LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act.

[Mr. Reactionary]

The Supreme Court, in Tinker v. Des Moines aptly pointed out that students don't shed their rights at the schoolhouse gates. Public schools ARE the government as far as the bill of rights is concerned. Much of Section 2 is to codify court interpretations and amplify student freedoms without resulting in too much disruption to the schools.

2-1 is an express prohibition on public school discrimination against religions as described below.

2-2 and 2-6 protects religious expression by prohibiting the singling out of religious clothing, individual viewpoints on religion expressed during assignments, private discussions when allowed, allowable clubs, and student personal sperches respectively for adverse treatment.

2-7 codifies Supreme court protections against forced or coerced prayer or religious participation.

2-8 prevents arbitrary warrantless searches of students at school.

2-9 repeals an unrealistic mandate on Lincoln schools to literally search every single visitor coming to a school before they even set foot in the building. That demand on staffing is burdensome and unrealistic especially with the frequency at which food deliveries have to be made.

2-10 and 2-11 eliminate burdensome rules that have no tangible benefit.

2-12 expands access to extracurricular activities to homeschool students.

Section 3 pertains to public colleges and is also aimed at amplifying the protections of the bill of rights.

3-1 prohibits certain forms of violence and intimidation designed to deprive others of their civil rights.

3-2 carifies public forums on campus.

3-3 prohibits segregated housing on campus

3-4 extends minimal due process to student disciplinary hearings.

3-5 protects permitted persons who commute to school and store their gun in a locked car

3-6 is the enforcement mechanism

3-7 protects certain student information from being FOIAed

[Mr. Reactionary]

Do sponsors not even advocate for their own bills in Lincoln these days?

The government broke for a few days, remember.

[Mr. Reactionary]

I have no problems with religious clubs before and after school inviting guests, but as long as this does not take place during school hours.

As worded, it would only take place during the day on an equal footing with other types of clubs. Maybe like during a free period or lunch break. If other clubs can meet then then religious clubs can as well but does not create an affirmative right to do so if no other clubs are permitted to meet during school. This is basically codifying a few Supreme court cases from the 90s.

[Mr. Reactionary]

<('.'<)
 Kirby

[Mr. Reactionary]

Umpteenth bump since Parliament is a pathetic, broken system. Im going to continue to bump these until they are addressed. Whoever in hell thought it would be ok for the government to take a month off each session and do nothing should be impeached. Its been weeks with literally no actions taken even though there are bills on the floor. Please tell me this dumb body atleast takes office immediately after an election instead of after an additional lame duck period post election. Because if not we are talking the entire month of April off which is garbage governing. Seriously, who in the hell thought it was a good idea to just stop the sessions weeks before an election when there are frickin bills on the floor?

[Mr. Reactionary]

Umpteenth bump since Parliament is a pathetic, broken system. Im going to continue to bump these until they are addressed. Whoever in hell thought it would be ok for the government to take a month off each session and do nothing should be impeached. Its been weeks with literally no actions taken even though there are bills on the floor. Please tell me this dumb body atleast takes office immediately after an election instead of after an additional lame duck period post election. Because if not we are talking the entire month of April off which is garbage governing. Seriously, who in the hell thought it was a good idea to just stop the sessions weeks before an election when there are frickin bills on the floor?

The Council is adjourned a week before the election, per the constitution. So there is actually a valid reason why there is no debate here, there is no Council currently sitting to debate this.
And they swear in the Tuesday after the election, so thank god for small mercies.

That means what,  it adjourned a few days ago? There's been no activity for weeks already before adjournment. Hell, the time between when this hit the floor and when the next session swears in is probably gonna be a longer period than the entirety of the dumb Parliament debate and ratification including the election vote. That's deplorable governing. Im struggling to avoid insults here, but I think its obvious who is to blame for Lincoln effectively taking an entire frickin month off from doing their job.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Umpteenth bump since Parliament is a pathetic, broken system. Im going to continue to bump these until they are addressed. Whoever in hell thought it would be ok for the government to take a month off each session and do nothing should be impeached. Its been weeks with literally no actions taken even though there are bills on the floor. Please tell me this dumb body atleast takes office immediately after an election instead of after an additional lame duck period post election. Because if not we are talking the entire month of April off which is garbage governing. Seriously, who in the hell thought it was a good idea to just stop the sessions weeks before an election when there are frickin bills on the floor?

The Council is adjourned a week before the election, per the constitution. So there is actually a valid reason why there is no debate here, there is no Council currently sitting to debate this.
And they swear in the Tuesday after the election, so thank god for small mercies.

That means what,  it adjourned a few days ago? There's been no activity for weeks already before adjournment. Hell, the time between when this hit the floor and when the next session swears in is probably gonna be a longer period than the entirety of the dumb Parliament debate and ratification including the election vote. That's deplorable governing. Im struggling to avoid insults here, but I think its obvious who is to blame for Lincoln effectively taking an entire frickin month off from doing their job.

This is completely out of line for a game moderator who is resident of another region. Especially when we have more interest in serving in the regional government in Lincoln right now than there has ever been.

Probably because its broken.

[Mr. Reactionary]

I declare my opposition to this theocratic legislation

How is saying all religions are protected theocratic? All this does is prohibit schools from punishing students for their lawful religious beliefs regardless of religion or sect? Why should a Muslim student be punished for wearing a hijab to school or praying outside during a free period? Why should a Buddhist student be punished for discussing how Buddhas teachings influenced her life during a valedictorian speech? Students have rights too.

[Mr. Reactionary]

I declare my opposition to this theocratic legislation

Same. I would say that only the few last points of Section II and a handful in Section III are savable, but I am in opposition to roughly 80% of the bill.

Is that because you oppose freedom for students, freedom of speech, or freedom generally?

[Mr. Reactionary]

I declare my opposition to this theocratic legislation

Same. I would say that only the few last points of Section II and a handful in Section III are savable, but I am in opposition to roughly 80% of the bill.

Is that because you oppose freedom for students, freedom of speech, or freedom generally?

I personally believe we should keep religion out of schools and put it as something personal and private.

Take that as you wish

Upon a second reading the non religious parts are generally fine, with just a handful of points I disagree with

I agree with you on keeping religious instruction, coercion, and endorsement out of schools. What this is about is neutrality. The US Supreme court pre-Atlasia in a series of cases, most notably Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District and Rosenberger v. Rectors of UVA, held that freedom of speech prohibits schools from singling out student religious speech from other types of allowable speech. For instance, Constitutionally a school cant say its ok to have afterschool gay-straight alliance, afterschool robot club, but not afterschool Bible club. Similarly, a school cant allow student newspapers to discuss pregnancy, HIV, politics, but not religion. While the subject matter is religion, the right in question being protected is actually freedom of speech and expression. Its the same for religious dress; if I can wear WWE T shirts to school, glee club T shirts to school, Obama T shirts to school, I can wear a T shirt with a star of David on it. The goal of section 2 is largely to codify existing Supreme Court doctrine to avoid violating student rights and lawsuits.

[Mr. Reactionary]

II.5. Student-led religious groups or organizations may invite outside guests, such as clergy, religious leaders or parents, to speak, teach, or lead prayers at group meetings. Invited guests must be approved by school administration, pass a school district-approved background check, and not teach or endorse any viewpoints that are contrary to the law or school district curriculum. Guests may not be paid or materially reimbursed in any way by the school district, parent association, or student association.

II.6. Students who speak in public forums such as assemblies, morning announcements, graduation ceremonies, and sporting events shall be free to express their religious viewpoints to the extent that secular viewpoints would be permitted. Students who speak in such forums shall be selected based on neutral criteria. School districts and individual schools are free to establish time limits and other restrictions that do not infringe student expression. School administrators must provide disclaimers that student viewpoints are those of the student and are not endorsed by the school district through all relevant channels, including but not limited to oral announcement and written disclaimers in in the event program.

III.2. Any outdoors public space on a public College, other than roadways, is a public forum. No public College may maintain a speech code prohibiting expressive activities in a public forum, other than enforcing reasonable noise limits between the hours of 11 P.M. and 7 A.M.

While it may be surprising and/or contradictory, I could in theory stomach most of this and understand its value. However, II.6 is a bridge too far; it's one thing to allow student-led organizations based around a religion to have speakers representing that religion, but letting students preach to the masses at events where attendance is mandatory I believe crosses a line.

Depends. I support ninjas amendments to morning announcements as those generally should be following a strict non secular guideline anyway but during a graduation ceremony can the valedictorian not thank anyone they wish or bring up most appropriate topics?

Compromise amensments to help get something theough are ok. Im just still trying to figure out how saying individual students can be religious without being punished by schools is "theocracy" or "religion in schools" even when there is absolutely no religious speech or instruction coming from teachers, faculty, or curriculum and no favoritism as to which religion is protected. Saying Sikhs can wear turbans at school is not theocracy. Saying you cant single out religious speech as being absolutely banned for private discussion when no other topic is siimilarly singled out is not theocracy. Can NJ or Pyro provide the missing context as to how this bill creates theocracy?

[Mr. Reactionary]

I’m fine with Section II Part 1, 2, and 10, only. The rest of this bill is a thinly veiled attempt to turn Lincoln’s public school system into a theocracy. Private schools, such as Catholic schools, are already theocratic, there is no need to bring theocracy into public schools. Also this bill repeals affirmative action, which is a backward step, which will hurt minorities, such as myself.

How though? What is theocratic about it? You do realize some of what you call theocracy is mandated by the Superme Court right? Schools could get sued if some of these aren't adopted. II 8, 9, 11, and 12 dont even deal with religion.

Edit: also, where does this bill say anything about affirmative action? While I do think it should be eliminated, thats not anywhere in this bill. Did you actually read any of it?

[Mr. Reactionary]

I’m fine with Section II Part 1, 2, and 10, only. The rest of this bill is a thinly veiled attempt to turn Lincoln’s public school system into a theocracy. Private schools, such as Catholic schools, are already theocratic, there is no need to bring theocracy into public schools. Also this bill repeals affirmative action, which is a backward step, which will hurt minorities, such as myself.

How though? What is theocratic about it? You do realize some of what you call theocracy is mandated by the Superme Court right? Schools could get sued if some of these aren't adopted. II 8, 9, 11, and 12 dont even deal with religion.

Edit: also, where does this bill say anything about affirmative action? While I do think it should be eliminated, thats not anywhere in this bill. Did you actually read any of it?

Section III Part 3, basically repeals affirmative action

Also people should not be allowed to opt out of searches, that is a safety issue, not a religious one

3. No public College shall consider the race or religion of any student when determining dormitory assignments.

This has nothing to do with affirmative action. This prohibits segregation. It prohibits whites only housing or black only housing. It doesn't apply to admissions.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Goes a bit further than what I would personally like

That tends to be what happened when no one bothers to do their job and debate a bill. I mean we've had like 3 people make ridiculous claims about like 20% of the bills contents prompting an amendment to eliminate 95% of the bill, almost none of which was mentioned at all as to what the problem is. Frankly thats more insulting that just killing this bill, a bill that was ignored for an entire month because the last parliament stopped doing its job. Even when I pointed out to SNJC that he was so wrong about this bill he was basically lying or invited the laborites to explain their outrageously inflammatory descriptions no one ever bothered. Section 3 wasn't even discussed and yet is being 100% eliminated.

This amendment literally eliminates due process protections, protections from warrantless student strip searches, privacy protections for student personal information, free speech protections, bans on racial frickin segregation, neutrality towards religion, school district flexibility over security... i get that not everyone is a libertarian but the amendment to eliminate all those things to avoid debate is fuking madness. Many of these policies are REQUIRED under Supreme court interpretations. I shouldnt even need to point that out since what kind of loon thinks due process, free speech, warrants for searches, and bans on racial segregation are bad? I guess we get to see ...

[Mr. Reactionary]

Goes a bit further than what I would personally like

That tends to be what happened when no one bothers to do their job and debate a bill. I mean we've had like 3 people make ridiculous claims about like 20% of the bills contents prompting an amendment to eliminate 95% of the bill, almost none of which was mentioned at all as to what the problem is. Frankly thats more insulting that just killing this bill, a bill that was ignored for an entire month because the last parliament stopped doing its job. Even when I pointed out to SNJC that he was so wrong about this bill he was basically lying or invited the laborites to explain their outrageously inflammatory descriptions no one ever bothered. Section 3 wasn't even discussed and yet is being 100% eliminated.

This amendment literally eliminates due process protections, protections from warrantless student strip searches, privacy protections for student personal information, free speech protections, bans on racial frickin segregation, neutrality towards religion, school district flexibility over security... i get that not everyone is a libertarian but the amendment to eliminate all those things to avoid debate is fuking madness. Many of these policies are REQUIRED under Supreme court interpretations. I shouldnt even need to point that out since what kind of loon thinks due process, free speech, warrants for searches, and bans on racial segregation are bad? I guess we get to see ...

Well, if they are required by the Supreme Court, wouldn't this bill be mostly unnecessary?

While a Supreme Court interpretation can have wide effects, as it only hears individual cases it is up to the other branches of government to effect the ruling generally instead of just against the named party to the case. For example, last year a Supreme Court case out of Charlottesville, VA held that it violates the 4th Amendment of the US constitution when a police officer enters property without a warrant or probable cause and lifts a tarp draped over the vehicle to read a license plate number. Accordingly, the Court threw out any evidence from the illegal tarp lifting cited in that case and the Police department in Charlottesville, Virginia can possibly be sued for trespass by that 1 landowner.

That doesnt mean that every police department everywhere immediately stops entering property and lifting tarps without cause. I had to meet with a police officer a few weeks back who literally did the same thing and had to explain to him why he can't do that. A court case is not self executing against everyone. While the precedent suggests that pretty much any time the police go onto property and lift the tarp without a warrant or cause, the police will lose if they are sued over the matter, that doesnt mean the police are going to stop lifting tarps.

Many of the rules above are constitutionally required by the Supreme Court ... but that in no way means there arent violations of the rulings by Regional/State/Local governments. The Court rule is essentially laying out what similar groups must do to conform with the law, not passing the actual law that becomes self-executing. Litigation is so expensive and time consuming that governments operate in contravention of court decisions for years and years without being called out on it (and Im speaking from my experience as a lawyer for a government). So I guess my argument is that as there are Supreme Court cases on some of the specific issues, that actually makes it more important to address the issues rather than leaving it up to the courts to enforce. Because if someone maintains an illegal policy and tries to enforce it, while there may not always be a likelihood of a lawsuit, the odds of that government winning the lawsuit are almost 0.

If you want I can provide a list of which Supreme/Federal Court cases apply to stuff in the bill to better illustrate why these provisions are necessary to ensure compliance with federal law and keep some government somewhere from getting sued.

[Mr. Reactionary]

I really don't think this bill does anything other than set Lincoln's public school system on a track towards theocracy

Why do you think that though; its like you are determined to avoid explaining your slander? A theocracy is when a religion controls the government. This bill literally is the opposite. It says any student can be a member of any religion, any student can have religious beliefs heterodox to that of teachers and administrators, no students can be forced to adopt religious beliefs they disagree with,  and that schools wont single out the religious beliefs of any student regardless of what religion. That is not theocracy. Plus only a few provisions on this law even affect religious beliefs. How does guaranteeing due process in college disciplinary hearings equate to theocracy? How does prohibiting segregated dorms equatw to theocracy? How does letting local schools decide whether or not to lock their front doors each equate to theocracy? How does prohibiting warantless strip searches in public schools equate to theocracy? How does prohibiting free sperch zones on campus equate to theocracy? How does protecting student data from FOIA equate to theocracy? You have basically said you dont like 5 out of 25 things therefore the other 20 are automatically bad.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Making religious stuff optional instead of mandatory (and of course not make it count in your grades in any way) would be a really good improvement. Probably replaced by free periods or maybe an alternative class as you say.

I think II-6 is the only thing that could be viewed as "mandatory" and that is only in the context of physical attendance of ceremonies and hearing of announcements. Even in those cases, its not really religious stuff any more than its [insert potpurri topic here].

[Mr. Reactionary]

If all mentions of religion and searching are removed from this bill, I may support it

I notice you still aren't explaining how this is "theocracy" which is a very specific and negative word that in actuality has nothing to do with this bill. Your hostility appears to be directed at citizens who are religious, even though we have a right to be religious. By your logic anyone who is not an atheist is a "theocrat". I mean, are you ever going to answer the question of how saying any student can believe in any religion without retaliation is "theocracy"?

Also with segregated dorms, this could have the opposite effect, where minorites just do not get dorm assignments, at all, you say it's preventing segregated dorms, but what it really does is roll back affirmative action

Are you fuqing high?! Reread the following provision:

No public College shall consider the race or religion of any student when determining dormitory assignments.

There is no reading of the above sentence that could be interpreted as saying no affirmative action. This specifically says student, which means this only applies to already admitted students, not to applicants. And again, it says race cant be considered at all ... how would that only result in one race being singled out for exclusion? Such exclusion would by necessity require an illegal consideration of race. This applies solely to SEGREGATION which is supposed to be a bad thing. Why would it ever be appropriate to have a whites only students dorm or a blacks only dorm or a Scientologists only dorm?

Can you just be honest and change your name to Suburban New Jersey SJW Progressive?

[Mr. Reactionary]

If all mentions of religion and searching are removed from this bill, I may support it

I notice you still aren't explaining how this is "theocracy" which is a very specific and negative word that in actuality has nothing to do with this bill. Your hostility appears to be directed at citizens who are religious, even though we have a right to be religious. By your logic anyone who is not an atheist is a "theocrat". I mean, are you ever going to answer the question of how saying any student can believe in any religion without retaliation is "theocracy"?

Also with segregated dorms, this could have the opposite effect, where minorites just do not get dorm assignments, at all, you say it's preventing segregated dorms, but what it really does is roll back affirmative action

Are you fuqing high?! Reread the following provision:

No public College shall consider the race or religion of any student when determining dormitory assignments.

There is no reading of the above sentence that could be interpreted as saying no affirmative action. This specifically says student, which means this only applies to already admitted students, not to applicants. And again, it says race cant be considered at all ... how would that only result in one race being singled out for exclusion? Such exclusion would by necessity require an illegal consideration of race. This applies solely to SEGREGATION which is supposed to be a bad thing. Why would it ever be appropriate to have a whites only students dorm or a blacks only dorm or a Scientologists only dorm?

Can you just be honest and change your name to Suburban New Jersey SJW Progressive?

Also it's not legal, but getting rid of considering race when providing dormitories, actually means that some racist administrators will no longer feel compelled to treat minority students, equally

What does that even mean dude? Racists will be racist if they cant be racist? That doesn't make any sense. So a racist would not segregate the races if allowed, but would segregate the races if he was not allowed? Thats lunacy. Just admit this has nothing to do with affirmative action. Then we can work towards you admitting that this also has nothing to do with theocracy, since once again,  no explanation for why that very specific word is being lobbed around something that is literally the opposite of theocracy.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Then they should go outside of the school, onto the playground or something, and pray during their lunch period, but only if no one can see them and if they do it in complete and utter silence

Damn. I understand you aren't Christian and probably don't realize you are being offensive, but my lord is this an offensive point of view ... that the mere fact that a person is religious is so repugnant to you that they must hide and stay silent lest they merely be perceived, as though perceiving someone worshiping different than them is an attack. If you saw me praying before a meal in a restaurant would you similarly feel disgusted and demand the owner kick me out?

And again, as I have pointed out multiple times as have others, the Supreme Court REQUIRES protections that you want to eliminate. You cannot ignore the Supreme Court just because you have no empathy for the religious. Several binding Supreme Court cases I have linked to require policies in this bill you want to vote down. You cant just vote away a Supreme Court interpretation of the Constitution. Public schools are not allowed to single out religious speech for adverse treatment in public and semi public forums. So again, if I can talk about Avengers: Endgame or robots or being gay at the lunch table then I can also pray, and the idea that I shouldnt be able to is evil.

[Mr. Reactionary]

I object

I cannot support a bill that allows prayer in schools

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_News_Club_v._Milford_Central_School
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenberger_v._University_of_Virginia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamb%27s_Chapel_v._Center_Moriches_Union_Free_School_District
https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1028/viewpoint-discriminationUC

You have already lost though. Most of these Supreme Court cases are probably older than you. You need a federal constitutional amendment in order to legally prohibit only prayer within a physical school.

[Mr. Reactionary]

I'm not entirely opposed to a more limited bill removing the controversial sections if that's the only way this will pass, but from reading the debate, given that it's been stated a lot of the rights stated in the bill have been affirmed by the SCOTUS, by omission aren't we denying rulings?

I think (ignoring SNJC) the primary sticking point is II.6 - I agree that just thanking Jesus once during a graduation speech is probably acceptable? But the section goes far beyond that, allowing student speakers to turn mandatory assemblies into basically sermons.  There is, I think, some rewording/tightening that can be done here.

The main cases regarding coercive prayer in schools held that requiring prayer by students is illegal, teacher led prayer in class is illegal, and a literal invocation, like a prayer to open an assembly or event or football game is not allowed whether by staff, students, or invited guests. The test from lee v. Weissman and Santa Fe v Doe is if a reasonable person would interpret a prayer as school approved speech. An invocation definitely meets that standard. Im hesitant to say non-vetted speeches would be viewed the same. If during a speech the student says "Go Tech" that wouldn't be viewed as the public school endorsing Virginia tech over other schools. Same if they said "1st period math was my favorite class", "I love my 2 moms", "if not for my devotion to God and his prophet I may have dropped out", "im a proud eagle scout", etc. In the case of an invocation, that is an identified viewpoint. In the case of a public or semi public forum, the implication is that anyone can speak on anything. Thats not the same as apparent endorsement.

 IRL Our local high school football team prays together as a team before games but not over a microphone and several athletes choose not to circle up without any retaliation for not joining. I see no harm in adding a clause or 2 stipulating no invocations.

[Mr. Reactionary]

I'll be looking into a redo for this btw.

Im sure the courts would appreciate that ...