Teacher suspended for wearing cross to school

Shinova · Post by **Shinova** » 2003-04-25 01:38pm

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,84997,00.html

InnerBrat · Post by **InnerBrat** » 2003-04-25 01:42pm

Well, the Christian looby would probably claim if a teacher wanted to wear a satanic cross/pentagram/ankh

Having said thta, I think it's stupid. Teachers hsould be able to express whatever religion they want to be, as long as they don't preach at the kids.

Preventing a muslim woman from wearing traditional dress is stupid. Her religion syas she must dress like that.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-04-25 01:43pm

I can understand the desire of the school district to forbid teachers to wear most religious shit (can't have teachers dressed in burqas, after all), but a cross necklace? Come on, there's room for rationality within the law.

Ted C · Post by **Ted C** » 2003-04-25 01:43pm

Seems a bit overboard to me, since this teacher's aide apparently wasn't proselytizing. Long as they don't complain about someone wearing a pentacle, I don't see much reason behind this rule.

Post by **Edi** » 2003-04-25 03:18pm

While I'm no fan of Christianity, this is overboard. Use of common sense is (or at least should be) allowed, and it's blatantly clear that it was not applied in this case.

Edi

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-04-25 03:23pm

How asinine.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2003-04-25 03:26pm

She knew the risks and ignored it. At the same time she can be used as a perfect case example as to why the particular rule needs to be done away with.

Isolder74 · Post by **Isolder74** » 2003-04-25 03:29pm

This is totally stupid. There should be nothing wrong with wearing a cross to school. It's not like she is preaching anything by wearing it. What's next will someone wearing a Wedding ring be preaching religious values and therefore be prohibited?

Peregrin Toker · Post by **Peregrin Toker** » 2003-04-25 03:54pm

That happens in the US?? Where I live, a student wears an inverted cross and nobody complain. There's the occasional raising of eyebrows, but you almost expect that when you're wearing an occult symbol in a largely Christian society, aren't you?????

Many Catholic students on secular schools in Denmark wear ordinary crucifixes with nobody complaining. In fact, it seems like danish school students as well as teachers can wear any religious symbol they want to.

BrYaN19kc · Post by **BrYaN19kc** » 2003-04-25 04:01pm

It's not the religious aspect that bothers me, it's the fact that she was given an Employee Handbook when she started her job and she chose not to follow the rules. It would be different if they just made it up, but she was cautioned several times.

She should be fired if she cannot follow her employer's guidlines. If she wanted the job she should have followed the rules that everyone else has to.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2003-04-25 04:05pm

This is a stupid law.

It doesn't exist to improve the public safety or to serve the public interest. It only exists to coddle those whose egos can't stand not being coddled.

Those who cannot stand to be offended at any time should shut themselves up forever in a room and wait for the end.

Ted C · Post by **Ted C** » 2003-04-25 04:22pm

Iceberg wrote:This is a stupid law.

It's not a law, it's an employer policy.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2003-04-25 04:40pm

GLEN CAMPBELL, Pa. — A teacher's aide is challenging her one-year suspension without pay for wearing a cross necklace, which officials say violates a Pennsylvania Public School Code prohibition against teachers wearing religious garb.

That's a law. Not an "employer policy."

BrYaN19kc · Post by **BrYaN19kc** » 2003-04-25 04:45pm

Iceberg wrote:GLEN CAMPBELL, Pa. — A teacher's aide is challenging her one-year suspension without pay for wearing a cross necklace, which officials say violates a Pennsylvania Public School Code prohibition against teachers wearing religious garb.

That's a law. Not an "employer policy."

It is an employer policy. She was not employed by the school district. She was paid by a contractor.

"ARIN supplies teachers aides and other services to 11 school districts and two technical schools in Armstrong and Indiana counties."

Technically, she is under their guidlines which state:

Officials at ARIN Intermediate Unit 28 wouldn't comment on Nichol's case specifically, but said their employee handbook is based on the school code and prohibits all employees from wearing religious garb. ARIN supplies teachers aides and other services to 11 school districts and two technical schools in Armstrong and Indiana counties."

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2003-04-25 04:50pm

BrYaN19kc wrote:
Iceberg wrote:GLEN CAMPBELL, Pa. — A teacher's aide is challenging her one-year suspension without pay for wearing a cross necklace, which officials say violates a Pennsylvania Public School Code prohibition against teachers wearing religious garb.

That's a law. Not an "employer policy."
It is an employer policy. She was not employed by the school district. She was paid by a contractor.

"ARIN supplies teachers aides and other services to 11 school districts and two technical schools in Armstrong and Indiana counties."

Technically, she is under their guidlines.

ARIN follows state law. Saying that it's an employer policy when employer policy is dictated by state law is deceptive.

Faram · Post by **Faram** » 2003-04-25 04:58pm

BrYaN19kc wrote:she was given an Employee Handbook when she started

I love my current Employees handbook:

Rules:
#1: In all situations use your common sense.
#2: See rule No 1

BrYaN19kc · Post by **BrYaN19kc** » 2003-04-25 05:05pm

Faram wrote:
BrYaN19kc wrote:she was given an Employee Handbook when she started
I love my current Employees handbook:

Rules:
#1: In all situations use your common sense.
#2: See rule No 1

Hehe. A wise handbook!

I work in a university data center, our handbook says no T-shirts, no ragged jeans. It also says no rings or jewelry around computer equipment. I would call the jewelry party pretty logical. Plus, I don't blame then for not wanting the staff to look like a bunch of slobs.

I very much like the "In all situations use your common sense." That is pretty much how are department is, with the above exceptions.

I make great money at my job, not only that, since I work on campus for the university I get a 70% reduction in tuition cost for graduate school. Believe me, if the handbook says don't wear a cross, you can bet that I won't.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-04-25 06:34pm

On the one hand, I agree that it's an overreaction. On the other hand, I must wonder why she felt compelled to wear it even if it was against school policy. Is it such a huge imposition on her NOT to wear it? And honestly, if they allowed the wearing of religious symbols, how long would it until someone showed up wearing a T-shirt with "God is a terrorist" or something like that in big letters, to test the limits of that tolerance?

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2003-04-25 06:43pm

I would...The day it became policy.

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2003-04-25 07:37pm

It was a stupid rule to begin with, but, rules are rules. I'd understand if they suspended her for wearing a "Jesus saves" shirt, but a cross necklace doesn't really shove a message down everyone else's throats.

Saurencaerthai · Post by **Saurencaerthai** » 2003-04-25 08:25pm

I am against people forcing their beliefs upon others, but I also think that this is an attack on her right to freedom of expression and religion. If the teacher were preaching in school, that would be one thing, but simply wearing a testimate to her faith? There's nothing wrong with that.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2003-04-25 08:52pm

The problem is, she is representing a religion neutal gvernment.

Exonerate · Post by **Exonerate** » 2003-04-25 10:01pm

Alyrium Denryle wrote:The problem is, she is representing a religion neutal gvernment.

But she's not preaching. The expression of opinions is solely her own. Its like if a teacher wore an anti-war shirt...

I'd have to agree, that is a stupid rule...

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2003-04-25 10:23pm

Yes, it is a stupid rule...But I was just explaining the reasoning behind it.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-04-25 10:32pm

I think it's taking no-religion way too far. There has to be some common sense in this afterall.