So, apparently while schools may write policies about student appearance, they may not write policies about student artwork submitted for grades.

So, apparently while schools may write policies about student appearance, they may not write policies about student artwork submitted for grades

The difference here is between the right to a mohawk, not covered in the constitution, and the right to freedom of religion, directly covered in the constitution. Had the same teacher not insisted on exposing the same class to Buddhism, the issue wouldn't be as grave.

Just to remind everyone of the positions staked out during the "Mohawk" thread..


HappyGilmore:
i guess the question that comes up is who gets to determine what is "properly groomed." In this case, the answer is the school. And children should be taught that individualism has nothing to do with looks, clothes, or hairstyles, but with their demeanor and attitude.
Bottom line is schools have rules, and everyone gets to follow them, even if you don't agree with them.
but apparently they are too young to learn that there are also rules and that they must be followed...interesting concept you have.

BengalsFan:
PS: Hey, Lady! They CAN and just did tell you how you can cut his hair. Well, actually they just told you how you can't cut his hair.
And ANYTHING that disrupts the education of the kids should allow for a suspension, especially something so utterly unneccessary.
You know what, as soon as they are old enough to start experimenting on their own, then they are old enough to face the consequences of their own actions. They'll learn hey, if I wear a mohawk, I'll have a harder time finding a job.

Oh wait, he is learning about the consequences of having such a haircut. He was suspended. And it isn't as if it was unknown. His mother was warned not once, but twice before action was taken.



Ofay (Ofay is a racial slur, a slang term for a white person)
This is outrageous. How do they expect us to boost our children's self-esteem and teach them that the world does indeed revolve around them if they keep trying to impose standards of behavior on them. Sheesh.
Of course not. We must bow to little Johnny's need to express himself. That is of utmost importance.
Umm, sure it is OK to question the rules and all that. But then you don't get to whine (hint, the fact that this is a news story means that they are whining) about the consequences. Get the rules changed or shut the flip up. And start looking around for good prisons for your kid. jk
*** End re-cap ***

So, apparently while schools may write policies about student appearance, they may not write policies about student artwork submitted for grades.

this form of punishment was in general use from the 7th century before the common era --

Alexander the Great is reported to have had this done to 2,000 survivors of the siege of Tyre

It was the established mode of execution, even for wealthy and army generals in Carthage

It is mentioned in the Quran, even in Japan in antiquity

Had the same teacher not insisted on exposing the same class to Buddhism, the issue wouldn't be as grave.

Some have hit it on the head. If others were allowed to have demonic images, then the school failed to enforce the policy uniformly and that is the issue.

Actually, schools and employers are treated pretty similarly in this context.

This is exactly the issue at hand. When the school allows a teacher to preach Buddhism and allow demonic images, but allows a teacher to disallow Christian icons, there's a constitutional issue at hand.

Sort of, but for very different reasons. Private employers are subject to employment discrimination laws, but not to the first amendment. Thus employers may not discriminate against someone on the basis of religion, but they can have religious-neutral rules such as no icons of any kind (religious or otherwise) and they have no general obligation to permit someone to exercise their religion in the workplace.

Schools on the other hand are subject to the first amendment. Therefore, they cannot restrict someone from the free exercise of their religion.

A policy that says no religious icons is not "religious neutral" - it is anti-religion. It discriminates against any religion in favor of non-religion or atheism.

Then define a religiously neutral policy.

Then define a religiously neutral policy.

I would "define" it as one that doesn't discriminate among religions and doesn't discriminate in favor of non-religion over religion (or vice versa).

An example would be what I already stated: No icons of any kind may be included in artwork.

(You can argue that the term "icon" automatically implies religion, but: a) this is just an example, you get what I mean, and b) an example of a non-religious "icon" would be the Boston Red Sox logo.)

Allowing non-violent, non-disruptive expression of any religious faith. If it becomes violent or disruptive, it is disallowed.