Okla School Dist. Changes Dress Code In Suit Over Religious Head Coverings

[CShine]

MUSKOGEE, Okla. (AP) - An Oklahoma school district has revised its dress code to settle a lawsuit filed on behalf of a sixth-grader who wanted to wear her Muslim head scarf to class. Nashala Hearn, now 12, was suspended twice last year by the Muskogee Public School District for wearing the hijab. School officials said her clothing violated a dress code banning hats, bandanas and other head coverings - a rule intended to curb gang-related activity. In March, the Justice Department joined a lawsuit filed on her behalf by a Virginia-based civil rights group. A federal judge approved the settlement last month.

"This experience has been very stressful, very depressing and very humiliating," Hearn said.

Starting this fall, students can wear religious head coverings to school if they apply and have their requests approved by the school board, officials said.

Under the settlement, the district also must pay an undisclosed amount of money, said Leah Farish, Hearn's lawyer. The lawsuit had sought $80,000 in damages.

http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGBBMNC5EVD.html

[pop goes the weasel]

1. that's ridiculous

I think the terms of this settlement simply leave too much arbitrary enforcement power to the school board. No one should have to get permission from a governmental entity to wear one's religious paraphernalia. What if the school board doesn't like your religion? As a strictly secular non-believer, I find this offensive. I am surprised a religious family decided to accept it.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

2. I think the families believe

that if they are denied the right to wear hijab (or a yalmulka if Jewish or dreds if Rastafarian, etc.) after applying for permission, they will very easily be able to sue. And I bet they believe the school board will be less likely to discriminate against any religious faith.

[pop goes the weasel]

4. It certainly bespeaks

an unwarranted faith in the levelheadedness of the school board members. After all, this is a school board that decided it could fight juvenile delinquency by restricting what students wear. Maybe they can improve math and science grades by insisting everyone wear a beanie with a propeller on it. It would be just as sensible, that is, unsensible.

That the school board still insists on the right to review the free expression of religion, or presumably, the lack thereof, indicates an unhealthy proclivity for micromanagement. It likely doesn't make it any easier to sue the board for its meddlesome behavior, seeing as how the parents were able to sue the board before the settlement offer.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

6. Change the school boards

This is what the fundies have done. It might behoove them to attend school board meetings and talk with others in the community. Find the hot button issues, and back candidates who will do the right thing and not micromanage.

[pop goes the weasel]

8. You are absolutely right

There is no reason that sensible people can't win the school boards over to tolerance of diversity and respect for learning.

[DavidMS]

33. It could just be a formality...

The idea is that students who desire to wear head coverings for religous reasions will present their case to the board and will almost automaticaly be approved. It may just be a ruber stamp mechanism. Of cource schools should encourage students to wear hats (skin cancer), but that would make too much sense.

[Solon]

3. What is it with these School Boards anyways?

Plus this is a BAD precedence to begin with because the Board should have NO power to conduct a 'religious test' on students to allow them to wear religious garb. People must remember that many lawyer based civil rights organizations try to avoid lawsuits because it costs them time and money. Many times at a loss even when they win, so instead orgs like the ACLU will fax/mail an ultimatum of sorts to the school board, saying something like, "Change the policy or get sued." I don't understand why School Boards insist on the courts to settle it, they could do it themselves and save both sides quite a bit of money.

[Longhorn]

5. Since the religious head coverings are exceptions

to the dress code, I think school administrators would have to have some say in the process. Otherwise, students could start wearing caps and bandanas again and claim it is part of their religion.

[pop goes the weasel]

7. let them

So students wear bandanas and caps to school. What of it? A rule that hats and hairstyles that interfere with line of vision in a class room makes sense, but out and out bans do nothing to address the real problems. If there is a lot of gang activity in a school, maybe the school district should thank its lucky stars that the students self-identify and that gang-members are coming to school instead of dropping out. A bit of creativity in directing the energy of these wayward youth instead of just telling them what they can't do seems called for.

[Tansy_Gold]

9. Guess I'll be the one to disagree here

I think the hijab should be banned, along all other VISIBLE signs of religious affiliation.

School in a secular society is for learning, not for preaching. The wearing of VISIBLE religious paraphernalia is a silent way of proclaiming "I believe in this particular faith and I think it is the right one and the only one and therefore anyone who does not have the same faith is an unbeliever."

Someone wants to wear a crucifix, a cross, a star of david? Fine, do so where it can't be seen.

If a devout believer believes they must proclaim their religion over everyone else, then they can go to a private school where their religion is taught over and above the normal lessons of a public education for all.

Tansy Gold, atheist

[Sandpiper]

10. Self Delete

[pop goes the weasel]

12. that won't work

Not everyone knows what religious clothing looks like. I can spot certain types of fundamentalist Christian women from a block of the way, because of how they dress. Who doesn't know a Mormon "elder" when they see one? And yet, in the cases of the fundamentalist women who are wearing long hair and long skirts (religiously mandated look: dowdy) or much polyester and hairspray (religiously mandated look: cookie-cutter) or the young men in white short sleeves (religiously mandated look: door-to-door vacuum cleaner salesman) or suits with bow ties (religiously mandated look: in-store vacuum cleaner salesman), they always meet the dress codes imposed in schools. If they get to wear their religious gear, then everyone else does also.

[kiahzero]

13. Bullshit

School in a secular society is for learning, not for preaching. The wearing of VISIBLE religious paraphernalia is a silent way of proclaiming "I believe in this particular faith and I think it is the right one and the only one and therefore anyone who does not have the same faith is an unbeliever."

That statement is wrong, on it's face. The only thing you know is that a person associates themselves with the religion in question.

Your statement is bigotry, pure and simple. You're assuming that everyone else is a self-righteous prick... perhaps you should re-evaluate that assumption?

[Tansy_Gold]

14. No, I'm not assuming everyone is a self-righteous prick.

What I am assuming is that someone who is NOT a self-righteous religious prick will have no problem wearing her or his religious symbol discreetly so as not to offend ANYONE else. Cross, crescent, I don't give a shit what it is -- keep it private.

I live in Mormon country -- Arizona -- and it's NOT easy to spot an LDS elder a mile away. When they're out on their bicycles spreading the word, sure, then they're fairly obvious. And many a schoolkid knows which of his/her schoolmates are Mormon or Baptist or Catholic simply because they talk about it or because they socialize with others in their congregations. That's normal.

I wear long skirts all the time, and my hair is long, too. I've been mistaken for a fundamentalist on more than one occasion, and usually the mistake leads to anger against me. But long skirts, white shirts, and hair spray are not specifically religious appurtenances the way a cross, a crucifix, or a pentagram is.

Any person who believes their religion is so much more important than the secular society that they absolutely must proclaim that religion even through their children is someone I, as an atheist of Jewish descent, fear.

If you want to, go ahead and call me a bigot. It ain't gonna change my mind. The truth is that I don't give a rat's fucking ass what god, gods, or goddesses anyone believes in, so long as they keep that belief private and don't insist on letting me know that they believe their religion makes them inherently better than I. I do not want "under god" in the pledge of allegiance (even though I personally don't recite it, because I think it's empty propaganda) and I do not want "in god we trust" on our currency, even though the economy is so far down the sewer that we might as well trust in god as in the value of the coin of the realm. Nor do I want hijabs or yarmulkes or any other religious paraphernalia on children in the public schools.

Tansy Gold

[kiahzero]

15. Once again, bullshit

Why should merely gazing upon someone else's religious icon offend? It's just jewelry.

The truth is that I don't give a rat's fucking ass what god, gods, or goddesses anyone believes in, so long as they keep that belief private and don't insist on letting me know that they believe their religion makes them inherently better than I.

Simply wearing jewelery doesn't "let you know that they believe their religion makes them inherently better than I." You make assumptions, and then blame others for having thoughts that they probably don't have.

I do not want "under god" in the pledge of allegiance (even though I personally don't recite it, because I think it's empty propaganda) and I do not want "in god we trust" on our currency, even though the economy is so far down the sewer that we might as well trust in god as in the value of the coin of the realm. Nor do I want hijabs or yarmulkes or any other religious paraphernalia on children in the public schools.

I agree with you on two out of three of those, and those two are, in fact, expressing the sentiment you are complaining about. The third, however, is simply a person exercising their free exercise rights under the Constitution (remember that clause that comes right after the Establishment Clause?).

If we were to accept your logic, than in your first post, when you signed as "Tansy Gold - atheist," you were expressing that you believe yourself to be superior to all non-atheists. So, either you're the bigot you complain that others are, or subconciously you recognize that your argument is complete unmitigated bullshit.

Pick one.

[Tansy_Gold]

16. First of all, DU is not a public school

That's the first point -- one assumes /sic/ we're all adults here and we can make up our own minds. This is not a public school supported by tax monies and dedicated to the education of the impressionable young. (And they must be impressionable, because that's what they're in school for.)

Second, I identified myself as an atheist so I wouldn't be accused of being some kind of anti-islamic christian or jew, since the child in question was muslim.

Third, I have twice now said and will say again that I don't care if people, including children, want to wear their religious jewelry, so long as they do so discreetly. A hijab is not discreet.

One of the arguments sometimes used in defending the removal of the "under god" phrase from the pledge is the same used in defending the abolition of school prayer -- if you really think it's all that innocuous, if it's just a couple of words, if it's just a piece of jewelry, then keeping it discreetly hidden won't matter. "'Under God' is just a rote recitation, it doesn't really mean anything," its defenders say. But they sing a very different hymn when someone says, "Then if it's so meaningless, you won't mind if we take it out, will you."

If it's "just" jewelry, why don't they wear a pearl drop or a plain round disk? No, they wear the cross or the crescent, the pentacle or the star of david because it means something. And what it means is "I am of this faith and I am proud of it." Who wants to take pride in something other than that which makes them better -- and better than what? Better than those who aren't?

I fear anyone -- Muslim, Jew, Christian, Buddhist, Sikh, Pagan -- who puts her or his religion before her or his humanity. When a parent demands that his -- or more rarely, her -- child have the RIGHT to display ostensibly religious symbols in a public school, I fear that parent, and I fear for that child.

Absence of religion is not the same as atheism. And atheism is not a religion. Public schools are a branch of the government, of the state. They should never been seen as supporting or condoning any religion. Making accommodations for one religion will almost undoubtedly lead to direct conflicts -- students who won't be allowed to participate in something because of accommodations that have to be made for their religion.

IMNHO, religion and its expression, including the wearing of specifically religious symbols, belong in the home and the hosue of worship. They do not belong in the schools.


Tansy Gold, who believes she is entitled to express her opinion on this thread without being labeled a bigot but apparently others think otherwise.

[pop goes the weasel]

17. There's a huge difference

between what an individual chooses to wear (or what their parents made them wear) and enforcement by government of a statement of religious faith. If no outward signs of religion can be tolerated in a school, then what of little Catholic kids on Ash Wednesday or little Jewish kids who are missing from school on days all the other kids are in school on? What of schools closing for Christmas and Easter? What of arrangements for kosher or halal lunches? None of that is discreet.

I think that in a private school, enforcement of strict secularism can be demanded, but a public school has to attract people from all walks of life. Many parents would rather keep their child home and uneducated than place them in a situation that would contradict their religious traditions. Thus, in order to fulfill the public school mission of the widest possible education, there has to be accomodation for personal religious expression. I draw the line only when the religious expression is compelled by the school itself.

[Kinkistyle]

20. No one is FORCING people to wear jewelry. Your argument is all wacked.

One of the arguments sometimes used in defending the removal of the "under god" phrase from the pledge is the same used in defending the abolition of school prayer -- if you really think it's all that innocuous, if it's just a couple of words, if it's just a piece of jewelry, then keeping it discreetly hidden won't matter. "'Under God' is just a rote recitation, it doesn't really mean anything," its defenders say. But they sing a very different hymn when someone says, "Then if it's so meaningless, you won't mind if we take it out, will you."

The national pledge is a pledge taken by all citizens of the USA. In other words, people are more or less "forced" to say "under God" when they want to show they commitment to or pride in their nation. Its a totally different situation. No one is forcing kids to wear crosses or yarmulkas. The school doesn't sponsor wearing crosses or yarmulkas. The Establishment Claus is intact. It is simply a cultural display. Your argument is wack.

(edit: for the record, I am an atheist of the "strong-type".)

[kiahzero]

21. Straw man

You said:
The wearing of VISIBLE religious paraphernalia is a silent way of proclaiming "I believe in this particular faith and I think it is the right one and the only one and therefore anyone who does not have the same faith is an unbeliever."

Are you now recanting on that statement? Otherwise, you've set up a kind of reverse strawman: you started off with a strong statement, and then attempt to justify it with an argument that supports a weaker statement.

If it's "just" jewelry, why don't they wear a pearl drop or a plain round disk? No, they wear the cross or the crescent, the pentacle or the star of david because it means something. And what it means is "I am of this faith and I am proud of it." Who wants to take pride in something other than that which makes them better -- and better than what? Better than those who aren't?

It's not just jewelry, as you say. It's a statement. In other words, it's symbolic speech. And in case you've forgotten in your urge to stereotype people who wear religious jewelry, symbolic speech is Constitutionally protected.

Your claim that being "proud" implies supremacy again puts you in a paradox. Either you, as a proud atheist (you proclaimed it quite openly, and why would you say it if you weren't proud of it), or your assumption is wrong. If you are a proud atheist, you are implying that atheists are better than everyone else, and are therefore a bigot.

Again, pick one. Either you admit you're a bigot, or you admit that your assumptions are wrong.

I fear anyone -- Muslim, Jew, Christian, Buddhist, Sikh, Pagan -- who puts her or his religion before her or his humanity. When a parent demands that his -- or more rarely, her -- child have the RIGHT to display ostensibly religious symbols in a public school, I fear that parent, and I fear for that child.

I'd LOVE to see your explanation of how "showing justifiable self-respect" (one of the definitions of "proud") implies that one puts his or her religion before his or her humanity.

When a parent demands that his or her children have their Constitutional rights protected, they are doing a service to everyone. But when you don't respect the Constitution, it's harder to see that, I suppose.

Absence of religion is not the same as atheism. And atheism is not a religion. Public schools are a branch of the government, of the state. They should never been seen as supporting or condoning any religion. Making accommodations for one religion will almost undoubtedly lead to direct conflicts -- students who won't be allowed to participate in something because of accommodations that have to be made for their religion.

Bullshit. Once again, I remind you of the Free Exercise Clause... you might want to read it sometime. Students are compelled, by the force of law, to attend school. If a school policy (such as the no-head-coverings rule) conflicts with someone's religion, a rational reading of the Free Exercise Clause requires the school to do what it can to accommodate the student, unless doing so would conflict with another requirement of the Constitution.

There's no compelling government interest in preventing a girl from wearing the hijab in schools; the reason for preventing students from wearing head coverings is generally because Western values require individuals to remove their head coverings indoors. This lesson obviously doesn't apply to individuals who wear said coverings for religious reasons.

IMNHO, religion and its expression, including the wearing of specifically religious symbols, belong in the home and the hosue of worship. They do not belong in the schools.

In other words, you support eliminating the Free Exercise Clause from the Constitution.

:eyes:

On edit: Clarified the first paragraph.

[silverpatronus]

22. you cannot wear...

a hijab or a yarmulke (i never could spell that word) discreetly. fact of life. i fail to see how a religious symbol says to you 'ha ha, i rock, you suck'. that person is affirming his or her faith, which he or she has every right to do under your constitution. is that person preaching to you? are they forcing you to wear a yarmulke or hijab or cross or star of david or crescent moon or whatever? no. yes the symbol says to the world 'i am a christian/jewish person/muslim...but i fail to see what is wrong with that. i fail to see how a person's affirmation of their faith is offensive to you, unless faith itself is what offends you.

[silverpatronus]

26. as a follow to that...

you are essentially telling the people whose symbols of faith are by nature overt and visible that they have no right to wear those symbols, but the people who can hide their symbols can.

[Tansy_Gold]

28. That's right.

I am.

Religion has no place, IMHO, in the public schools. That means no overt display of religious paraphernalia. If the student and/or his/her parents don't like that -- if they attach more importance to their personal expression of faith than to the secular society as a whole -- then I believe they should put their child in a private, religious school.

If they believe that it is against their religion for their daughter to expose her hair in public, then do they also believe it is against their religion for their child to see other students' exposed hair? Will they then tell the school board "You must force other students to cover their hair lest my child be corrupted"?

I am obviously in the persecuted minority here, but that's fine. I'm not backing down.

Discreet expressions of religious faith -- from male circumcision to the wearing of a crucifix around one's neck -- are fine. But to me, the wearing of a hijab or yarmulke is the same as posting the ten commandments in the school room: it's a proclamation that the person believes their faith sets them apart.

Back in the 60s (which I remember very well) there were great upheavals in the Roman Catholic Church over the secularization of nuns' habits. The rationale that finally won out was that the traditional habits were carry-overs from medieval times when the religious either kept to themselves in their cloisters or they walked among the laity IN THE SAME GARB (The tonsure was a dead giveaway, however.) so as not to seem distinct from the rest of god's children. Over the centuries, however, the habit became, well, not to punnify, but it became a habit, and as such it made women religious look out of place, separate, not of this world. To make the women religious more welcome in the world at large, they modernized their garb, some more than others.

What the hijab and, yes, the yarmulke say is that "I am different from you, I want to be different, and I want to be different because I see myself, even unconsciously, as better than you. My faith is better than yours, my god is better than yours, my culture is better than yours. I do not want to become like you."

Now, this is only my opinion, and as I've acknowledged, I am in the distinct minority here. Be that as it may, I still believe (shades of John Auschwitzkroft) no overt religious symbols belong or should be permitted in public schools.

Tansy Gold, iconoclast

[Baltimoreboy]

29. Freedom of religion

Since we all have freedom of religion, what you want doesn't matter.

You have a right to an opinion, just not the right to force that opinion on me or anyone else. Not everyone can afford a private school. But everyone has the right to their religious beliefs.

We are talking about personal beliefs. No one is forcing someone else to wear something. They are simply preventing others from forcing them to not wear what they wish or believe.

No one is persecuting you, though you make it quite obvious that is what you wish to do to Christians, Muslims and others.

My Catholicism does set me apart. If I get ashes on my forhead on Ash Wednesday, that is my business. You can't force me to wash.

My beliefs are better than yours -- for me.

And you think you are in the extreme minority here, imagine what it is like out of cyber land.

[Tansy_Gold]

30. I'm not persecuting anyone.

I'm not telling anyone not to believe, not to be strong in their faith.

I'm only saying that I believe religious practice -- including the wearing of specifically religious symbols -- has no place in the public schools.

I don't care what people wear in public places. I don't care if they go naked and show off their circumcisions, male or female. I don't care if they wear turbans or dredlocks or burqas.

What I *do* care about is the public schools in a secular society.

I wonder what would happen if a Muslim girl were picked on because of her hijab and her non-Muslim friends decided to emulate her in solidarity? Would they be prohibited? What of a child who wishes to practice a religion different from his/her parents and decides to adopt religious garb? Or wishes not to? Does the parent have the right to force the child to wear religious garb in school? What if the child removes it? Does the school have an obligation to tell the parents? What if the child is severely punished as a result? Is that the school's fault for having told the parents?

And if you think things like this can't happen, all you have to do is remember the Muslim girl in St. Louis who was killed for having a non-Muslim boyfriend.

Again, I am not persecuting anyone, nor did I say I was persecuted off this board, or even off this thread. I'm only saying that I disagree with the Oklahoma decision to allow the girl to wear her hijab in a public school. I think it breaches the wall between church and state.

Tansy Gold

[kiahzero]

32. Your opinions are wrong

That is, if you give a rat's ass about the Constitution. That remains to be seen.

I'm only saying that I believe religious practice -- including the wearing of specifically religious symbols -- has no place in the public schools.

Have you read the Free Exercise Clause yet, or would you rather remain ignorant of the law?

I wonder what would happen if a Muslim girl were picked on because of her hijab and her non-Muslim friends decided to emulate her in solidarity? Would they be prohibited?

If the school district respected the Constitution, they would not prohibit the friends from emulating her in solidarity; Tinker v. Des Moines established that Constitutional protections, including the Free Speech Clause, remain so within the confines of a school building.

What of a child who wishes to practice a religion different from his/her parents and decides to adopt religious garb?

Good for him/her.

Or wishes not to?

Doesn't matter, as far as the school is concerned. It's a family matter, just like if your family didn't want you wearing a shirt that was legitimate under the dress codes of the school, and you wore it anyway.

Does the parent have the right to force the child to wear religious garb in school?

Depends on how you mean "right." They can punish their child for not wearing the religious garb (so long as the United States continues to ignore the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, that is), but again, the government has no involvement.


What if the child removes it? Does the school have an obligation to tell the parents?

Nope.

What if the child is severely punished as a result? Is that the school's fault for having told the parents?

If the child wasn't violating any school rules, the school has no obligation to report it, and as an agency of the government, should not get involved.

In a previous post, you wrote:
I am obviously in the persecuted minority here, but that's fine. I'm not backing down.
Now you write:
Again, I am not persecuting anyone, nor did I say I was persecuted off this board, or even off this thread.

By the way, the definition of persecute is "To oppress or harass with ill-treatment." Is asking you to defend your beliefs really oppression to you?

[kiahzero]

31. Oh look, another logical fallacy

I'm suprised that you've made yet another logical fallacy. :eyes:

If they believe that it is against their religion for their daughter to expose her hair in public, then do they also believe it is against their religion for their child to see other students' exposed hair? Will they then tell the school board "You must force other students to cover their hair lest my child be corrupted"?

Slippery slope arguments are logical fallacies, and always invalid.

I am obviously in the persecuted minority here, but that's fine. I'm not backing down.

No, you're really not. Just like the dumbass fundies that you claim to opposing, you're claim that you are "persecuted" stems from your inability to enforce your faith (or in this case, lack thereof) upon others. You're no different from Christians who claim that they are persecuted when the Establishment Clause is enforced in public schools. In your case, it's the Free Exercise Clause, but everything else is pretty much the same.

Discreet expressions of religious faith -- from male circumcision to the wearing of a crucifix around one's neck -- are fine. But to me, the wearing of a hijab or yarmulke is the same as posting the ten commandments in the school room: it's a proclamation that the person believes their faith sets them apart.

You might have a case if we were talking about teachers and administrators, since they are in fact employees of the government. I stress "might." You do not, however, have such a case when it comes to private individuals.

What the hijab and, yes, the yarmulke say is that "I am different from you, I want to be different, and I want to be different because I see myself, even unconsciously, as better than you. My faith is better than yours, my god is better than yours, my culture is better than yours. I do not want to become like you."

Once again, bullshit. You haven't substantiated this claim, yet you've made it what, three times now? How many more times are you going to float this turd before you recognize that you are wrong?

[silverpatronus]

34. in other words...

you support different rules for different religions. christians can wear their religious symbols because they can hide them. muslims and jews cannot wear their religious symbols because they cannot hide them. all symbols of religion MUST be hidden! if you don't hide your religion, you must be trying to convert me!

your argument contradicts itself, and doesn't wash coming from someone who supposedly is for equal rights.

[Kinkistyle]

18. No it doesn't.

The wearing of VISIBLE religious paraphernalia is a silent way of proclaiming "I believe in this particular faith and I think it is the right one and the only one and therefore anyone who does not have the same faith is an unbeliever."

That isn't true and its a strawman. Wearing religious paraphenalia might say in a silent way "I believe in a particular faith" but that's it. It can be argued that it is more a cultural display (like wearing a kufa or tribal jewelry) than a religious display. Drawing the line between cultural and religious displays you are in for a heap of problems unless you go all-out nazi and force school uniforms and dress codes on everybody.

[beachman]

27. separation means non-coercion

Tha State cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion, and here they were clearly trying to do so. Moreover, that can even include preaching or sharing or proclaiming as long as the school isn't doing that. People are free to voice their ideas and express them, and just because it's a religious idea does not mean it is excluded.

[bobbieinok]

11. off topic ---- I think Muskogee had a lot of school related Satanic clubs

4 or so years ago

either Muskogee or another town about same distance from Tulsa

adult student claimed her daughter was being threatened and was afraid to go to school......mother ended up sending daughter to live with relatives out of state

some others at my place of work had heard the same thing.....said police were not publicizing any of this because of fear of copy cat actions

[Kinkistyle]

19. What exactly IS a Satanic club?

DO they meet up and rail against God and his oppression? Do they study law? (Satan was an advocate and counsel - in other words, an attorney).

[Desperadoe]

23. I live in Pennsylvania Dutch Country

Lancaster County, the heart and soul of good Republicanism. It's also the home of the core of the Amish and Mennonite faith in Pennsylvania.

The Mennonite girls wear bonnets whenever they are outside of the home, including to public school. They been doing this for as long as I am aware and I have never heard of any school board member, politician or even the good , Christian Repuke citizens expressing one word of protest of this religious practice.

The Amish are even more discriminating in their dress but they only attend their private schools. My money says that if they did attend public school, there wouldn't be one word of protest either.

What's the difference?

[hightime]

24. Naked coed schools. It's that simple.

[pop goes the weasel]

25. ewwww

student desks are disgusting enough already

[TheWizardOfMudd]

35. A child could have figured out . . .

. . . that suspending a Muslim student for wearing a religious head scarf is unconstitutional.