1 / 9

Ristow et al. v Board of Education

Ristow et al. v Board of Education. Another First Amendment Case. The Case. Jay Allan Student at DVHS in Glendale, AZ As part of a class published an essay on his philosophy of life Joint Class project Mandatory for all Sophomores Enrolled in Social Studies and English

maxine-romero
Download Presentation

Ristow et al. v Board of Education

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Ristow et al. v Board of Education Another First Amendment Case

  2. The Case • Jay Allan • Student at DVHS in Glendale, AZ • As part of a class published an essay on his philosophy of life • Joint Class project • Mandatory for all Sophomores • Enrolled in Social Studies and English • ALL essays submitted to prestigious Pullman Competition for student scholars

  3. The Case (cont) • Allan won the contest’s grand prize • $3,000 dollar college scholarship • and Tuition Reduction at college of his choosing. • As a result, • The student run newspaper published his essay • And he was asked to read it at an honors assembly

  4. The Problem • In the essay, Allan references that the goal of life isn’t happiness, but rather holiness as he quotes Rev. John Wesley • During the essay, he cites 3 scriptures and his own personal agreement to the statements as part of the basis of his own personal philosophy

  5. The Result • 5 families associated with the PTA filed a class action lawsuit (Ristow et al.) • 3 were counts of personal injury claim (against Allan) • 2 were personal injury claims against the school board.

  6. The Hearings • District court: • Dismissed all charges against Allan • Allowed charges against school board • During the hearing, they found in favor of the school board. • Court of Appeals • Split decision of yes/no. • Upheld lower court’s dismissal of personal injury charges but • maintained that a constitutional issue might reside for decision by a higher court.

  7. The Arguments • Ristow et al: • Student constitutional rights were violated by Allan and the School Board by reading the essay out loud in an honors assembly (mandatory) and publishing it in the school newspapers. • They argue that this is a breach of the establishment clause

  8. The Arguments • Board of Education (and Allan): • Argue that they’re recognizing student excellence – not religion • Since there was a substantial prize awarded • And since this was a standard practice (of having students read their essays in the honors assembly) • Secondly, they’re arguing freedom of the press • Though they’re allowed limited censorship, the students run this paper as their own journalists • Secondly, they maintain that the essay is national news, and have no objections to using the paper as a display of scholarly excellence

  9. The Debate • Class in half – 7 justices • Time: • Decision: 5 min • Arguments: 20 min (10 per team) • Prep: whatever’s still available before 11:50/ 1:50

More Related