-14-2003, 12:12 AM

The state still has the right to set codes of conduct for its employees. There have been teachers who have claimed the right under free speech to teach their public school classes about creationism or Bible studies, and they lose in court.

There would be an equal protection problem if the school district enforced its ban against only some relgious symbols, but that's not what they are doing. They have a blanket ban against religious symbols of all types.

The state in this case is not trying to dictate what the teacher believes, only how she presents herself while on the state payroll doing state functions. When she is off the job she can wear whatever symbols or costumes she wants.

Your argument about all clothes being seen as religious is unworkable, because religions only dictate what their own members wear. If there were a religion that required nudism, members of that religion would still have to wear clothes to work. Some religions require women to wear "modest" dress - long sleeves and skirts below the knees; they cannot require the state employees to conform to their dress code, by seeing short sleeved shirts as religious.

I've said all I want to on this topic. I don't see any major issues here.

Stephen Maturin · 07-01-2003, 11:10 AM

Last week a federal district court judge (Arthur Schwab, Western District of Pennsylvania) granted a preliminary injunction ordering that the teacher's aide be reinstated, with back pay and benefits, pending disposition of her request for a permanent injunction. In granting the preliminary injunction, the judge held that the aide's First Amendment claims (free exercise of religion and free speech) have a "strong likelihood of success on the merits." Another hearing is scheduled for August 28.

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Article

Nichol v. ARIN Intermediate Unit 28, No. 03-cv-646 (W.D. Pa. June 25, 2003) (opinion and order granting preliminary injunction in PDF).

This comes as little if any surprise, of course, but it's always a bit maddening to see $ekulow & Co. on the winning side of anything.

Rusting Car Bumper · 07-04-2003, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto
Teachers do not have an absolute right to free speech in the classroom. Employers have the right to impose a dress code on employees, and that's what this is. Deal with it.

However, the teacher has rights as well even if she is a government employee.

This piece of jewelry doesn't effect her job, make it les, or impose anyother practical problem. It's not paid for by the state and its nt a state supported symbol its hard to say its a promotion of religion.

DC

elmodog · 07-05-2003, 11:11 PM

Why couldn't the teacher just say it is a lower case letter "t" and be done with it?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-14-2003, 12:12 AM	#33
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	The state still has the right to set codes of conduct for its employees. There have been teachers who have claimed the right under free speech to teach their public school classes about creationism or Bible studies, and they lose in court. There would be an equal protection problem if the school district enforced its ban against only some relgious symbols, but that's not what they are doing. They have a blanket ban against religious symbols of all types. The state in this case is not trying to dictate what the teacher believes, only how she presents herself while on the state payroll doing state functions. When she is off the job she can wear whatever symbols or costumes she wants. Your argument about all clothes being seen as religious is unworkable, because religions only dictate what their own members wear. If there were a religion that required nudism, members of that religion would still have to wear clothes to work. Some religions require women to wear "modest" dress - long sleeves and skirts below the knees; they cannot require the state employees to conform to their dress code, by seeing short sleeved shirts as religious. I've said all I want to on this topic. I don't see any major issues here.

07-01-2003, 11:10 AM	#34
Stephen Maturin Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Broomfield, Colorado, USA Posts: 1,295	Last week a federal district court judge (Arthur Schwab, Western District of Pennsylvania) granted a preliminary injunction ordering that the teacher's aide be reinstated, with back pay and benefits, pending disposition of her request for a permanent injunction. In granting the preliminary injunction, the judge held that the aide's First Amendment claims (free exercise of religion and free speech) have a "strong likelihood of success on the merits." Another hearing is scheduled for August 28. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Article Nichol v. ARIN Intermediate Unit 28, No. 03-cv-646 (W.D. Pa. June 25, 2003) (opinion and order granting preliminary injunction in PDF). This comes as little if any surprise, of course, but it's always a bit maddening to see $ekulow & Co. on the winning side of anything.

07-05-2003, 11:11 PM	#36
elmodog Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 103	Why couldn't the teacher just say it is a lower case letter "t" and be done with it?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.