Popular Post Scott Lloyd Posted May 22, 2015 Popular Post Share Posted May 22, 2015 (edited) This news release (some good news, for a change) was in my in-box: SCHOOL OFFICIALS APOLOGIZE FOR DENYING SIXTH-GRADER’S RIGHT TO USE JOHN 3:16 IN CLASS ASSIGNMENTLiberty Institute Thanks Somerset Academy for Upholding Students’Constitutional Right to Express Religious Beliefs NORTH LAS VEGAS, NV, May 22, 2015—Today, Liberty Institute thanked Somerset Academy school officials for issuing a formal, written apology to 12-year-old Mackenzie Fraiser. Academy officials had initially denied the sixth-grader the right to use a Bible verse in a class assignment, but have now agreed to allow Fraiser to resubmit her original project, including her favorite Bible verse, John 3:16.“We are thankful that Somerset Academy school officials did the right thing by upholding MacKenzie’s right to express her religious beliefs in class assignments,” said Jeremy Dys, Liberty Institute Senior Counsel. “As the school officials correctly noted, U.S. Department of Education guidelines guarantee that students are free to express their religious beliefs in their schoolwork. We are grateful for the Academy’s quick response and commitment to safeguarding their students’ freedom of religious expression at school.” The apology letter from Somerset Academy reads: “After reviewing the facts of this particular situation, Somerset Academy recognizes that the teacher and assistant principal incorrectly implemented [Department of Education] guidelines….Somerset Academy of Las Vegas and its Administrators apologize for this advertent error. The student will be allowed to resubmit her original presentation, inclusive of her religious beliefs.” (Read the apology letter: http://libertyinstitute.org/fraiser) Case BackgroundIn February 2015, sixth-grader Mackenzie Fraiser’s schoolteacher assigned her class a PowerPoint presentation called “All About Me.” In the presentation, Mackenzie was instructed to include a slide with an “inspirational saying” that was important to her identity. Though she planned to include her favorite Bible verse—John 3:16—Mackenzie’s teacher emphatically told her and the other students they were not allowed to put “Bible verses or quotations from the Book of Mormon” on the “inspirational sayings” slide. Mackenzie’s father, a pastor, emailed the school to ask why Mackenzie had been denied the right to include the Bible verse in her assignment. The Assistant Principal responded that they were simply following the law. On May 20, Liberty Institute attorneys sent a demand letter to Somerset Academy on behalf of Mackenzie, informing school officials that they had violated Mackenzie’s constitutional rights and had ignored U.S. Department of Education guidelines. The letter requested an apology, which the school issued on May 22, 2015. (Read demand letter: http://libertyinstitute.org/fraiser ) About Liberty InstituteLiberty Institute is the largest nonprofit legal organization in the nation dedicated solely to defending religious liberty in America. Liberty Institute protects freedom of religious expression in our military, schools, churches, and throughout the public arena. For more information, visit www.LibertyInstitute.org.-30- Photo caption: SCHOOL OFFICIALS APOLOGIZE FOR DENYING SIXTH-GRADER MACKENZIE FRAISER'S RIGHT TO USE JOHN 3:16 IN CLASS ASSIGNMENT Looks like another case of overly zealous but misguided school administrators forcing political correctness. Heaven help us if a student is forbidden from mentioning her religious convictions in an "all about me" essay. Fortunately, the student and her family didn't cave in in this instance. Edited May 22, 2015 by Scott Lloyd 6 Link to comment
cinepro Posted May 22, 2015 Share Posted May 22, 2015 Years ago I had to give an "informative speech" in a college speech class. I chose to do it on The Book of Mormon. As far as I know, I was the only LDS student in the class. Afterward, several people told me how much they enjoyed it. It's kind of sad if adults (especially teachers and administrators) can't tell the difference between being conveying information and "proselyting". Here's my speech if you're interested: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10767066/Outline%20%28Book%20of%20Mormon%29_Public%20v3.pdf 3 Link to comment
Vance Posted May 22, 2015 Share Posted May 22, 2015 Political correctness and free speech cannot live together. 2 Link to comment
sethpayne Posted May 22, 2015 Share Posted May 22, 2015 Political correctness and free speech cannot live together. Of course they can. Some PC is a good thing. It's good that we frown upon the use of certain words to describe ethnic groups etc... But taken to the extreme -- PC becomes a way to silence speech. Which is a terrible thing. 1 Link to comment
Bobbieaware Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 Of course they can. Some PC is a good thing. It's good that we frown upon the use of certain words to describe ethnic groups etc... But taken to the extreme -- PC becomes a way to silence speech. Which is a terrible thing.When people choose to not resort to cruel, rude or crude language when speaking of others, why not call it something like human decency or human civility rather than political correctness? The expression political correctness conjures up so many bad things that one is hard-pressed to say it can ever be a good thing. But I know what you mean. 1 Link to comment
rockpond Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 This news release (some good news, for a change) was in my in-box:Looks like another case of overly zealous but misguided school administrators forcing political correctness.Heaven help us if a student is forbidden from mentioning her religious convictions in an "all about me" essay.Fortunately, the student and her family didn't cave in in this instance.Glad to hear it. My elementary-school daughter recently submitted a book report on the Book of Mormon. No negative feedback at all. But we live in a relatively conservative and religious area. Link to comment
Daniel2 Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 Glad to hear the school apologized for their error. I think most people would support the student in this case. Link to comment
Vance Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 Of course they can. Some PC is a good thing. It's good that we frown upon the use of certain words to describe ethnic groups etc... But taken to the extreme -- PC becomes a way to silence speech. Which is a terrible thing.Political correctness is by very definition the suppression of opposing speech. So, no, Free speech and Political correctness are opposing principles. 3 Link to comment
thesometimesaint Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 (edited) The free speech clause of US requires that GOVERNMENT not use its authority to limit/censure speech without a compelling interest. The individual student is free to express their ideas, the teacher as an agent of the state isn't. Edited May 23, 2015 by thesometimesaint Link to comment
sethpayne Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 When people choose to not resort to cruel, rude or crude language when speaking of others, why not call it something like human decency or human civility rather than political correctness? The expression political correctness conjures up so many bad things that one is hard-pressed to say it can ever be a good thing. But I know what you mean. Quite true. However, I think that sometimes we use words that may be hurtful or insulting when that isn't our intention. Being aware of what words are insulting to a certain group is just part of being polite in many cases. So even the most sincere and kind minister who calls me a member of a"cult", is still being rude. But perhaps not intentionally. But I agree, there is a lot of baggage tied up with the term "politically correct." Link to comment
sethpayne Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 Political correctness is by very definition the suppression of opposing speech. So, no, Free speech and Political correctness are opposing principles. No it isn't. PC represents social norms. Free speech is a right which exists completely independent of norms. And no one is making the KKK disband or even the Nation of Islam because they express very politically incorrect views. But I think we would both agree that political correctness has gone way too far. An example: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-shermer/tolerance-and-totalitarianism_b_7347094.html Link to comment
Freedom Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 We all set down rules out of ignorance and it is usually because of inexperience. I do it all the time. The difference between someone with an agenda and someone with inexperience is that the latter will reconsider after being shown the broader perspective. I had a bishop refuse a Spanish family from using the church building for a their daughters 15th birthday. He gave a number of reasons that all seemed reasonable but when we explained to him the flaw in his argument and pointed out that his aversion was largely because it was a culture shock, he reluctantly relented and the party went on. I suspect that the teacher genuinely thought that she/he was doing the right thing. Now they have a better understanding of how the law should be applied. 1 Link to comment
Popular Post Storm Rider Posted May 23, 2015 Popular Post Share Posted May 23, 2015 PC is not representative of social norms; it is representative of a philosophy that purports to be tolerant....as long as you think what I think. It abhors freedom and tolerance in exchange for its preferred group think all in the name of what it calls tolerance. I find few thinks so offensive as those who become so politically correct that they lose all common sense and cannot see what is right before their eyes. Decency, politeness have nothing in common with PC; decency, kindness, thoughtfulness are the the choices a person makes by their own free will rather than being forced to act a certain way to please a bully, a tyrant, and the demagogues. 5 Link to comment
thesometimesaint Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 The Constitution allows you to be a jerk, it doesn't require it. 1 Link to comment
busybee Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 (edited) Of course they can. Some PC is a good thing. It's good that we frown upon the use of certain words to describe ethnic groups etc... But taken to the extreme -- PC becomes a way to silence speech. Which is a terrible thing.Even though we frown upon the use of some words, people should still be free to use them. What they say will reflect only on them, They should have as much right to voice their opinions as we have to disagree with the way they voice them. Edited May 23, 2015 by busybee Link to comment
carbon dioxide Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 Even though we frown upon the use of some words, people should still be free to use them. What they say will reflect only on them, They should have as much right to voice their opinions as we have to disagree with the way they voice them.Freedom of speech only has value if people can say outrageous things without consequence to their lives, property, loved ones, or employment. Political correctness forces people to lie or misrepresent their true intentions. 1 Link to comment
Freedom Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 One persons standard of political correctness is another persons standard of respect and kindness. Referring to a standard of behavior as being politically correct is like referring to mormonism as being a cult. 1 Link to comment
sethpayne Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 (edited) PC is not representative of social norms; it is representative of a philosophy that purports to be tolerant....as long as you think what I think. It abhors freedom and tolerance in exchange for its preferred group think all in the name of what it calls tolerance. I find few thinks so offensive as those who become so politically correct that they lose all common sense and cannot see what is right before their eyes. Decency, politeness have nothing in common with PC; decency, kindness, thoughtfulness are the the choices a person makes by their own free will rather than being forced to act a certain way to please a bully, a tyrant, and the demagogues. Absolutely false. It is politically incorrect to call Mormons "cultists." It is politically incorrect to use the word "negro." The problem isn't PC. The problem is *people* who *use* PC to the extreme in an effort to intimidate their ideological opponents. ETA: I see Freedom beat me to making the point. Edited May 23, 2015 by sethpayne 1 Link to comment
smac97 Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 Of course they can. Some PC is a good thing. It's good that we frown upon the use of certain words to describe ethnic groups etc... But taken to the extreme -- PC becomes a way to silence speech. Which is a terrible thing. Well said. Thanks, -Smac Link to comment
Vance Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 (edited) No it isn't. PC represents social norms.No, it doesn't. You might call social norms "civility" or something else like it. But "social norms" are NOT political correctness. Political correctness has ALWAYS been used to suppress opposing speech. Of course they like to disguise it as something else. Free speech is a right which exists completely independent of norms.This is true. And no one is making the KKK disband or even the Nation of Islam because they express very politically incorrect views.True, because they are left leaning groups. Political correctness is used almost exclusively by the left to suppress opposing views, But I think we would both agree that political correctness has gone way too far. An example: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-shermer/tolerance-and-totalitarianism_b_7347094.html LOL! Now that it is becoming a problem for left leaning groups it is now being recognized by them as being a problem. As they say, what goes around comes around. Edited May 24, 2015 by Vance Link to comment
SmileyMcGee Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 Political correctness is by very definition the suppression of opposing speech. So, no, Free speech and Political correctness are opposing principles.Maybe by your definition. You are free to use racial slurs but you aren't being PC. The Westboro baptist church is free to protest the funerals of fallen soldiers but that isn't very PC either. PC doesn't take away your freedom, it just tells you what others may not like. But if it makes you feel better to think that being PC somehow tramples on your rights you're free to think that. Link to comment
The Nehor Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 Political correctness at its most basic is avoiding language and actions calculated to offend and maginalize. When LDS insist that they should not be referred to as a cult (despite the definition being technically correct from an anthropological point of view) they are calling for political correctness. The term was only used rarely until the late 80s to early 90s when political groups (mostly the Right) referred to the possibility that it could be taken too far and the term is now used by them only to refer to things they believe take it too far. It is also used by jerks who want a justification to be a jerk by railing against basic decency which they call political correctness. It was also used earlier by some communists (almost exclusively Stalinist-style Communists) to refer to the "correct" political opinions under totalitarianism but that usage does not really relate to later usages as currently popularized in the United States. I also heard the term used in Britain when I was there though must less often and it was less of a pejorative. I have no idea if it has been translated to other languages. 1 Link to comment
thesometimesaint Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 Freedom of speech only has value if people can say outrageous things without consequence to their lives, property, loved ones, or employment. Political correctness forces people to lie or misrepresent their true intentions. Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences. Freedom of speech is the right to speak without GOVERNMENTAL action against you. IF you don't believe it call your boss a vile name to his/her face and see if you don't get fired. 1 Link to comment
blooit Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 8 years ago my son who was in 5th grade was told to choose a challenging book to read in his spare time. He chose the Book of Mormon. His teacher told him that school was not the place for that book and he was not to bring it to school with him ever again. The funny part was that she was LDS and a BYUI student teacher. PC has taken over. 1 Link to comment
Scott Lloyd Posted May 24, 2015 Author Share Posted May 24, 2015 (edited) 8 years ago my son who was in 5th grade was told to choose a challenging book to read in his spare time. He chose the Book of Mormon. His teacher told him that school was not the place for that book and he was not to bring it to school with him ever again. The funny part was that she was LDS and a BYUI student teacher. PC has taken over.Was there any follow-up? I think I might have had a thing or two to say at the next parent-teacher conference -- if not before. I wouldn't tolerate that sort of thing, especially from a BYU or BYUI student teacher. Edited May 24, 2015 by Scott Lloyd Link to comment
Recommended Posts