Timmy and Public Schools

[stoke001 at maroon.tc.umn.edu]

Sandy Levinson and Doug Laycock (and I think several others) have
questioned Timmy's existence or the accuracy of the story, as perhaps
another urban legend horror story.  Perhaps it is.  But my experience
in these matters is that truth is often stranger than a Volokh hypo!
I am surprised that Sandy and Doug are so skeptical.  Brittney Settle
received a grade of "zero" (as in, "I won't even read this") because
she wrote a term paper on Jesus.  The teacher had said students could
write on any topic of their choice, so long as interesting,
researchable (in the sense that the student could find four sources
on it), and "decent" (probably a separate constitutional violation
(:-) but not relevant here).  The teacher rejected this topic
nonetheless because it was religious and you can't talk about
religion in public schools.  The teacher, in the deposition (which I
have read), obviously after thorough but ineffective coaching by
counsel, gave every conceivable additional, implausible explanation
for her actions, including that it would be impossible to find four
sources on the life of Jesus Christ.

In researching the cert petition, I came across enough other cases of
similar idiocy to convince me that, even if not *typical*, this sort
of thing happens *often enough* to constitute a serious problem.
Reported judicial opinions are the tip of the iceberg.  Public school
teachers -- some of them, some of the time -- can be narrow-minded,
intolerant, narrow in their world view, lazy in test creation and
grading, inattentive to details, you name it.  This is a
characteristic of humans, not public school teachers in particular.
Some public school teachers are hostile to religion.  *All* of
today's generation have been trained (wrongly) that religion is an
inappropriate subject for discussion in public schools; this
official NEA ideology breeds a type of hostility and intolerance all
its own.  Few public teachers appreciate being questioned about
their questions.

I thus have no trouble believing that a public school teacher could:
(a) write a poorly worded general question;
(b) give a reflexive "wrong" in response to an unexpected answer;
(c) give a knowing and deliberate wrong to a "religious" answer
when the teacher had intended, by the thoughtless or poorly worded
question, to ask some question other than a philosophical one;
(d) regard discussion of alternative philosophical points of view
about the origins of the universe -- and specifically religious ones
-- as inappropriate in a public school setting;
(e) regard discussion of alternative philosophical points of view
about the origins of the universe -- and specifically religious ones
-- as *wrong*, and reflective of a dangerous world view that it is the
high duty and privilege of the public school system to correct, if
possible;
(f) resent any challenge, however polite, to the question and
the failure to give credit;
(g) give the matter far less thought than
this discussion list; or
(h) all of the above.

Michael Stokes Paulsen
University of Minnesota Law School