Term paper about "God" earns student failing grade

[RFS62]

I appreciate and understand the passion behind the supporters of this lady, as many of them are friends of mine.

I still think it's being overcomplicated.

The teacher set the guidelines. The student chose to defy the teacher.

F

[RedFanAlways1966]

Nicely said, '62.

I still wonder, somewhere in the back of my mind... what would be the public outcry if the exact same situation took place, but the same teacher told an Islamic student from Syria that he/she could not include the words Quran or Allah (or would the teacher even make the same rules for an Islamic student)?

Would it be ironic if some of the people arguing on each side of the real story would be on the other side in that case?

We'll never know...

[registerthis]

Nicely said, '62.

I still wonder, somewhere in the back of my mind... what would be the public outcry if the exact same situation took place, but the same teacher told an Islamic student from Syria that he/she could not include the words Quran or Allah (or would the teacher even make the same rules for an Islamic student)?

Most likely, some Muslim legal aid society would pick up her case and claim that her First Amendment rights were being violated.

[Crash Davis]

Oh, and

http://www.vvc.edu/about_campus/index.htm

Simply put, at Victor Valley College everything is based on one primary foundation: "The Student Is Always First!"

Exactly. And what was best for this student was to learn to think for herself...even (or especially) at 34 years of age.

It obviously hasn't worked yet, but there's still time as long as Victor Valley keeps putting her learning first...as this teacher did.

Even with the solid effort this teacher has given in trying to get Ms. Hauf to do research, examine all the issues related to the topic and do some actual critical thinking, I wouln't hold my breath...

[savafan]

I have shown that the Supreme Court of the United States has said that a teacher can't place such a restriction on a student, and yet you still stick to the story that she didn't follow the rules, she gets an F. Why can't you see that it is much more than that?

[Falls City Beer]

I have shown that the Supreme Court of the United States has said that a teacher can't place such a restriction on a student, and yet you still stick to the story that she didn't follow the rules, she gets an F. Why can't you see that it is much more than that?

It isn't more than that. It really isn't. College isn't compulsory education the way a public high school is. You have to be in high school; you don't have to be in college.

[ochre]

Concepts are not confined to one single particle of vocabulary. I suppose the Supreme Court would like to rule on every critical thinking exercise that involves expressing oneself in a way that is different from the normal approach said person takes?

The conditions presented for writing the paper by the teacher are not the same as what the court ruled on. There is no oppression of faith occuring here. She was fully free to express her faith using terms other than the one she was asked/required to avoid.

[registerthis]

I have shown that the Supreme Court of the United States has said that a teacher can't place such a restriction on a student, and yet you still stick to the story that she didn't follow the rules, she gets an F. Why can't you see that it is much more than that?

\
I assume you're referring to this:

He states that, "To allow students only to study and not to perform religious art, literature and music when such works have developed an independent secular and artistic significance would give students a truncated view of our culture." In another case titled the Committee for Public Education vs. Nyquist, the Supreme Court stated, "The First Amendment does not forbid all mention of religion in public schools. It is the advancement or inhibition of religion that is prohibited."

...which doesn't apply to the matter at hand. The student wasn't forbidden from discussing religion at all. In fact, her professor approved the topic. She was forbidden only to mention "God."

i don't see any trampling on the first amendment rights of this individual.

[M2]

You know what *I* find interesting?

Everyone, go do a Google search for "Bethany Hauf".

Now, show me one single link to a legitimate news site that picked up this story. Just one would suffice. I'm not talking about the AP< Reuters, UPI, etc...show me a local paper, magazine, or whomever that actually ran this.

The only sites I am able to find that actually ran this story are blogs, the ACLJ website, and other similar sites that could hardly be considered fair or unbiased.

Then again, this is all probably part of the vast anti-Christian conspiracy to keep this story out of the press.

Exactly. It's trumped-up right wing phony journalism. For instance, how can Shefchik, who's not interviewed for the story, be a "self-described atheist?"

Right there, if you knew nothing else about the source of the news report, would tell you that a hack had written the piece.

And the only words we have from Shefchik on this entire matter come from an e-mail he sent to the student.

“I have one limiting factor,” wrote Shefchik, “no mention of the big “G” gods, i.e., one, true god argumentation.”

Hey, that's perfectly reasonable. BTW, it also doesn't prohibit use of the word "God" where appropriate (e.g. in a founding father quote, etc.), which is what I suspected to be the case from the outset. The rest is the word of the idiot student who already admits to turning in a paper she was warned would land her nothing higher than a 69.

[Falls City Beer]

Exactly. It's trumped-up right wing phony journalism. For instance, how can Shefchik, who's not interviewed for the story, be a "self-described atheist?"

Right there, if you knew nothing else about the source of the news report, would tell you that a hack had written the piece.

And the only words we have from Shefchik on this entire matter come from an e-mail he sent to the student.



Hey, that's perfectly reasonable. The rest is the word of the idiot student who already admits to turning in a paper she was warned would land her nothing higher than a 69.

No kidding. The reason no real news source has snagged this story is that it's not a story. Not even Fox has picked this up.

[Chip R]

No kidding. The reason no real news source has snagged this story is that it's not a story. Not even Fox has picked this up.

Yet.

[westofyou]

Yet.

I bet there is an intern in the colleges dumpster right now.

[Falls City Beer]

Yet.

If this story hasn't been picked up yet (this story is days old), it's not going to be. Unless this activist group that's taking her "case" screams loud enough and long enough. At which point, the news source would be reporting on the screaming and not the essence of the case itself and its controversy.

But I suppose there's no question this country is more concerned with the sizzle than the steak.

[SteelSD]

I have shown that the Supreme Court of the United States has said that a teacher can't place such a restriction on a student, and yet you still stick to the story that she didn't follow the rules, she gets an F. Why can't you see that it is much more than that?

Yet, she was allowed to submit her version of the paper- i.e. her right to "expression" was not violated. It wasn't violated in the first place because universities and professors have a right to place restrictions on assignments.

In it's simplest form, that concept manifests itself in any class in any university in any state in this country. The very fact that we have classes like "Algebra 101" is a perfect example because those classes exist as topic-restricted environments.

Using your logic, a student in Algebra 101 could answer every assigned problem with the word "God" and not expect to be marked off for it. A student in Biology 101 could answer every question on an essay test dealing with evolutionary theory by explaining how evolution is a bunch of bunk. He'd fail that test and rightfully so, but not because his "rights" were being violated.

Oh, the students in those two scenarios above would have every "right" to answer the questions as I outlined above. But they would have no right to expect that their answers would be marked as being correct given the assignment parameters.

This woman was allowed to express herself and ended up submitting unacceptable material because she chose to express herself outside the clearly defined assignment parameters.

Freedom of expression does not carry with it consequence immunization.

It's absolutely that cut-and-dry.

[dsmith421]

I have shown that the Supreme Court of the United States has said that a teacher can't place such a restriction on a student, and yet you still stick to the story that she didn't follow the rules, she gets an F. Why can't you see that it is much more than that?

No you haven't. You've quoted some precedent of at best questionable relevance, but you've still not given us a case on point that shows a specific professor's guidelines for a project violating a student's free speech right or the establishment clause. RedsBaron probably has more experience in this topic than me, so I would bow to his interpretation, however.

Rosenberger was about student publications in a public or quasi-public forum. That's not at issue here. This is a term paper that is not for publication--it's an academic exercise. No one is trampling upon this woman's religious freedom--no one is keeping her from going to church, praying before exams, trying to convert her classmates, holding a Bible study class, declaiming verses from Revelation .in the hallway, etc. She was subject to a specific academic guideline. She had ample opportunity to change her topic, to challenge the guideline with the professor or the department chair, or work out a compromise. Instead, she tried to make herself Joan of Arc.

And as for RFA's typically hamfisted shot at liberals on the last page, I'd be defending the professor here if the student was Muslim, Hindu, or Scientologist, or anything else.