Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I was educated in the good old USA. According to the spouse, who practices a totally different kind of law, the professor broke FAU's own anti-discrimination policy, therefore if he can sue them based on breach of contract, if nothing else.
Possibly for breach of contract. But certainly not for freedom of religion as you previously suggested.
What's the difference between refusing to do an assignment such as this, and stating objections to that assignment then respectfully requesting not to do an assignment? I don't see a difference, other than the teacher potentially desiring to watch the student dance.
There is no difference. In both cases, the student refused to the an assignment. He should have been graded accordingly. Possibly an F in class participation. Suspending the student is overboard.
It's possible that we don't know the entire story. Maybe the student did behave in a manner that calls for suspension. But as it's written, I think it's out of line.
Possibly for breach of contract. But certainly not for freedom of religion as you previously suggested.
It's discrimination against his religion, so it is about freedom of religion. The problem isn't the assignment itself. Had the professor done the assignment correctly none of us would know a thing about it. The problem is 1) the assignment, as written in the text, says to discuss their hesitation, nothing is mentioned about actually forcing students to do it and 2) suspending him for not stomping on the paper, especially after the student expressed he felt the assignment violated his religious principals. I assume there was discussion involved during class about why he was not doing it, which is what the text required for participation. The professor is in the wrong here, no two ways about it. The real shame here is that this is a cultural diversity class and obviously the professor himself does not practice it and doesn't appear to even understand the meaning of it.
There is no difference. In both cases, the student refused to the an assignment. He should have been graded accordingly. Possibly an F in class participation. Suspending the student is overboard.
It's possible that we don't know the entire story. Maybe the student did behave in a manner that calls for suspension. But as it's written, I think it's out of line.
If a student cannot respectfully decline an assignment that might offend them to this degree...that's blackmailing, tyrannical behavior by the professor.
There is no difference. In both cases, the student refused to the an assignment. He should have been graded accordingly. Possibly an F in class participation. Suspending the student is overboard.
It's possible that we don't know the entire story. Maybe the student did behave in a manner that calls for suspension. But as it's written, I think it's out of line.
More evidence that liberalism is a mental disease.
That is quite a generalization. I am a liberal and I wouldn't stomp on the name of my beloved Savior if they held a gun to my head. This so called teacher should be fired...period.
There is no difference. In both cases, the student refused to the an assignment. He should have been graded accordingly. Possibly an F in class participation. Suspending the student is overboard.
It's possible that we don't know the entire story. Maybe the student did behave in a manner that calls for suspension. But as it's written, I think it's out of line.
Some common sense is in order here. It wasn't a legitimate assignment to begin with. Not only is the suspension out of line, but the professor is out of line for even conducting the assignment in the first place.
The FAU mission statement includes "Fostering a campus community that values and promotes caring and cooperation, responsible and ethical behavior, the open and free exchange of ideas, and respect for and inclusion of all people"
Stomping on someone's God is not responsible or ethical behavior, does not promote an open and free exchange of ideas, and does not respect or include all people.
The assignment goes against the University's own mission statement. There's more to it than just "he refused an assignment, end of story." The assignment has to be a legitimate assignment in the first place.
It's discrimination against his religion, so it is about freedom of religion. The problem isn't the assignment itself. Had the professor done the assignment correctly none of us would know a thing about it. The problem is 1) the assignment, as written in the text, says to discuss their hesitation, nothing is mentioned about actually forcing students to do it and 2) suspending him for not stomping on the paper, especially after the student expressed he felt the assignment violated his religious principals. I assume there was discussion involved during class about why he was not doing it, which is what the text required for participation. The professor is in the wrong here, no two ways about it. The real shame here is that this is a cultural diversity class and obviously the professor himself does not practice it and doesn't appear to even understand the meaning of it.
I have practiced both sides of constitutional law and have taught it as well so I'll chime in here.
Freedom of Religion is a constitutional right. It protects you from the government and the government only. It provides no protection from a private person or entity. There are laws of discrimination that apply to certain entities, employers, places open to the general public and a few other classifications. Discrimination against religion is not in any way the same as freedom of religion.
Disclaimer: By making this post I am in no way giving advice or soliciting.
I have practiced both sides of constitutional law and have taught it as well so I'll chime in here.
Freedom of Religion is a constitutional right. It protects you from the government and the government only. It provides no protection from a private person or entity. There are laws of discrimination that apply to certain entities, employers, places open to the general public and a few other classifications. Discrimination against religion is not in any way the same as freedom of religion.
Disclaimer: By making this post I am in no way giving advice or soliciting.
Fine, take the freedom of religion out of it if you want. The kid can still sue them and win. They violated their own policies.
The real shame here is that this is a cultural diversity class and obviously the professor himself does not practice it and doesn't appear to even understand the meaning of it.
In a later post, the OP posted this "professors" bio. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to see his way of thinking. In the same respect, this does not give the professor a right to penalize this young student for finding this assignment to be insulting and objectionable. Any reasonable person can see this is manipulative in every sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clintone
If a student cannot respectfully decline an assignment that might offend them to this degree...that's blackmailing, tyrannical behavior by the professor.
It is a disgrace upon this "university". How beyond pathetic.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
