Steven Williams Case

Mon Dec 6 13:51:15 PST 2004

As I read the complaint, Williams is arguing that the references to God and
to religion in some of his supplemental handouts (in only 5% of them
according to the complaint) are consistent with both state and school
district curriculum guidelines on teaching history. He claims the principal
is in fact keeping him from complying with the state and district curricular
requirements. The complaint notes the extreme paucity of references to
religion in the textbook. The complaint also notes the requirements of
several curricular guidelines that the history of religious matters, and the
effect of religion on historical events, be covered in the history course.
Thus Williams claims he was hewing the line and sticking to the required
curriculum before the principal took action against him.

Mark S. Scarberry

Pepperdine University School of Law

-----Original Message-----
From: A.E. Brownstein [mailto:aebrownstein at ucdavis.edu] 
Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 1:39 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Steven Williams Case

I don't think Cockrel is really inconsistent with Marty's earlier statement
that "Under the "government speech" doctrine, a state may require its
teachers, in their official capacities (i.e., while teaching), to hue to the
state's prescribed curriculum.  This is the majority view in the courts of
appeals -- that there is no Free Speech Clause right of individual teachers
to teach what they wish in the classroom." In Cockrel, the teacher had
permission to invite the speakers who caused the controversy  into her
classroom and the school district conceded that the presentations had
educational value. The school district did not argue that the plaintiff had
taught material that was outside of the curriculum. If she had, I think
Marty is correct that the school district could have required her to hue the
line and stick to the curriculum.

The only open question in this area, I think, is what happens when teachers
say things in brief statements during class that are not expressly
prohibited by district rules, but are arguably outside of the curriculum,
Not every sentence spoken in a classroom relates to the school's curriculum.
There is some play in the joints -- particularly with regard to the
discussion of unanticipated current events. Once the principal tells a
teacher that particular comments are unacceptable (e.g. stick to the
curriculum), I think the teacher has no free speech rights to continue a
classroom discussion. What is less clear is whether the teacher can be
disciplined for the comments he or she expressed before the principal
instructed her to end the discussion.

Alan Brownstein
UC Davis

At 03:51 PM 12/6/2004 -0500, you wrote:

"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:st1 =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"> 
Cockrel v. Shelby County School Dist., 270 F.3d 1036, 1051-52 (CTA6 2001),
cert. denied, 537 U.S. 813 (2002).

----- Original Message ----- 

From: Marc <mailto:mstern at ajcongress.org>  Stern 

To: Law <mailto:religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu>  & Religion issues for Law
Academics 

Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 3:35 PM

Subject: RE: Steven Williams Case

What recent 6th circuit case recognizes a teachers right to speak? There is
old first circuit law to this effect-going back to the Viet Nam era, but I
do not remember recent case law to this effect. But then they say that
recent memory always goes first> /

Marc Stern

  _____  

From: religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
<mailto:religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu>
[mailto:religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
<mailto:religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu> ] On Behalf Of Marty Lederman

Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 3:20 PM

To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics

Subject: Re: Steven Williams Case

In very brief:  Under the "government speech" doctrine, a state may require
its teachers, in their official capacities (i.e., while teaching), to hue to
the state's prescribed curriculum.  This is the majority view in the courts
of appeals -- that there is no Free Speech Clause right of indivdual
teachers to teach what they wish in the classroom -- although there is some
recent caselaw going the other way (principally in the Sixth Circuit, IIRC).

Of course, the state is not entirely free to teach whatever it wishes -- the
Establishment Clause imposes some constraints.  And, from all that appears
(see http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/05/weekinreview/05murp.html
<http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/05/weekinreview/05murp.html> ), the
interesting question in this case is an Establishment question, not a free
speech question -- namely, not whether the school may restrict Mr. Williams'
preferred mode of teaching, but whether it must.

----- Original Message ----- 

From: Ed Brayton <mailto:stcynic at crystalauto.com>  

To: Law  <mailto:religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu> & Religion issues for Law
Academics 

Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 3:08 PM

Subject: Re: Steven Williams Case

Mr. Henderson-

I disagree with your characterization of the situation. The title of the
press release was "Declaration of Independence Banned from Classroom". But
that isn't the reality. The reality is that a series of fliers that included
excerpts from the Declaration of Independence were not allowed by the
principal. Now, whether that decision is reasonable or not depends on the
exact content of those fliers, what was intended by them, and several other
factors. But it is still an exaggeration or oversimplification, at best, to
portray that as banning the Declaration of Independence from the classroom.
Do you think if he had just hung a copy of the Declaration on the wall, it
would have been taken down? Highly unlikely. In order for it to be "banned
from the classroom", that would need to be the case. I think this is
precisely the kind of "grotesque overgeneralization and hyperbole" that you
admit is the case with the claim that prayer has been banned in school.

But really that is neither here nor there. I did not intend for that to be
the focus of the discussion. I was hoping, and still hope, for some
discussion of the legal issues surrounding the case. Do teachers have a
right to free speech while acting as teachers? Not an absolute one, I'm sure
we would all agree, so what are the limitations on it? If those limitations
are determined by the curriculum standards they are required to teach to,
who has the authority to determine when supplemental material is germane to
the teaching requirements, the teacher or the administration? If the two
disagree, does that mean there was a rights violation that should be handled
in court or should some other body handle such disputes? These are all
interesting questions and they only scratch the surface. Any thoughts on
those?

Ed Brayton

JMHACLJ at aol.com <mailto:JMHACLJ at aol.com>  wrote: 

The facts in the Steven Williams case, concededly relevant to the analysis
to be applied and the likely outcome of that analysis, do not support the
charge that the Alliance Defense Fund has made any misrepresentation of the
facts whatever.

It appears that a single (meaning only one, not a marriage reference)
complained about a handout given to the students as an exemplar:  a
two-sided piece with George Washington's proclamation of a day of prayer on
one side and George Bush's similar proclamation from this past May on the
other.    

The upshot of the handling of the parental complaint was an instruction from
the principal:  "I must review every one of your lesson plans and
supplemental handouts."  Thereafter, handouts containing references to God
were rejected (these documents are identified in the complaint linked in the
original email of this thread).  None of the handouts were addressed to
religious matters except where the handout was a needed tool for meeting the
instructional content standards related to religious aspects of American
history.  Among the prohibited fliers was the flier with exerpts from the
Declaration of Independence.

I also note from the press releases of ADF related to this matter that their
organization has not engaged in the sort of grotesque overgeneralization and
hyperbole of the "prayer being banned in school" ilk.  Instead, the lawsuit
papers and the releases are perfectly plain and to the point that the ban
was with respect to Mr. Williams' classrooms and classes.

Now, given that state of affairs, perhaps the discussion of constitutional
principles can proceed free from the rancor that might otherwise accompany a
discussion of such a case where accusations of misrepresentation are part of
the lead off.

By way of disclosure, I do not work for ADF, although I have enjoyed a warm
and mutual friendship with several of their attorneys for so long a time
that it predates that organization's existence.

Jim Henderson

Senior Counsel

ACLJ

not specifically "on religious matters" except those specifically needed to
teach the content standards dealing with religious matters, i.e. the
motivations for founding the colonies, the ideas behind the Bill of Rights,
the impact of the Great Awakening, etc.   So, the Declaration HAS been
banned from Stephen's classroom, but not from the entire school district.
We never said it was.  I've made that very clear.  The principal is
rejecting HIS handouts because he is a Christian, on the logic that a
Christian who hands out a document with the words "God" or "Supreme Judge of
the Universe" in it must be attempting to proselytize.

_______________________________________________

To post, send message to Religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
<mailto:Religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu> 

To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
<http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw> 

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or
wrongly) forward the messages to others.
  _____  

_______________________________________________

To post, send message to Religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu

To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
<http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw> 

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or
wrongly) forward the messages to others.

  _____  

_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
<http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw> 

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or
wrongly) forward the messages to others.

_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
<http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw> 

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or
wrongly) forward the messages to others. 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20041206/3e66d9ab/attachment.htm