Follow-Ups

Some old cases I was watching have been resolved:

1) Back in November I blogged on this religion in the schools case from California:

A California teacher has been barred by his school from giving students documents from American history that refer to God – including the Declaration of Independence. Steven Williams, a fifth-grade teacher at Stevens Creek School in the San Francisco Bay area suburb of Cupertino, sued for discrimination Monday, claiming he had been singled out for censorship by principal Patricia Vidmar because he is a Christian. . . .

Williams asserts in the lawsuit that since May he has been required to submit all of his lesson plans and supplemental handouts to Vidmar for approval, and that the principal will not permit him to use any that contain references to God or Christianity.

Among the materials she has rejected, according to Williams, are excerpts from the Declaration of Independence, George Washington's journal, John Adams' diary, Samuel Adams' "The Rights of the Colonists" and William Penn's "The Frame of Government of Pennsylvania."

Editorials threw fits decrying the banning of the Declaration as ridiculous:

BANNED from the classroom: the Declaration of Independence.

Before you do a double-take, let me assure you, it's no mistake. In a recent attempt to remove God from the public square, the document that symbolizes the founding of our nation has been censored in a California classroom.

as did blogs, and rightly so. Banning the Declaration of Independence is a ridiculous idea. Which is why I wondered if there was more to the story. I dug out a copy of the complaint on The Smoking Gun and found out that what he'd handed out were excerpts from these religious documents. I posted my questions:

And what if the context of these excerpts was a lesson entitled something like: "How God founded the United States Government and Why We are Wrong Not to Pray Thankfully to Jesus every day for our Freedom"? So when the school says he can't give the lesson he files suit and calls it ridiculous he can't teach the Declaration of Independence.

. . . .

Mr. Williams was required to run his educational materials past school censors when a parent complained after he used George W. Bush's Proclamation on the National Day of Prayer as an example of a presidential proclamation.

Again, what was the context of this lesson - a historical example of a presidential proclamation, or an hour long lesson on "Why I Pray to Jesus and You Should Too"? An interesting side note: according to the complaint, one of the other materials that was censored by the school was a handout entitled: "What Great Leaders Have Said About the Bible." That leads me to suspect that the materials might not have been confined to the historical context, but entered into the preaching/prostheletyzing hypothetical.

Since then, I've seen some evidence that my suspicions were correct. The San Francisco Chronicle reported it like this:

Williams complained that state-approved textbooks contain scant mention of how much Christianity meant to early America. So he handed out William Penn's Frame of Government of Pennsylvania, in which Penn wrote, "Government seems to me a part of religion itself, a thing sacred in its institution and end."

Williams also passed out a list of religious clauses in state constitutions such as Delaware's -- which in 1776 required officeholders to "profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son."

Then there was George Washington's prayer journal. And as an example of a modern-day presidential proclamation, Williams distributed President Bush's statement on National Prayer Day 2004, in which he said, "Prayer is an opportunity to praise God for His mighty works."

Some parents said Williams crossed the line into evangelizing, and they complained.

"My daughter came home one day and said, 'Mr. Williams talks about Jesus 100 times a day,' " said Mike Zimmers, whose daughter was Williams' student last year and began complaining on the second day of school. "She's adored every teacher she had until then."

UPDATE: According to the press, the suit has been settled. An NBC affiliate reports:

A fifth-grade teacher who sued a school district for restricting his use of historical documents with religious references has settled the lawsuit, ending a case that was thrust into the national debate on religion in education. . . .

Under the settlement, filed in federal court in San Jose on Thursday, no money will exchange hands and no school policies will be altered. The parties agreed not to file future claims based on the complaint. . . .

In April, U.S. District Judge James Ware dismissed three out of the lawsuit's four claims, saying that Williams' constitutional rights were not violated because teachers do not have a First Amendment right to determine classroom curriculum.

But the judge kept alive the claim that the principal singled Williams out because he is a self-described "orthodox Christian" by censoring and reviewing his supplemental teaching material while not doing the same for other teachers.

On Thursday, Ware dismissed the remainder of the lawsuit, which was set for a hearing in October, after the parties agreed to the voluntary settlement.

2) Via Overlawyered:

"A judge has set a trial date in a discrimination lawsuit filed against Southwest Airlines by two black passengers who were upset when a flight attendant recited a version of a rhyme with a racist history. ... [F]light attendant Jennifer Cundiff, trying to get passengers to sit down, said over the intercom, 'Eenie, meenie, minie, moe; pick a seat, we gotta go.'"

More info on Overlawyered with the details:

Grace Fuller claims that she suffered two epileptic seizures because a flight attendant used the phrase "Eenie, meenie, minie, mo, pick a seat, we gotta go" to passengers boarding an open-seating flight late; Fuller and her travelling companion, both African-Americans, ascribed racist meaning to the phrase, and sued under a variety of federal and state claims. . . .

UPDATE: The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court judgment for defendants: Sawyer v. Southwest Airlines.