legal support from the Church

[dahlia]

I won't go into the whole thing here, but I guess most of us know about the LDS kid in Florida who was suspended for not stomping on the piece of paper with 'Jesus' written on it.

Well, on the conservative site I visit, some anti pointed out that a non-Mormon Christian group, Liberty Counsel, represented the student and wondered why the Mormons hadn't provided him with legal aid; that it took 'real Christians' to help the kid.

So my question is, does the Church have a legal arm that will protect, defend, or at least come out with a public statement if a member is harassed for his/her religion?

I don't think the Church has an obligation to represent individual members, I'm just curious. A public statement about religious freedom might have been nice, tho. I'm of two minds - a statement would be nice, but I can also see where the Church might hesitate to jump out there with everyone who says they have a claim. Perhaps had this issue proceeded to trial, the Church might have written an amicus brief on the student's behalf? Does anyone know if that has been done in the past?

[skippy740]

I think we have a great persecution complex that we rarely stand up to our accusers.

There is no legal arm of the Church that defends against slander or other anti-LDS literature against the entire institution... so why individual members? (F.A.I.R. is a great authority, but it is not "official" of the Church.)

On a personal note, I think the entire thing got blown out of proportion for that particular case. According to the news articles I've been reading, the exercise said this:

“Have the students write the name JESUS in big letters on a piece of paper,” the lesson instructed. “Ask the students to stand up and put the paper on the floor in front of them with the name facing up. Ask the students to think about it for a moment. After a brief period of silence instruct them to step on the paper. Most will hesitate. Ask why they can’t step on the paper. Discuss the importance of symbols in culture."

When he refused (which was anticipated in the lesson), the next step was to discuss symbols in culture. The exercise was to provoke a response to lead to discussion.

They used Jesus as the object of the lesson because the majority of the population considers themselves Christian, so you would get a response from the majority of the students.

What I think is going over the line, was that the student was suspended from the class by the instructor's supervisor for voicing his opposition to the lesson (which was the whole point of the exercise).

Basically, it's appalling that it had to take legal aid to help rectify the situation.

[pam]

Not that I'm aware of but that doesn't mean it hasn't happened.

[dahlia]

What I think is going over the line, was that the student was suspended from the class by the instructor's supervisor for voicing his opposition to the lesson (which was the whole point of the exercise).

Basically, it's appalling that it had to take legal aid to help rectify the situation.

Absolutely. I am still trying to wrap my head around how the kid merits a suspension.

[Guest]

Well, on the conservative site I visit, some anti pointed out that a non-Mormon Christian group, Liberty Counsel, represented the student and wondered why the Mormons hadn't provided him with legal aid; that it took 'real Christians' to help the kid.

Simple. Because we don't discriminate between Christian lawyers versus non-Christian lawyers... or Protestant lawyers, versus Catholic lawyers, versus Mormon lawyers, versus Buddhist lawyers, versus....

The kid needs legal aid, he goes find a competent lawyer... if he can't afford one, he has 2 options - ask the State for one, or ask his family/friends/church to help him with some money to afford one.

No difference really between him filing a suit against being suspended for speaking out against stepping on Jesus or filing a suit against being suspended for peeing his pants.

[Guest]

Absolutely. I am still trying to wrap my head around how the kid merits a suspension.

It would depend on how he expressed his opinion. If he stated why he wouldn't step on Jesus because... in a "studently manner" discussing why he wouldn't want to do so then no harm no foul. Calling out the professor as unprofessional with the professor defending his professionalism to the point that it had to go to the college admins.... that's a different story. Especially since there's no report on what happened in the discussion with the admins.

What's worse than liberal professors? Conservative students accusing liberal professors of unprofessionalism for no apparent reason other than the liberal professor is liberal.

[prisonchaplain]

Despite what the "anti" took from Liberty Counsel's involvement, I'm rather impressed that LC did help the LDS student out. Sometimes the glass is half full, I'd say that one is over 80%.

Also, it matters not what the textbook lesson plan meant the lesson to be about. The instructor chose to cajole students into an anti-Christian sacrilege, and the supervisor chose to punish-by-suspension the student who voiced opposition to the exercise. I'm not sure how that can be over-blown. It's an outrage.

[dahlia]

The anti's comment today was typical - they can't stand when something good happens to an LDS, they always find fault, in this case, the fault was that the Church didn't come forward to support this guy.

I'm sure I've said it here before, but after reading tons of threads with nasty comments about Mormons on this particular conservative site (the site owner is very anti-Mormon. He had major cognitive dissonance when Romney got the nomination.) I decided to learn about Mormons and see what all the hubbub was about.

Vile, hate-spewing anti-Mormons led me to the Church!

[Guest]

Despite what the "anti" took from Liberty Counsel's involvement, I'm rather impressed that LC did help the LDS student out. Sometimes the glass is half full, I'd say that one is over 80%.

Also, it matters not what the textbook lesson plan meant the lesson to be about. The instructor chose to cajole students into an anti-Christian sacrilege, and the supervisor chose to punish-by-suspension the student who voiced opposition to the exercise. I'm not sure how that can be over-blown. It's an outrage.

I know where you're coming from. But, I just want to offer a correction - the kid was not punished-by-suspension for voicing an opinion to the exercise. The kid was punished-by-suspension for demoralizing a professor of the school.

The JESUS exercise is in the Teachers Manual of the textbook used in the classroom. It was not an exercise invented by Dr. Poole. The Textbook is authored by somebody who is working as a professor of St. Norbert College - a Catholic School. So, regardles of Dr. Poole's faith leanings, a person who is not a devout Christian would not have any reason to think that this exercise would be anti-Christian.

[wyarwehere]

At least the college apologized, wiped his record clean, and decided to remove that from their syllabus.

[prisonchaplain]

I know where you're coming from. But, I just want to offer a correction - the kid was not punished-by-suspension for voicing an opinion to the exercise. The kid was punished-by-suspension for demoralizing a professor of the school.

The JESUS exercise is in the Teachers Manual of the textbook used in the classroom. It was not an exercise invented by Dr. Poole. The Textbook is authored by somebody who is working as a professor of St. Norbert College - a Catholic School. So, regardles of Dr. Poole's faith leanings, a person who is not a devout Christian would not have any reason to think that this exercise would be anti-Christian.

I'm still not getting this. The exercise was never intended to result in Christian students stepping on the name of Jesus. As I read it, when a student objected (in other words, the text author EXPECTED objection) the subsequent conversation about why the student objected was the whole point.

If the Dr. Poole had no reason to suspect that Christian students would be offended then s/he hadn't read the manual very well. Knowing there would be some offense, the professor should have been prepared for the discussion, rather than feeling demoralized (huh?...I really don't get that). That the student was suspended for expressing the very outrage the teacher's manual anticipated suggests some pretty broad incompentence on the part of the professor and supervisor...unless I'm missing something.

[bytebear]

I know at least on my mission and I have heard stories otherwise, that the church aggressively pursues cases involving missionaries and the freedom to proselytize. If a missionary is arrested or hindered, the church is right there ready to fight for his freedom.

[Guest]

I'm still not getting this. The exercise was never intended to result in Christian students stepping on the name of Jesus. As I read it, when a student objected (in other words, the text author EXPECTED objection) the subsequent conversation about why the student objected was the whole point.

If the Dr. Poole had no reason to suspect that Christian students would be offended then s/he hadn't read the manual very well. Knowing there would be some offense, the professor should have been prepared for the discussion, rather than feeling demoralized (huh?...I really don't get that). That the student was suspended for expressing the very outrage the teacher's manual anticipated suggests some pretty broad incompentence on the part of the professor and supervisor...unless I'm missing something.

Yes, you're missing something. The objection the student raised that led to the altercation was not because of the activity itself but an accusation of the Professor's lack of professionalism/character in including this activity in the classroom which the Professor then defended (not the activity, but his professionalism/character). As a result, the student was not suspended for objecting to the activity. The student was suspended for attacking the Professor's character.

Dr. Poole, of course, expected the objection of the students to stepping on Jesus... a refusal to do so for reasons that were to be explored in class. But he did not expect the student to attack his character.

[Just_A_Guy]

So my question is, does the Church have a legal arm that will protect, defend, or at least come out with a public statement if a member is harassed for his/her religion?

I understand the Church has a relatively small in-house counsel department, preferring to contract much of their work to a Salt Lake law firm called Kirton McConkie. However, it mostly has to do with situations where the interests of the institutional Church are directly involved; or to weigh in on high-profile cases where the Church wishes to have a voice (for example, Kirton McConkie filed an amicus on the Church's behalf to SCOTUS in the Prop 8 case).

As a Mormon you get a lot of help from the Church in a go-to-pot situation--housing assistance, food from the Storehouse, etc--but the Church is not (yet) offering its members a prepaid legal services plan.

Edited March 27, 2013 by Just_A_Guy

[Finrock]

Good evening anatess. I hope you've been doing well! :)

Yes, you're missing something. The objection the student raised that led to the altercation was not because of the activity itself but an accusation of the Professor's lack of professionalism/character in including this activity in the classroom which the Professor then defended (not the activity, but his professionalism/character). As a result, the student was not suspended for objecting to the activity. The student was suspended for attacking the Professor's character.

Dr. Poole, of course, expected the objection of the students to stepping on Jesus... a refusal to do so for reasons that were to be explored in class. But he did not expect the student to attack his character.

I concede that I don't know the details here and so I am responding based solely on what I've read in this thread. Further, I'm not making a claim as to whether the student was right or wrong. I am looking for clarification because I can't see the distinction that you are making.

You can object to something with the use of an ad hominem. In context, by attacking the professor's character, the student was clearly indicating that he objected to the activity.

Are you saying that the student can object to the activity in some other way, but they cannot object to the activity by attacking the professor's character?

Regards,

Finrock

[pam]

I know at least on my mission and I have heard stories otherwise, that the church aggressively pursues cases involving missionaries and the freedom to proselytize. If a missionary is arrested or hindered, the church is right there ready to fight for his freedom.

That I understand because they are in essence working for the church. I realize it's for the Lord but they are representing the church.

[Guest]

Good evening anatess. I hope you've been doing well! :)

I concede that I don't know the details here and so I am responding based solely on what I've read in this thread. Further, I'm not making a claim as to whether the student was right or wrong. I am looking for clarification because I can't see the distinction that you are making.

You can object to something with the use of an ad hominem. In context, by attacking the professor's character, the student was clearly indicating that he objected to the activity.

Are you saying that the student can object to the activity in some other way, but they cannot object to the activity by attacking the professor's character?

Regards,

Finrock

The student can do anything. But, the college will suspend your enrollment if you publicly attack a professor's character without compelling evidence to support your position.

[prisonchaplain]

Anatess, I found this: UPDATE: Student now suspended for complaining about Jesus-stomping assignment

Apparently the suspension is now total, but the school seems to be insinuating (I could not find specific allegations) that the student went off the deep end, making threats, and violating the student code.

I'm willing to suspend judgment. However, if this is the university covering itself, then this is an underhanded defamation it will likely get away with.

And again, I can't help but point out that this non-Muslim professor (Dr. Poole) would have had no difficulty discerning that Muslim students would never stand for anyone stomping on the name of Allah or Mohammed.

[Guest]

Anatess, I found this: UPDATE: Student now suspended for complaining about Jesus-stomping assignment

Apparently the suspension is now total, but the school seems to be insinuating (I could not find specific allegations) that the student went off the deep end, making threats, and violating the student code.

I'm willing to suspend judgment. However, if this is the university covering itself, then this is an underhanded defamation it will likely get away with.

And again, I can't help but point out that this non-Muslim professor (Dr. Poole) would have had no difficulty discerning that Muslim students would never stand for anyone stomping on the name of Allah or Mohammed.

What one does or does not do infront of Muslim students has no bearing on what one does or does not do infront of Christians. You don't stomp on Allah, not necessarily because you are "sensitive to the feelings of the Muslim student" but because you know it could get somebody killed. No such reservations with Christians. Now, if Christians would start killing people in the name of Jesus, then yes, it might send a cultural change rampaging through the globe that you don't mess with Christians. But, that's not who we are.

It's really no different than things you say/do to a Texan you may not be able to get away with saying to a New Yorker without media outrage. It's these nuances in cultural flavor that make life in America very unique. It's just another by-product of the freedoms you enjoy that allow for people to have their own idiosyncracies.

Edited March 27, 2013 by anatess

[Guest]

By the way, that Yahoo article is a classic example of the decline of the integrity of journalism in these here parts.

[prisonchaplain]

What one does or does not do infront of Muslim students has no bearing on what one does or does not do infront of Christians. You don't stomp on Allah, not necessarily because you are "sensitive to the feelings of the Muslim student" but because you know it could get somebody killed. No such reservations with Christians. Now, if Christians would start killing people in the name of Jesus, then yes, it might send a cultural change rampaging through the globe that you don't mess with Christians. But, that's not who we are.

This is an awfully low bar for a professor to live up to--especially in a class about cultural sensitivity. Are we really to accept that Dr. Poole would have no way of knowing that a Christian student would be deeply offended by this exercise, since she is not a Christian, and yet we would never excuse her ignorance, if she used this exercise with the name of Allah or Mohammed? This, because Christians will put up with more sacrilege?

BTW, do you have a better article than the Yahoo one? I'd be interested in seeing the school's allegations that the student demoralized the professor by attacking her professionalism.

[jerome1232]

I can imagine certain professors at my school asking me to do the same thing, I can say I'd take it differently from a professor who I know shares my faith versus one who I know doesn't. I can imagine my blood pressure firing through the roof if this was a lesson in one of my classes and I'm a fairly long fused guy.

My uninformed opinion, the professor failed at conflict resolution in a situation that he jumped into knowing he'd need it.

[prisonchaplain]

I found a better article: University Apologizes for 'Stomp on Jesus' Lesson

The Yahoo article confused the timing. The suspension threat came BEFORE the school's reversal. Also interesting is that Dr. Poole is a Christian--a member of a Church of God in Christ (very similar to my Assemblies of God denomination) congregation. According to the above article, the student claims to have made his disagreement known in a respectful, though direct manner "With all do respect, the assginment was unprofessional..." So, if a suspension threat was made, that is bizarre. However, apparently alls well that ends well...the student seems satisfied, and he was particularly happy with the open-mindedness of those who called the school to complain.

Another interesting note: Liberty Counsel has a direct relationship with Liberty University (the independent Baptist school that Rev. Jerry Falwell founded).

IMHO Christian came out looking pretty good in this story, and the university did well to nip this in the bud.

[skippy740]

Looks like the Florida Governor wants more answers about what happened:

Fla. students asked to write 'Jesus' on paper, then stand on it

Florida Gov. Rick Scott has called for an investigation after university students were asked to describe how they felt after standing on a piece of paper with "Jesus" written on it.

MIAMI — A Florida university has come under fire over a professor's controversial classroom assignment that asked his students to write "Jesus" on a sheet of paper and then to step on it.

The incident earlier this month at the Florida Atlantic University in Boca Raton has prompted the school to issue an apology and led to a call from Florida's Republican Gov. Rick Scott for an investigation.

"I am deeply disappointed in the recent actions of Florida Atlantic University faculty that raises significant questions over students' rights and the lessons being taught in our classrooms," Scott wrote in a letter to the head of Florida's state university board.

The classroom exercise was conducted as part of a course on intercultural communication at the public university.

It called for students to write the word "Jesus" in big letters on a piece of paper, place it on the floor and then step on the paper. Students were then asked to describe how they felt.

School officials said the instructor told students they could choose whether to participate in the exercise, which was based on an example in a study guide for a course textbook and was intended to provoke a discussion of cultural symbols.

In a recent statement, Florida Atlantic University said it will no longer use the exercise after it sparked criticism from some students.

"It was insensitive and unacceptable. Based on the offensive nature of the exercise, we will not use it again and have issued an apology to the community," the statement said.

In his letter, Scott said he wanted more than just an apology from the school.

"The professor's lesson was offensive, and even intolerant, to Christians and those of all faiths who deserve to be respected as Americans entitled to religious freedom," he wrote.

"I'm requesting a report of the incident, how it was handled and a statement of the university's policies to ensure this type of 'lesson' will not occur again," Scott added.

[dahlia]

I am still trying to figure out how the kid got suspended. Let's say it wasn't for not doing the assignment, or even complaining about it, but for calling the professor unprofessional, etc. as I've read in some places.

This is not the first student to have an issue with a professor. Usually there is some kind of hearing, a formal complaint system, something. You don't just boot a student out of school for complaining about a class, or even for bad-mouthing a professor. It is all rather odd.