No icons of any kind may be included in artwork.

Isn't that what the policy in question here states? As I said, there seems to be an issue with the policy's application, but the policy is going to be found valid.

playing devils advocate (no pun intended)...but if i'm an athiest, and don't believe in any type of God or higher being, and I already don't have any icons to follow, I'm now feeling bad that I don't have an icon to restrict, and therefore am feeling inadequate...how will you compensate my pain?

I don't think so, at least that's not what the article indicates. From the article:



If that's really what the policy is, I don't think it will be upheld.

Well let's wait and see. I don't think there will be a ruling anyway, as the parties will settle.

But trust me, the policy would be upheld, so long as it was uniformly applied, which it doesn't sound like it was.

I disagree - a policy that prohibits religious expression violates the first amendment on its face. By definition it can't be undiformly applied.

First Amendment rights are allowed to be limited under certain cirmcumstances. Moreover, the first amendment states

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

As you will note, the amendment says no law may be made abridging the freedom of speech, but of course, you cannot just gather a crowd and march down the main square without possibly being arrested. Free assembly (as it is known) is limited by permitting ordinances to allow the state to have police to prevent lawlessness.

Similarly, you have heard Holmes' famous quote that "you cannot shout fire in a crowded theater".

The standard in place is that a law abriding these rights must be neutral on its face (meaning applies to all, not just certain people) and there must be a compelling state interest to protect.

The schools have argued, and won, that the compelling state interest is learning environment, etc.

The issue is well settled.

I seem to recall a court case a few years ago about freedom of expression in a school setting, and the court ruled that schools can restrict rights, as long as it is applied uniformly. I'm sure one of the attorneys (or those posing) can do a search in Lexis if inclined.

I don't have time to look at cases now, but one thing that is settled: if the school allows clubs (i.e. chess club) to meet in its rooms, it also has to allow religious clubs to do the same.

I won't argue (further) with you unless I have time to go find something to back me up - not gonna happen anytime soon.

allowing clubs to meet is one thing, curriculum is another. The topic at hand seems to be more curriculum related to me...

That is correct. And if the school allowed other religious beliefs in artwork, but not the cross, they would be in trouble.

If you have the time or inclination, take a look at the case law. Like you, I do this from memory here, short if what a quick yahoo search can find.

No sweat though. I would like to see the case go through to find out what really happened at the school.