YR wrote:Furthermore, students should be allowed to take a longer lunch if they genuinely have an obligation to pray during that specific time.
And can you imagine where that slippery slope would eventually lead? This issue, specifically, has been hotly debated, and I agree that allowing exceptions to the scheduled hours of instructional time is foolish.
Here's the specific guidance, for reference:
Guidance on Constitutionally Protected Prayer and Religious Expression in Public Elementary and Secondary Schools
January 16, 2020
Part II. Section A.
Students may pray when not engaged in school activities or instruction, subject to the same rules designed to prevent material disruption of the educational program that are applied to other privately initiated expressive activities. Among other things, students may read their Bibles, Torahs, Korans, or other scriptures; say grace before meals; and pray or study religious materials with fellow students during recess, the lunch hour, or other non-instructional time to the same extent that they may engage in nonreligious activities. While school authorities may impose rules of order and pedagogical restrictions on student activities, they may not discriminate against student prayer or religious perspectives in applying such rules and restrictions.
YR wrote:However, the students were prohibited from including any religious slogans on the tiles even prior to their actual creation.
The art teachers who initiated the project n the fall of 1996, Erin Yust-Brown and Barbara Hirokawa, instructed their students that "tile decorations had to be abstract or nonobjective with no symbols or words." Other teachers saw the project and allowed their students free reign on content. It eventually morphed into a wider project including thousands of tiles.
The teachers obtained permission from administrator Monseu to proceed on a wider basis, outside their classrooms. However, Ms. Monseu directed that there could be no references to the attack, to the date of the attack, April 20, 1999 or 4/20/93, no names or initials of students, no Columbine ribbons, no religious symbols, and nothing obscene or offensive. This direction was given after a great deal of consultation, and was made with the mental health of the students in mind, as they returned to school. That sounds like a ban on creation, but further clarification was given during the case:
Ms. Monseu's notes, included as exhibit 8 in the case, stated "The following guidelines will be used to determine which tiles will be hung in Columbine High School" and that "[t]iles which do not fit within these parameters will not be hung and can be claimed by the person who made the tile."
So while the project morphed into more than the two art teacher's original intent, the restrictions also morphed. Instead of banning symbols or words from initial creation(which is permissible in the classrooms setting), it instead changed the filtering process to be after the creation of tiles. Ms Monseu's guidelines, in other words, did not ban the creation of content, but instead were used to determine which tiles would be hung in the school.
In the end, I see nothing amiss with the case and how it was decided. Instead, it seems you're conflating nuances of the events and passing judgement with broad brushstrokes.
