|
Title: LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. Post by: lfromnj on April 02, 2019, 06:02:12 PM Quote SECTION I: NAME [/quote]1. This act shall be called the Students Have Rights Too Act. SECTION II: STUDENT RIGHTS IN PUBLIC PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS 1. Public school districts shall not discriminate against students or parents on the basis of their religious viewpoints or expressions of religion. 2. Students may wear clothing, accessories and jewelry that display religious messages or symbols in the same manner and to the same extent that other types of clothing, accessories and jewelry that display messages or symbols are permitted. 3. Students may express their beliefs about their religion in their class assignments, discussions, and artwork free of discrimination based on the religious content of their submissions. Such work must be evaluated by ordinary academic standards of substance and relevance. If assignments or artwork containing religious viewpoints are shown or made available to parents, the community, or the general public, it must be accompanied with a disclaimer that the viewpoints expressed are those of the student and are not endorsed by the school district. 4. Students in public schools may pray or engage in religious activities or religious expression before, during and after the school day in the same manner and to the same extent that students may engage in secular student-led activities or expression. Students may organize prayer groups, religious clubs, “see you at the pole” gatherings, or other religious gatherings before, during, and after school to the same extent that students may organize or participate in other extracurricular gatherings and groups. Religious groups must be granted the same access to school facilities as other student extracurricular groups. 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. 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. 7. This act is not intended to, nor shall it be construed to, authorize this region or any of its political or administrative subdivisions to: a. Require any person to participate in prayer or other religious activities. b. Violate the constitutional rights of any person. 8. Upon reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, any educational personnel may request consent to search any student's belongings and/or property. The student that would be searched may, if they see fit, refuse consent to any such search. Such a refusal is not to be construed as insubordination. The taking of any disciplinary action by any educational official, as a response to refusal of consent to a request to search, is hereby prohibited. Nothing in this section shall be construed as prohibiting the right of an educational official to acquire a warrant for any search, to search when a warrant is possessed, or to search when a warrant is not required. Nothing in this section shall be construed as prohibiting "probable cause" based searches. Nothing in this section shall be construed as giving students property rights in an assigned locker, desk, or workspace. 9. Section IV of the Lincoln Gun Control Act mandating school employees search every item that enters a school before it enters a school is hereby repealed. 10. No student shall be required to obtain permission to possess lotion or sunscreen while at school. 11. No public school district may prohibit students from carrying bags or purses that are not transparent. 12. Any public school system may allow students in the same administrative district who are enrolled in a lawful home school program to participate in extracurricular activities conducted by the public school system, provided the home school students are subject to the same waiver of liability applicable to public school students. SECTION III: STUDENT RIGHTS IN PUBLIC COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES 1. Every public College and University in Lincoln has an obligation to protect peaceful expressive activities by enrolled students. Any enrolled student who: physically obstructs another enrolled student or their guest from engaging in protected expressive activities or who causes a disruption for the purpose of preventing another enrolled student or their guest from engaging in protected expressive activities, shall be sanctioned by the College. Any student sanctioned under this subsection on 3 separate occasions, shall be suspended from the College for 1 year following a hearing. Any enrolled student who causes a disruption for the purpose of preventing another enrolled student or their guest from engaging in protected expressive activities by falsely pulling a fire alarm, threatening violence, or committing actual violence, shall be suspended from the college for 1 year, following a hearing. 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. 3. No public College shall consider the race or religion of any student when determining dormitory assignments. 4. Any student enrolled in a public College in Lincoln who has been accused of a crime, shall be entitled to due process prior to being suspended from the college. This shall include adequate notice of the time of, place of, and accusations being presented during a fair and impartial hearing, the right to attend the hearing with legal counsel, the right to offer evidence to challenge the accusations, the right to make a record or transcript of the hearing, and the right to address the hearing prior to a final decision. 5. No person enrolled in a public College or University who may lawfully own a weapon or firearm shall be prevented from storing their weapon or firearm inside a locked vehicle which is lawfully parked upon the boundaries of a public College. 6. The failure by any public College in Lincoln to abide by these requirements, shall result in a 25% reduction of funding. 7. The following information shall not be subject to Lincoln FOIA laws: a.) The name, address, any identifying information, and any contact information of any student in a public school or public college in Lincoln. SECTION IV: ENACTMENT 1. This act shall take effect forty-five (45) days after passage. sponsor Thr33 Title: Re: LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. Post by: Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon on April 06, 2019, 02:11:08 PM Do sponsors not even advocate for their own bills in Lincoln these days?
Title: Re: LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. Post by: Sirius_ on April 06, 2019, 03:21:37 PM "morning announcements" should be stricken, as a backwards provision re-allowing schoolwide prayer, against the will of students.
Title: Re: LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. Post by: Peanut on April 06, 2019, 03:46:22 PM Councillors, I would appreciate some debate here. Please make yourselves seen.
Title: Re: LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. Post by: Mr. Reactionary on April 06, 2019, 05:05:10 PM 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 Title: Re: LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. Post by: Mr. Reactionary on April 06, 2019, 05:10:25 PM Do sponsors not even advocate for their own bills in Lincoln these days? The government broke for a few days, remember. Title: Re: LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. Post by: Sirius_ on April 06, 2019, 06:44:43 PM I propose the following amendment:
Quote 6. Students who speak in public forums such as assemblies, While I have no issue with students doing their religion things in their own gatherings, everyone shouldn't be subjected to it every morning.Title: Re: LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. Post by: Comrade Funk on April 06, 2019, 07:26:17 PM 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.
Title: Re: LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. Post by: Mr. Reactionary on April 06, 2019, 08:05:58 PM 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. Title: Re: LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. Post by: Mr. Reactionary on April 14, 2019, 01:42:13 PM <('.'<)
Kirby Title: Re: LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. Post by: Mr. Reactionary on April 16, 2019, 06:05:37 AM 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?
Title: Re: LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. Post by: AustralianSwingVoter on April 16, 2019, 06:27:37 AM 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. Title: Re: LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. Post by: Mr. Reactionary on April 16, 2019, 01:17:00 PM 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. Title: Re: LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. Post by: Sirius_ on April 16, 2019, 03:38:46 PM 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. Title: Re: LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. Post by: YE on April 16, 2019, 03:45:11 PM 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. A bill was signed five days ago (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=316745.msg6750871#msg6750871). Next session, for reference, swears in a week from tomorrow. Title: Re: LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. Post by: Mr. Reactionary on April 16, 2019, 05:04:38 PM 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. Probably because its broken. Title: Re: LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. Post by: Sirius_ on April 25, 2019, 09:14:49 AM I once again propose my previous amendment, this time sponsoring it as a member of the council.
Title: Re: LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. Post by: S019 on April 25, 2019, 11:03:35 AM I declare my opposition to this theocratic legislation
Title: Re: LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. Post by: Mr. Reactionary on April 25, 2019, 11:23:10 AM 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. Title: Re: LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. Post by: Former President tack50 on April 25, 2019, 11:25:50 AM 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. Title: Re: LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. Post by: Mr. Reactionary on April 25, 2019, 12:37:07 PM 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? Title: Re: LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. Post by: Former President tack50 on April 25, 2019, 02:53:13 PM 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 :P Upon a second reading the non religious parts are generally fine, with just a handful of points I disagree with Title: Re: LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. Post by: Mr. Reactionary on April 25, 2019, 04:34:53 PM 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 :P 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. Title: Re: LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. Post by: Adam Griffin on April 25, 2019, 11:43:17 PM Quote 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. Quote 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. Quote 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. Title: Re: LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. Post by: Pyro on April 27, 2019, 06:30:26 PM I oppose this legislation. Religion has no place in public schools.
Title: Re: LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. Post by: lfromnj on April 27, 2019, 06:37:17 PM I support the university part but don't fully support the school part.
Title: Re: LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. Post by: S019 on April 27, 2019, 06:51:00 PM Can we just kill this theocratic legislation
Title: Re: LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. Post by: Former President tack50 on April 28, 2019, 05:22:24 AM I was about to introduce an ammendment, but I've just realized Ninja already introduced one (which would go first), so here is his ammendment:
Ammendment L 2:04 by Ninja Quote SECTION I: NAME 1. This act shall be called the Students Have Rights Too Act. SECTION II: STUDENT RIGHTS IN PUBLIC PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS 1. Public school districts shall not discriminate against students or parents on the basis of their religious viewpoints or expressions of religion. 2. Students may wear clothing, accessories and jewelry that display religious messages or symbols in the same manner and to the same extent that other types of clothing, accessories and jewelry that display messages or symbols are permitted. 3. Students may express their beliefs about their religion in their class assignments, discussions, and artwork free of discrimination based on the religious content of their submissions. Such work must be evaluated by ordinary academic standards of substance and relevance. If assignments or artwork containing religious viewpoints are shown or made available to parents, the community, or the general public, it must be accompanied with a disclaimer that the viewpoints expressed are those of the student and are not endorsed by the school district. 4. Students in public schools may pray or engage in religious activities or religious expression before, during and after the school day in the same manner and to the same extent that students may engage in secular student-led activities or expression. Students may organize prayer groups, religious clubs, “see you at the pole” gatherings, or other religious gatherings before, during, and after school to the same extent that students may organize or participate in other extracurricular gatherings and groups. Religious groups must be granted the same access to school facilities as other student extracurricular groups. 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. 6. Students who speak in public forums such as assemblies, 7. This act is not intended to, nor shall it be construed to, authorize this region or any of its political or administrative subdivisions to: a. Require any person to participate in prayer or other religious activities. b. Violate the constitutional rights of any person. 8. Upon reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, any educational personnel may request consent to search any student's belongings and/or property. The student that would be searched may, if they see fit, refuse consent to any such search. Such a refusal is not to be construed as insubordination. The taking of any disciplinary action by any educational official, as a response to refusal of consent to a request to search, is hereby prohibited. Nothing in this section shall be construed as prohibiting the right of an educational official to acquire a warrant for any search, to search when a warrant is possessed, or to search when a warrant is not required. Nothing in this section shall be construed as prohibiting "probable cause" based searches. Nothing in this section shall be construed as giving students property rights in an assigned locker, desk, or workspace. 9. Section IV of the Lincoln Gun Control Act mandating school employees search every item that enters a school before it enters a school is hereby repealed. 10. No student shall be required to obtain permission to possess lotion or sunscreen while at school. 11. No public school district may prohibit students from carrying bags or purses that are not transparent. 12. Any public school system may allow students in the same administrative district who are enrolled in a lawful home school program to participate in extracurricular activities conducted by the public school system, provided the home school students are subject to the same waiver of liability applicable to public school students. SECTION III: STUDENT RIGHTS IN PUBLIC COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES 1. Every public College and University in Lincoln has an obligation to protect peaceful expressive activities by enrolled students. Any enrolled student who: physically obstructs another enrolled student or their guest from engaging in protected expressive activities or who causes a disruption for the purpose of preventing another enrolled student or their guest from engaging in protected expressive activities, shall be sanctioned by the College. Any student sanctioned under this subsection on 3 separate occasions, shall be suspended from the College for 1 year following a hearing. Any enrolled student who causes a disruption for the purpose of preventing another enrolled student or their guest from engaging in protected expressive activities by falsely pulling a fire alarm, threatening violence, or committing actual violence, shall be suspended from the college for 1 year, following a hearing. 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. 3. No public College shall consider the race or religion of any student when determining dormitory assignments. 4. Any student enrolled in a public College in Lincoln who has been accused of a crime, shall be entitled to due process prior to being suspended from the college. This shall include adequate notice of the time of, place of, and accusations being presented during a fair and impartial hearing, the right to attend the hearing with legal counsel, the right to offer evidence to challenge the accusations, the right to make a record or transcript of the hearing, and the right to address the hearing prior to a final decision. 5. No person enrolled in a public College or University who may lawfully own a weapon or firearm shall be prevented from storing their weapon or firearm inside a locked vehicle which is lawfully parked upon the boundaries of a public College. 6. The failure by any public College in Lincoln to abide by these requirements, shall result in a 25% reduction of funding. 7. The following information shall not be subject to Lincoln FOIA laws: a.) The name, address, any identifying information, and any contact information of any student in a public school or public college in Lincoln. SECTION IV: ENACTMENT 1. This act shall take effect forty-five (45) days after passage. Sponsor feedback: Friendly Status: Introduced into the bill Title: Re: LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. Post by: lfromnj on April 28, 2019, 08:40:44 AM Quote 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. Quote 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. Quote 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? Title: Re: LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. Post by: Mr. Reactionary on April 28, 2019, 08:50:30 AM Quote 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. Quote 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. Quote 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? Title: Re: LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. Post by: Sirius_ on April 28, 2019, 11:17:07 AM I'm honestly ok with most of the provisions, it doesn't create a theocracy, it just allows religion in personal/group contexts. The reason why I oppose allowing it in morning announcements is because they are a thing that everyone hears every day, and unlike things such as graduation it isn't personal.
Title: Re: LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. Post by: S019 on April 28, 2019, 11:37:57 AM 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.
Title: Re: LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. Post by: S019 on April 28, 2019, 11:56:59 AM This bill has had more than 72 hours of debate, can I make a formal request to the Speaker to hold a final vote on it
Title: Re: LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. Post by: S019 on April 28, 2019, 11:58:46 AM I would like to propose an amendment
Quote SECTION I: NAME [/quote]1. This act shall be called the Students Have Rights Too Act. SECTION II: STUDENT RIGHTS IN PUBLIC PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS 1. Public school districts shall not discriminate against students or parents on the basis of their religious viewpoints or expressions of religion. 2. Students may wear clothing, accessories and jewelry that display religious messages or symbols in the same manner and to the same extent that other types of clothing, accessories and jewelry that display messages or symbols are permitted. 4. Students in public schools may pray or engage in religious activities or religious expression before, during and after the school day in the same manner and to the same extent that students may engage in secular student-led activities or expression. Students may organize prayer groups, religious clubs, “see you at the pole” gatherings, or other religious gatherings before, during, and after school to the same extent that students may organize or participate in other extracurricular gatherings and groups. Religious groups must be granted the same access to school facilities as other student extracurricular groups. 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. 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. 7. This act is not intended to, nor shall it be construed to, authorize this region or any of its political or administrative subdivisions to: a. Require any person to participate in prayer or other religious activities. b. Violate the constitutional rights of any person. 8. Upon reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, any educational personnel may request consent to search any student's belongings and/or property. The student that would be searched may, if they see fit, refuse consent to any such search. Such a refusal is not to be construed as insubordination. The taking of any disciplinary action by any educational official, as a response to refusal of consent to a request to search, is hereby prohibited. Nothing in this section shall be construed as prohibiting the right of an educational official to acquire a warrant for any search, to search when a warrant is possessed, or to search when a warrant is not required. Nothing in this section shall be construed as prohibiting "probable cause" based searches. Nothing in this section shall be construed as giving students property rights in an assigned locker, desk, or workspace. 9. Section IV of the Lincoln Gun Control Act mandating school employees search every item that enters a school before it enters a school is hereby repealed. 10. No student shall be required to obtain permission to possess lotion or sunscreen while at school. 12. Any public school system may allow students in the same administrative district who are enrolled in a lawful home school program to participate in extracurricular activities conducted by the public school system, provided the home school students are subject to the same waiver of liability applicable to public school students. SECTION III: STUDENT RIGHTS IN PUBLIC COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES 1. Every public College and University in Lincoln has an obligation to protect peaceful expressive activities by enrolled students. Any enrolled student who: physically obstructs another enrolled student or their guest from engaging in protected expressive activities or who causes a disruption for the purpose of preventing another enrolled student or their guest from engaging in protected expressive activities, shall be sanctioned by the College. Any student sanctioned under this subsection on 3 separate occasions, shall be suspended from the College for 1 year following a hearing. Any enrolled student who causes a disruption for the purpose of preventing another enrolled student or their guest from engaging in protected expressive activities by falsely pulling a fire alarm, threatening violence, or committing actual violence, shall be suspended from the college for 1 year, following a hearing. 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. 3. No public College shall consider the race or religion of any student when determining dormitory assignments. 4. Any student enrolled in a public College in Lincoln who has been accused of a crime, shall be entitled to due process prior to being suspended from the college. This shall include adequate notice of the time of, place of, and accusations being presented during a fair and impartial hearing, the right to attend the hearing with legal counsel, the right to offer evidence to challenge the accusations, the right to make a record or transcript of the hearing, and the right to address the hearing prior to a final decision. 5. No person enrolled in a public College or University who may lawfully own a weapon or firearm shall be prevented from storing their weapon or firearm inside a locked vehicle which is lawfully parked upon the boundaries of a public College. 6. The failure by any public College in Lincoln to abide by these requirements, shall result in a 25% reduction of funding. 7. The following information shall not be subject to Lincoln FOIA laws: a.) The name, address, any identifying information, and any contact information of any student in a public school or public college in Lincoln. SECTION IV: ENACTMENT 1. This act shall take effect forty-five (45) days after passage. Title: Re: LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. Post by: Mr. Reactionary on April 28, 2019, 01:28:57 PM 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? Title: Re: LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. Post by: lfromnj on April 28, 2019, 01:31:29 PM I'm honestly ok with most of the provisions, it doesn't create a theocracy, it just allows religion in personal/group contexts. The reason why I oppose allowing it in morning announcements is because they are a thing that everyone hears every day, and unlike things such as graduation it isn't personal. Yeah I agree with that line of thinking. I belive thr can agree with that or will come to a compromise regarding announcements. Title: Re: LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. Post by: S019 on April 28, 2019, 01:38:34 PM 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 Title: Re: LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. Post by: Mr. Reactionary on April 28, 2019, 02:04:22 PM 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. Title: Re: LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. Post by: Former President tack50 on April 28, 2019, 04:08:44 PM I support Ninja's amendment The ammdnement has been introduced into the bill then Title: Re: LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. Post by: Former President tack50 on April 28, 2019, 04:12:47 PM We now get to the next ammendment:
Ammendment L 2:06 by S019 Quote SECTION I: NAME 1. This act shall be called the Students Have Rights Too Act. SECTION II: STUDENT RIGHTS IN PUBLIC PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS 1. Public school districts shall not discriminate against students or parents on the basis of their religious viewpoints or expressions of religion. 2. Students may wear clothing, accessories and jewelry that display religious messages or symbols in the same manner and to the same extent that other types of clothing, accessories and jewelry that display messages or symbols are permitted. 4. Students in public schools may pray or engage in religious activities or religious expression before, during and after the school day in the same manner and to the same extent that students may engage in secular student-led activities or expression. Students may organize prayer groups, religious clubs, “see you at the pole” gatherings, or other religious gatherings before, during, and after school to the same extent that students may organize or participate in other extracurricular gatherings and groups. Religious groups must be granted the same access to school facilities as other student extracurricular groups. 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. 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. 7. This act is not intended to, nor shall it be construed to, authorize this region or any of its political or administrative subdivisions to: a. Require any person to participate in prayer or other religious activities. b. Violate the constitutional rights of any person. 8. Upon reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, any educational personnel may request consent to search any student's belongings and/or property. The student that would be searched may, if they see fit, refuse consent to any such search. Such a refusal is not to be construed as insubordination. The taking of any disciplinary action by any educational official, as a response to refusal of consent to a request to search, is hereby prohibited. Nothing in this section shall be construed as prohibiting the right of an educational official to acquire a warrant for any search, to search when a warrant is possessed, or to search when a warrant is not required. Nothing in this section shall be construed as prohibiting "probable cause" based searches. Nothing in this section shall be construed as giving students property rights in an assigned locker, desk, or workspace. 9. Section IV of the Lincoln Gun Control Act mandating school employees search every item that enters a school before it enters a school is hereby repealed. 10. No student shall be required to obtain permission to possess lotion or sunscreen while at school. 12. Any public school system may allow students in the same administrative district who are enrolled in a lawful home school program to participate in extracurricular activities conducted by the public school system, provided the home school students are subject to the same waiver of liability applicable to public school students. SECTION III: STUDENT RIGHTS IN PUBLIC COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES 1. Every public College and University in Lincoln has an obligation to protect peaceful expressive activities by enrolled students. Any enrolled student who: physically obstructs another enrolled student or their guest from engaging in protected expressive activities or who causes a disruption for the purpose of preventing another enrolled student or their guest from engaging in protected expressive activities, shall be sanctioned by the College. Any student sanctioned under this subsection on 3 separate occasions, shall be suspended from the College for 1 year following a hearing. Any enrolled student who causes a disruption for the purpose of preventing another enrolled student or their guest from engaging in protected expressive activities by falsely pulling a fire alarm, threatening violence, or committing actual violence, shall be suspended from the college for 1 year, following a hearing. 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. 3. No public College shall consider the race or religion of any student when determining dormitory assignments. 4. Any student enrolled in a public College in Lincoln who has been accused of a crime, shall be entitled to due process prior to being suspended from the college. This shall include adequate notice of the time of, place of, and accusations being presented during a fair and impartial hearing, the right to attend the hearing with legal counsel, the right to offer evidence to challenge the accusations, the right to make a record or transcript of the hearing, and the right to address the hearing prior to a final decision. 5. No person enrolled in a public College or University who may lawfully own a weapon or firearm shall be prevented from storing their weapon or firearm inside a locked vehicle which is lawfully parked upon the boundaries of a public College. 6. The failure by any public College in Lincoln to abide by these requirements, shall result in a 25% reduction of funding. 7. The following information shall not be subject to Lincoln FOIA laws: a.) The name, address, any identifying information, and any contact information of any student in a public school or public college in Lincoln. SECTION IV: ENACTMENT 1. This act shall take effect forty-five (45) days after passage. Sponsor feedback: 24h to specify, otherwise assumed hostile Status: Waiting for feedback Title: Re: LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. Post by: Former President tack50 on April 29, 2019, 07:40:59 PM With no reply after 24 h, the ammendment above is deemed hostile
Councillors, a vote is now open on the following Ammendment L 2:06 by S019 Quote SECTION I: NAME 1. This act shall be called the Students Have Rights Too Act. SECTION II: STUDENT RIGHTS IN PUBLIC PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS 1. Public school districts shall not discriminate against students or parents on the basis of their religious viewpoints or expressions of religion. 2. Students may wear clothing, accessories and jewelry that display religious messages or symbols in the same manner and to the same extent that other types of clothing, accessories and jewelry that display messages or symbols are permitted. 4. Students in public schools may pray or engage in religious activities or religious expression before, during and after the school day in the same manner and to the same extent that students may engage in secular student-led activities or expression. Students may organize prayer groups, religious clubs, “see you at the pole” gatherings, or other religious gatherings before, during, and after school to the same extent that students may organize or participate in other extracurricular gatherings and groups. Religious groups must be granted the same access to school facilities as other student extracurricular groups. 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. 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. 7. This act is not intended to, nor shall it be construed to, authorize this region or any of its political or administrative subdivisions to: a. Require any person to participate in prayer or other religious activities. b. Violate the constitutional rights of any person. 8. Upon reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, any educational personnel may request consent to search any student's belongings and/or property. The student that would be searched may, if they see fit, refuse consent to any such search. Such a refusal is not to be construed as insubordination. The taking of any disciplinary action by any educational official, as a response to refusal of consent to a request to search, is hereby prohibited. Nothing in this section shall be construed as prohibiting the right of an educational official to acquire a warrant for any search, to search when a warrant is possessed, or to search when a warrant is not required. Nothing in this section shall be construed as prohibiting "probable cause" based searches. Nothing in this section shall be construed as giving students property rights in an assigned locker, desk, or workspace. 9. Section IV of the Lincoln Gun Control Act mandating school employees search every item that enters a school before it enters a school is hereby repealed. 10. No student shall be required to obtain permission to possess lotion or sunscreen while at school. 12. Any public school system may allow students in the same administrative district who are enrolled in a lawful home school program to participate in extracurricular activities conducted by the public school system, provided the home school students are subject to the same waiver of liability applicable to public school students. SECTION III: STUDENT RIGHTS IN PUBLIC COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES 1. Every public College and University in Lincoln has an obligation to protect peaceful expressive activities by enrolled students. Any enrolled student who: physically obstructs another enrolled student or their guest from engaging in protected expressive activities or who causes a disruption for the purpose of preventing another enrolled student or their guest from engaging in protected expressive activities, shall be sanctioned by the College. Any student sanctioned under this subsection on 3 separate occasions, shall be suspended from the College for 1 year following a hearing. Any enrolled student who causes a disruption for the purpose of preventing another enrolled student or their guest from engaging in protected expressive activities by falsely pulling a fire alarm, threatening violence, or committing actual violence, shall be suspended from the college for 1 year, following a hearing. 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. 3. No public College shall consider the race or religion of any student when determining dormitory assignments. 4. Any student enrolled in a public College in Lincoln who has been accused of a crime, shall be entitled to due process prior to being suspended from the college. This shall include adequate notice of the time of, place of, and accusations being presented during a fair and impartial hearing, the right to attend the hearing with legal counsel, the right to offer evidence to challenge the accusations, the right to make a record or transcript of the hearing, and the right to address the hearing prior to a final decision. 5. No person enrolled in a public College or University who may lawfully own a weapon or firearm shall be prevented from storing their weapon or firearm inside a locked vehicle which is lawfully parked upon the boundaries of a public College. 6. The failure by any public College in Lincoln to abide by these requirements, shall result in a 25% reduction of funding. 7. The following information shall not be subject to Lincoln FOIA laws: a.) The name, address, any identifying information, and any contact information of any student in a public school or public college in Lincoln. SECTION IV: ENACTMENT 1. This act shall take effect forty-five (45) days after passage. Please vote AYE, NAY or Abstain Title: Re: LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. Post by: Sirius_ on April 29, 2019, 07:43:30 PM Nay
Title: Re: LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. Post by: lfromnj on April 29, 2019, 07:59:54 PM Nay
Title: Re: LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. Post by: S019 on April 29, 2019, 08:03:08 PM AYE
Title: Re: LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. Post by: Zaybay on April 29, 2019, 08:42:10 PM Abstain
Title: Re: LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. Post by: Former President tack50 on April 30, 2019, 04:53:58 AM Aye
Goes a bit further than what I would personally like, but it does nuke all the bad contents (also a few of the good ones though) Title: Re: LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. Post by: Mr. Reactionary on April 30, 2019, 07:15:38 AM 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 ... Title: Re: LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. Post by: Former President tack50 on April 30, 2019, 07:55:13 AM 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? Honestly, reading the ammendment, the only parts I personally miss are II.7, II.11 and III.4. III.3 and II.8 are stuff that I most definitely don't oppose, but don't think are necessary to have in a bill as they are already covered by stuff like the Bill of Rights (both regional and federal) Pretty much all of section III is stuff that should be left to colleges individually and not handled by the regional government. I'm absolutely fine with nuking 90% of the bill. I will only genuinely miss 3 points, all of which are fairly minor. Title: Re: LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. Post by: Pyro on April 30, 2019, 04:58:54 PM Abstain.
Title: Re: LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. Post by: Former President tack50 on May 01, 2019, 04:31:20 AM Vote on Ammendment L 2:06 by S019
Aye: 2 (tack50, S019) Abstain: 2 (Zaybay, Pyro) Nay: 3 (Ninja, lfromnj, thr33) So ammendment L 2:06 has been rejected Title: Re: LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. Post by: Mr. Reactionary on May 01, 2019, 04:38:00 PM 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. Title: Re: LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. Post by: Former President tack50 on May 02, 2019, 06:19:14 PM I have to admit - some of the legal arguments are above my head. Let me think aloud some more here. Let's think about this in practice, though. Reading the bill, I don't think anybody's religious beliefs are being forced upon anybody. The danger here, is what, that in a closed setting, people will be forced to be subjected to somebody else praising his/her religion? I don't think we're talking about people giving sermons or anything here. A lot of kids nowadays struggle to get through school, with the collapse of the community and localism. I'm not somebody who likes to talk about identity and such, but if that's going to get kids through school, and in some cases is helping them get through school alive (as opposed to the alternative), maybe these kids should be afforded the opportunity to speak to what helped guide or save them. If that's a women's organization - nothing wrong with giving credit. If it's an LGBT group - nothing wrong with giving credit. A black students' club - nothing wrong with giving credit. If Christianity/Islam/other forms of spirituality helped a kid get through school, I don't think we should bar nonoffensive appreciation. If these teachings helped one kid get through, then sharing their stories might save other lives too. We should be in the process of improving lives, not policing speech. While I agree on the fact that we should help children in need, I definitely don't see any relation between that and allowing religion in schools. If children need spiritual help, they can always go to their local church and ask the people there. Or their local school's therapist, who is also qualified to try and help children who are having problems. I have the firm belief that religion should be kept out of schools as much as possible, and kept into one's private life as much as possible as well. I think the most accurate way to describe it would be "freedom from religion" (as opposed to "freedom of religion"). Of course, about the other counterexamples mentioned (LGBT groups, women's organizations, black student clubs), I would also argue they shouldn't exist; at least not in primary school and maybe also high school, though that may just be me not relating to the concept in the first place. Plus even without the bill, I don't think a "christian club" or "muslim club" or something like that would be banned (at least not in Lincoln at large, I imagine individual schools would still need to authorize them) Title: Re: LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. Post by: S019 on May 02, 2019, 10:45:28 PM I really don't think this bill does anything other than set Lincoln's public school system on a track towards theocracy
Title: Re: LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. Post by: Mr. Reactionary on May 03, 2019, 06:50:44 AM 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. Title: Re: LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. Post by: Former President tack50 on May 03, 2019, 06:51:49 AM I understand what your point is, but I'm thinking about this in terms of saving/bettering lives. I understand your point about freedom from religion (I'm an atheist personally), but I feel like people sharing testimony of religious and/or other identity groups might help better the lives or save other kids. Let me ask you this - do you think there is a nonoffensive way for an individual in schools to extend to others that some group (faith or otherwise) was transformative in a positive way to him/her, while keeping it proper (i.e. not forcing beliefs upon others)? Maybe the problem isn't the communications, but forcing kids to listen. Maybe morning announcements, assemblies, should be optional, and there should be opportunities for kids to opt out for alternative programming (maybe free periods or something). What do you think? Well, sharing a positive transformative experience is indeed something that should be allowed and even encouraged. While I do think there are better ways of doing therapy and getting someone's life sorted out, it's still interesting to listen to stories. Indeed the problem would instead forcing kids to listen, especially for ideological stuff that each person should develop on their own (which would include religion in my opinion). 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. It would depend on the specifics. Title: Re: LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. Post by: Mr. Reactionary on May 03, 2019, 12:13:43 PM 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]. Title: Re: LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. Post by: S019 on May 03, 2019, 01:58:54 PM If all mentions of religion and searching are removed from this bill, I may support it
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 This law is a step backwards, and unless it is fixed, I cannot and will not support it Title: Re: LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. Post by: Mr. Reactionary on May 03, 2019, 02:56:09 PM 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"? Quote 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: Quote 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? Title: Re: LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. Post by: S019 on May 03, 2019, 03:02:42 PM 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"? Quote 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: Quote 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? No, because I am pro-life, oppose the ACA, opposed Dodd-Frank, support lower taxes, I supported Cramer, Morrisey, and Rosendale Yet I am somewhere, called a progressive ::) There are just some issues that I hold moderate views on 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 Title: Re: LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. Post by: Mr. Reactionary on May 03, 2019, 03:42:04 PM 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"? Quote 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: Quote 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. Title: Re: LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. Post by: Former President tack50 on May 05, 2019, 03:23:17 PM Ok, I will present my alternative fix to the bill, though not sure if it will pass or fail
Ammendment L 2:16 by tack50 Quote SECTION I: NAME 1. This act shall be called the Students Have Rights Too Act. SECTION II: STUDENT RIGHTS IN PUBLIC PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS 1. Public school districts shall not discriminate against students or parents on the basis of their religious viewpoints or expressions of religion. 2. Students may wear clothing, accessories and jewelry that display religious messages or symbols in the same manner and to the same extent that other types of clothing, accessories and jewelry that display messages or symbols are permitted. 3. Students may express their beliefs about their religion in their class assignments, discussions, and artwork free of discrimination based on the religious content of their submissions. Such work must be evaluated by ordinary academic standards of substance and relevance. If assignments or artwork containing religious viewpoints are shown or made available to parents, the community, or the general public, it must be accompanied with a disclaimer that the viewpoints expressed are those of the student and are not endorsed by the school district. 4. 5. Student-led religious groups or organizations may invite outside guests, such as clergy, religious leaders or parents, to speak 6. Students who speak in public forums such as assemblies, 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. 7. This act is not intended to, nor shall it be construed to, authorize this region or any of its political or administrative subdivisions to: a. Require any person to participate in prayer or other religious activities. b. Violate the constitutional rights of any person. 8. No student shall be forced to take part in any sort of religious activity before, during or after school hours. Participation in religious activities in any school in the region shall require authorization from the student and if said student is a minor, from their parents or legal tutors as well. Participation in religious activities shall also not be considered for the purposes of grading by any school in this region, nor by any university, college or graduate school in this region for the purposes of grading, access, enrollment, scholarships or dorm assignments SECTION III: STUDENT RIGHTS IN PUBLIC COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES 1. Every public College and University in Lincoln has an obligation to protect peaceful expressive activities by enrolled students. Any enrolled student who: physically obstructs another enrolled student or their guest from engaging in protected expressive activities or who causes a disruption for the purpose of preventing another enrolled student or their guest from engaging in protected expressive activities, shall be sanctioned by the College. Colleges may determine the appropiate punishment for said students. Nothing in this section shall construe the police and the justice system of this region from prosecuting the student to the full extent of the law for any laws they might have broken. a.) The name, address, any identifying information, and any contact information of any student in a public school or public college in Lincoln. SECTION IV: ENACTMENT 1. This act shall take effect forty-five (45) days after passage. Sponsor feedback: 24h to specify, otherwise assumed unfriendly Status: Waiting for feedback Title: Re: LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. Post by: Former President tack50 on May 05, 2019, 03:30:29 PM This is a more limited fix than SNJC's ammendment (which pretty much nuked the entire bill) and is intended to be a compromise. Some changes:
The right to prayers with the same restrictions as secular activities is removed. Prayers can and should be treated differently than something like playing chess. Religious visitors are still allowed with limitations on hateful speech. They are also not allowed to take part in prayers themselves. Added a new section to make clear that participation in any sort of religious activity is optional and requires authorization from the child and if he is a minor, his parents. I also ban religious activities from being considered for grading or for entering college. Left the punishment for students who disturb speech to colleges themselves Took out the section about any speech being allowed in public forums. The public grounds at a college campus are still the property of the college after all. Took out the section banning colleges from forbidding guns in parked cars at parking lots. Took out the 25% cut to colleges who didn't abide by section III Title: Re: LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. Post by: lfromnj on May 05, 2019, 03:44:34 PM Btw your amendment's language isn't gender neutral.
Also what would be the punishment for colleges that refuse to enforce the law as given here? Title: Re: LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. Post by: Former President tack50 on May 05, 2019, 03:53:40 PM Btw your amendment's language isn't gender neutral. Also what would be the punishment for colleges that refuse to enforce the law as given here? Whoops, time to make it gender neutral. As for the punishment, I imagine it would be up to the courts. Not every law has an associated punishment with it. Title: Re: LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. Post by: Former President tack50 on May 06, 2019, 06:08:23 PM With no feedback being received in 24 hours, the ammendment is assumed unfriendly
Councillors, a vote is now open on the following ammendment Ammendment L 2:16 by tack50 Quote SECTION I: NAME 1. This act shall be called the Students Have Rights Too Act. SECTION II: STUDENT RIGHTS IN PUBLIC PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS 1. Public school districts shall not discriminate against students or parents on the basis of their religious viewpoints or expressions of religion. 2. Students may wear clothing, accessories and jewelry that display religious messages or symbols in the same manner and to the same extent that other types of clothing, accessories and jewelry that display messages or symbols are permitted. 3. Students may express their beliefs about their religion in their class assignments, discussions, and artwork free of discrimination based on the religious content of their submissions. Such work must be evaluated by ordinary academic standards of substance and relevance. If assignments or artwork containing religious viewpoints are shown or made available to parents, the community, or the general public, it must be accompanied with a disclaimer that the viewpoints expressed are those of the student and are not endorsed by the school district. 4. 5. Student-led religious groups or organizations may invite outside guests, such as clergy, religious leaders or parents, to speak 6. Students who speak in public forums such as assemblies, 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. 7. This act is not intended to, nor shall it be construed to, authorize this region or any of its political or administrative subdivisions to: a. Require any person to participate in prayer or other religious activities. b. Violate the constitutional rights of any person. 8. No student shall be forced to take part in any sort of religious activity before, during or after school hours. Participation in religious activities in any school in the region shall require authorization from the student and if said student is a minor, from their parents or legal tutors as well. Participation in religious activities shall also not be considered for the purposes of grading by any school in this region, nor by any university, college or graduate school in this region for the purposes of grading, access, enrollment, scholarships or dorm assignments SECTION III: STUDENT RIGHTS IN PUBLIC COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES 1. Every public College and University in Lincoln has an obligation to protect peaceful expressive activities by enrolled students. Any enrolled student who: physically obstructs another enrolled student or their guest from engaging in protected expressive activities or who causes a disruption for the purpose of preventing another enrolled student or their guest from engaging in protected expressive activities, shall be sanctioned by the College. Colleges may determine the appropiate punishment for said students. Nothing in this section shall construe the police and the justice system of this region from prosecuting the student to the full extent of the law for any laws they might have broken. a.) The name, address, any identifying information, and any contact information of any student in a public school or public college in Lincoln. SECTION IV: ENACTMENT 1. This act shall take effect forty-five (45) days after passage. Please vote AYE, NAY or Abstain This vote shall last for 24h or until all Councillors have voted. Title: Re: LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. Post by: Former President tack50 on May 06, 2019, 06:08:54 PM Aye
Title: Re: LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. Post by: Sirius_ on May 06, 2019, 06:58:12 PM Nay, because it still removes provision allowing private prayer.
Title: Re: LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. Post by: S019 on May 06, 2019, 08:15:06 PM Aye, it removes religion from schools, and gets rid of most of the bad provisions
Title: Re: LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. Post by: Sestak on May 06, 2019, 09:43:50 PM Private prayer in schools should absolutely be allowed. Atlasian/American secularity is not and should not be laïcité.
Title: Re: LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. Post by: S019 on May 06, 2019, 09:45:53 PM Private prayer in schools should absolutely be allowed. Atlasian/American secularity is not and should not be laïcité. Usually it's liberals who support secularism, while conservatives tend to be more supportive of religious mentions. This is certainly a surprising view. Title: Re: LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. Post by: Sestak on May 06, 2019, 09:51:37 PM Private prayer in schools should absolutely be allowed. Atlasian/American secularity is not and should not be laïcité. Usually it's liberals who support secularism, while conservatives tend to be more supportive of religious mentions. This is certainly a surprising view. Secularism, in our cultural context, does NOT mean the same thing as French-style laïcité, which is what you seem to be advocating here. Title: Re: LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. Post by: S019 on May 06, 2019, 09:55:48 PM Private prayer in schools should absolutely be allowed. Atlasian/American secularity is not and should not be laïcité. Usually it's liberals who support secularism, while conservatives tend to be more supportive of religious mentions. This is certainly a surprising view. Secularism, in our cultural context, does NOT mean the same thing as French-style laïcité, which is what you seem to be advocating here. I am not a Christian so, I feel that with any religious mention, me and other non-Christians will be persecuted and/or ostracized Title: Re: LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. Post by: Sestak on May 06, 2019, 10:27:16 PM Private prayer in schools should absolutely be allowed. Atlasian/American secularity is not and should not be laïcité. Usually it's liberals who support secularism, while conservatives tend to be more supportive of religious mentions. This is certainly a surprising view. Secularism, in our cultural context, does NOT mean the same thing as French-style laïcité, which is what you seem to be advocating here. I am not a Christian so, I feel that with any religious mention, me and other non-Christians will be persecuted and/or ostracized But think about this from the other perspective for a second. Let's take Muslim students for example. Islam mandates prayer five times a day, and at least one of those times is (I believe) almost certain to have its range mostly or entirely in school hours on any given day. Are you proposing that Muslim students should have to leave the campus daily to pray and then return to campus? That sounds a lot more like actual persecution than some Christian students mentioning their faith in a non-school-promoted setting does. Title: Re: LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. Post by: S019 on May 07, 2019, 10:32:00 AM Private prayer in schools should absolutely be allowed. Atlasian/American secularity is not and should not be laïcité. Usually it's liberals who support secularism, while conservatives tend to be more supportive of religious mentions. This is certainly a surprising view. Secularism, in our cultural context, does NOT mean the same thing as French-style laïcité, which is what you seem to be advocating here. I am not a Christian so, I feel that with any religious mention, me and other non-Christians will be persecuted and/or ostracized But think about this from the other perspective for a second. Let's take Muslim students for example. Islam mandates prayer five times a day, and at least one of those times is (I believe) almost certain to have its range mostly or entirely in school hours on any given day. Are you proposing that Muslim students should have to leave the campus daily to pray and then return to campus? That sounds a lot more like actual persecution than some Christian students mentioning their faith in a non-school-promoted setting does. I'm not a Muslim either, and while I have sympathy for these Christians and Muslims, them praying may make students of other religions, such as Judaism, Buddhism, and Hinduism, feel ostracized. Why do you want to take us back to the era of school prayer. I am part of their other religions, I am very skeptical of bringing religion into schools. The SC already outlawed school prayer, this bill literally allows school prayer Title: Re: LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. Post by: Sestak on May 07, 2019, 10:35:11 AM Private prayer in schools should absolutely be allowed. Atlasian/American secularity is not and should not be laïcité. Usually it's liberals who support secularism, while conservatives tend to be more supportive of religious mentions. This is certainly a surprising view. Secularism, in our cultural context, does NOT mean the same thing as French-style laïcité, which is what you seem to be advocating here. I am not a Christian so, I feel that with any religious mention, me and other non-Christians will be persecuted and/or ostracized But think about this from the other perspective for a second. Let's take Muslim students for example. Islam mandates prayer five times a day, and at least one of those times is (I believe) almost certain to have its range mostly or entirely in school hours on any given day. Are you proposing that Muslim students should have to leave the campus daily to pray and then return to campus? That sounds a lot more like actual persecution than some Christian students mentioning their faith in a non-school-promoted setting does. I'm not a Muslim either, and while I have sympathy for these Christians and Muslims, them praying may make students of other religions, such as Judaism, Buddhism, and Hinduism, feel ostracized. Why do you want to take us back to the era of school prayer. I am part of their other religions, I am very skeptical of bringing religion into schools. The SC already outlawed school prayer, this bill literally allows school prayer I'm not advocating "taking us back" to anything. Private prayer is currently not just legal but constitutionally protected, while school-organized prayer is constitutionally prohibited. Which is exactly how it should be. Title: Re: LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. Post by: S019 on May 07, 2019, 10:35:52 AM Private prayer in schools should absolutely be allowed. Atlasian/American secularity is not and should not be laïcité. Usually it's liberals who support secularism, while conservatives tend to be more supportive of religious mentions. This is certainly a surprising view. Secularism, in our cultural context, does NOT mean the same thing as French-style laïcité, which is what you seem to be advocating here. I am not a Christian so, I feel that with any religious mention, me and other non-Christians will be persecuted and/or ostracized But think about this from the other perspective for a second. Let's take Muslim students for example. Islam mandates prayer five times a day, and at least one of those times is (I believe) almost certain to have its range mostly or entirely in school hours on any given day. Are you proposing that Muslim students should have to leave the campus daily to pray and then return to campus? That sounds a lot more like actual persecution than some Christian students mentioning their faith in a non-school-promoted setting does. I'm not a Muslim either, and while I have sympathy for these Christians and Muslims, them praying may make students of other religions, such as Judaism, Buddhism, and Hinduism, feel ostracized. Why do you want to take us back to the era of school prayer I'm not advocating "taking us back" to anything. Private prayer is currently not just legal but constitutionally protected, while school-organized prayer is constitutionally prohibited. Which is exactly how it should be. People should not bring religion into schools, period. Why do you (a Mike Gravel supporter for California), of all people, support this bill? Title: Re: LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. Post by: Sestak on May 07, 2019, 10:38:00 AM The "school prayer" banned by SCOTUS IRL refers to school-facilitated prayer, not "prayer that just happens to be in a school".
Title: Re: LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. Post by: Sestak on May 07, 2019, 10:39:40 AM Private prayer in schools should absolutely be allowed. Atlasian/American secularity is not and should not be laïcité. Usually it's liberals who support secularism, while conservatives tend to be more supportive of religious mentions. This is certainly a surprising view. Secularism, in our cultural context, does NOT mean the same thing as French-style laïcité, which is what you seem to be advocating here. I am not a Christian so, I feel that with any religious mention, me and other non-Christians will be persecuted and/or ostracized But think about this from the other perspective for a second. Let's take Muslim students for example. Islam mandates prayer five times a day, and at least one of those times is (I believe) almost certain to have its range mostly or entirely in school hours on any given day. Are you proposing that Muslim students should have to leave the campus daily to pray and then return to campus? That sounds a lot more like actual persecution than some Christian students mentioning their faith in a non-school-promoted setting does. I'm not a Muslim either, and while I have sympathy for these Christians and Muslims, them praying may make students of other religions, such as Judaism, Buddhism, and Hinduism, feel ostracized. Why do you want to take us back to the era of school prayer I'm not advocating "taking us back" to anything. Private prayer is currently not just legal but constitutionally protected, while school-organized prayer is constitutionally prohibited. Which is exactly how it should be. People should not bring religion into schools, period. Why do you (a Mike Gravel supporter for California), of all people, support this bill? People have a right to free exercise. Infringing on that is unconstitutional. As a matter of fact, there are several parts of this bill that I think go too far. But what we're specifically discussing right now is the provision regarding private, voluntary prayer that happens to be taking place inside school property. Title: Re: LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. Post by: S019 on May 07, 2019, 10:40:50 AM 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
Title: Re: LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. Post by: lfromnj on May 07, 2019, 11:27:36 AM Private prayer in schools should absolutely be allowed. Atlasian/American secularity is not and should not be laïcité. Usually it's liberals who support secularism, while conservatives tend to be more supportive of religious mentions. This is certainly a surprising view. Secularism, in our cultural context, does NOT mean the same thing as French-style laïcité, which is what you seem to be advocating here. I am not a Christian so, I feel that with any religious mention, me and other non-Christians will be persecuted and/or ostracized But think about this from the other perspective for a second. Let's take Muslim students for example. Islam mandates prayer five times a day, and at least one of those times is (I believe) almost certain to have its range mostly or entirely in school hours on any given day. Are you proposing that Muslim students should have to leave the campus daily to pray and then return to campus? That sounds a lot more like actual persecution than some Christian students mentioning their faith in a non-school-promoted setting does. I'm not a Muslim either, and while I have sympathy for these Christians and Muslims, them praying may make students of other religions, such as Judaism, Buddhism, and Hinduism, feel ostracized. Why do you want to take us back to the era of school prayer. I am part of their other religions, I am very skeptical of bringing religion into schools. The SC already outlawed school prayer, this bill literally allows school prayer Engel V Vitale specifically outlawed mandatory school prayer with official school backing. These would be more unofficial clubs. Title: Re: LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. Post by: Mr. Reactionary on May 07, 2019, 12:37:38 PM 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. Title: Re: LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. Post by: lfromnj on May 07, 2019, 03:47:06 PM 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. Now that should be a crime. Title: Re: LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. Post by: Pyro on May 07, 2019, 05:12:25 PM Abstain.
Title: Re: LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. Post by: Former President tack50 on May 07, 2019, 06:19:57 PM The vote on Ammendment L 2:16 is now closed
Aye: 2 (tack50, S019) Abstain: 2 (Pyro, lfromnj*) Nay: 2 (Ninja, thr33) Not voting: 3 (Zaybay, Dipper Josh, Griffin) *: Posted while the vote was open but didn't post a vote itself, which I'm counting as an abstention With the numbers being tied, the governor shall break this tie. Title: Re: LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. Post by: Former President tack50 on May 07, 2019, 06:25:11 PM Honestly looking at the vote results, I fear most Councillors weren't even aware a vote was taking place. I guess I should have pinged everyone on Discord or sent PMs?
Joining into the debate, I have to say that the ammendment does not ban prayer in schools per se. Remember prayer groups and the like are still recognized by the law. Not to mention that the relevant Supreme Court cases still exist. I do think that while prayers at schools should be allowed, they should also be restricted depending on circumstances. No teacher should interrupt their class because a kid wants to pray for example. (of course, said kid can and should be able to pray during recess or between classes) Title: Re: LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. Post by: AustralianSwingVoter on May 07, 2019, 06:27:59 PM Honestly looking at the vote results, I fear most Councillors weren't even aware a vote was taking place. I guess I should have pinged everyone on Discord or sent PMs? Yes, you really should do that. Title: Re: LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. Post by: Peanut on May 07, 2019, 07:05:13 PM I have two aspects that concern me.
1) Council opinion is fragmented. We really don't have strong determination on the Council's will, with diferring viewpoints between, well, pretty much everyone, and an Amendment accepted by only 2 Councillors. 2) Some of the wording and intentions of this bill could be worked on a little more. I will be monitoring this debate closely, and urge Councillors with any more questions about where I stand to contact me. For now, I vote NAY on this Amendment. As such, it fails, and debate shall resume on the former bill. Thank you. Title: Re: LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. Post by: Former President tack50 on May 08, 2019, 05:19:27 PM Given that the 2 attempts to ammend the bill have failed, I think we should go with a final vote.
I motion for a final vote. 24h to object Title: Re: LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. Post by: S019 on May 08, 2019, 05:48:48 PM I object
I cannot support a bill that allows prayer in schools Title: Re: LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. Post by: Mr. Reactionary on May 08, 2019, 06:01:54 PM 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. Title: Re: LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. Post by: Former President tack50 on May 08, 2019, 06:19:21 PM I object I cannot support a bill that allows prayer in schools Uh, this is for a final vote. You can always vote no in the final vote. Title: Re: LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. Post by: Sestak on May 08, 2019, 07:36:04 PM Tack, you’re rushing. There is clearly a compromise to be found here.
Title: Re: LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. Post by: S019 on May 08, 2019, 07:36:35 PM Tack, you’re rushing. There is clearly a compromise to be found here. The compromise is to outlaw prayer I'm schools Title: Re: LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. Post by: lfromnj on May 08, 2019, 08:04:39 PM I would vote Aye on this but I don't want to be on atlas next week. Can someone who would vote no abstain to pair with me for abstention?(I would vote aye as long as thr says the full bill is friendly)
Title: Re: LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. Post by: S019 on May 08, 2019, 08:18:38 PM I would vote Aye on this but I don't want to be on atlas next week. Can someone who would vote no abstain to pair with me for abstention?(I would vote aye as long as thr says the full bill is friendly) Is this on the final vote or the vote to override a filibuster Title: Re: LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. Post by: lfromnj on May 08, 2019, 08:26:35 PM I would vote Aye on this but I don't want to be on atlas next week. Can someone who would vote no abstain to pair with me for abstention?(I would vote aye as long as thr says the full bill is friendly) Is this on the final vote or the vote to override a filibuster This is on both votes I guess. Title: Re: LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. Post by: S019 on May 08, 2019, 09:17:27 PM I would vote Aye on this but I don't want to be on atlas next week. Can someone who would vote no abstain to pair with me for abstention?(I would vote aye as long as thr says the full bill is friendly) Is this on the final vote or the vote to override a filibuster This is on both votes I guess. I can Abstain on the final vote, because if the filibuster fails, there is no way that the bill would fail a final vote Title: Re: LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. Post by: Sestak on May 08, 2019, 09:22:03 PM ATTN PEOPLE WHO SUPPORT THIS BILL: the unamended version is probably not passing. If you want parts of it at least, I’d recommend asking for debate to continue.
Title: Re: LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. Post by: S019 on May 08, 2019, 09:45:28 PM ATTN PEOPLE WHO SUPPORT THIS BILL: the unamended version is probably not passing. If you want parts of it at least, I’d recommend asking for debate to continue. I agree, scrap the parts dealing with prayer in schools, and this bill earns my support Title: Re: LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. Post by: Sestak on May 09, 2019, 12:07:21 PM 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. Title: Re: LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. Post by: Mr. Reactionary on May 09, 2019, 04:40:00 PM 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. Title: Re: LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. Post by: Former President tack50 on May 11, 2019, 06:31:50 AM Does someone have a fix for the bill?
Alternatively I guess we could discuss the last one proposed (my ammendment) as a starting point. For the people who voted no, what were the problems you have with it? Title: Re: LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. Post by: Former President tack50 on May 15, 2019, 05:35:45 PM With no one providing any real ideas, I guess I'll introduced a modified version of the ammendment I proposed earlier, which does keep prayer fully protected (taking out the ammendment to section II.4 and part of the ammendment to II.5.
To answer to JK2020's old question, I personally don't find II.6 to be controversial, my problems are with II.4 and II.5 though I guess I can live with them. Ammendment L 2:24 by tack50 to LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. Quote SECTION I: NAME 1. This act shall be called the Students Have Rights Too Act. SECTION II: STUDENT RIGHTS IN PUBLIC PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS 1. Public school districts shall not discriminate against students or parents on the basis of their religious viewpoints or expressions of religion. 2. Students may wear clothing, accessories and jewelry that display religious messages or symbols in the same manner and to the same extent that other types of clothing, accessories and jewelry that display messages or symbols are permitted. 3. Students may express their beliefs about their religion in their class assignments, discussions, and artwork free of discrimination based on the religious content of their submissions. Such work must be evaluated by ordinary academic standards of substance and relevance. If assignments or artwork containing religious viewpoints are shown or made available to parents, the community, or the general public, it must be accompanied with a disclaimer that the viewpoints expressed are those of the student and are not endorsed by the school district. 4. Students in public schools may pray or engage in religious activities or religious expression before, during and after the school day in the same manner and to the same extent that students may engage in secular student-led activities or expression. Students may organize prayer groups, religious clubs, “see you at the pole” gatherings, or other religious gatherings before, during, and after school to the same extent that students may organize or participate in other extracurricular gatherings and groups. Religious groups must be granted the same access to school facilities as other student extracurricular groups. 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 or may incite hatred towards other groups, organizations or activities. Guests may not be paid or materially reimbursed in any way by the school district, parent association, or student association. 6. Students who speak in public forums such as assemblies, 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. 7. This act is not intended to, nor shall it be construed to, authorize this region or any of its political or administrative subdivisions to: a. Require any person to participate in prayer or other religious activities. b. Violate the constitutional rights of any person. 8. No student shall be forced to take part in any sort of religious activity before, during or after school hours. Participation in religious activities in any school in the region shall require authorization from the student and if said student is a minor, from their parents or legal tutors as well. Participation in religious activities shall also not be considered for the purposes of grading by any school in this region, nor by any university, college or graduate school in this region for the purposes of grading, access, enrollment, scholarships or dorm assignments SECTION III: STUDENT RIGHTS IN PUBLIC COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES 1. Every public College and University in Lincoln has an obligation to protect peaceful expressive activities by enrolled students. Any enrolled student who: physically obstructs another enrolled student or their guest from engaging in protected expressive activities or who causes a disruption for the purpose of preventing another enrolled student or their guest from engaging in protected expressive activities, shall be sanctioned by the College. Colleges may determine the appropiate punishment for said students. Nothing in this section shall construe the police and the justice systems of this region from prosecuting the student to the full extent of the law for any laws they might have broken. a.) The name, address, any identifying information, and any contact information of any student in a public school or public college in Lincoln. SECTION IV: ENACTMENT 1. This act shall take effect forty-five (45) days after passage. Sponsor feedback: Friendly Status: Added to the bill Title: Re: LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. Post by: S019 on May 15, 2019, 06:49:32 PM Still too generous in terms of school prayer, remove school prayer, entirely
Title: Re: LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. Post by: Former President tack50 on May 15, 2019, 06:59:05 PM Still too generous in terms of school prayer, remove school prayer, entirely [/quote Uh, we voted a more limited ammendment and that failed already. This version is even more limited. In fact it keeps school prayer fully intact Title: Re: LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. Post by: S019 on May 15, 2019, 07:00:31 PM Still too generous in terms of school prayer, remove school prayer, entirely [/quote Uh, we voted a more limited ammendment and that failed already. This version is even more limited. In fact it keeps school prayer fully intact I oppose school prayer Title: Re: LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. Post by: Former President tack50 on May 16, 2019, 11:55:26 AM Now that we have reached a compromise I think, I motion for a final vote. 24h to object
Title: Re: LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. (Final vote!) Post by: Former President tack50 on May 17, 2019, 05:37:48 PM With no objections being entered in 24h:
Councillors, a FINAL vote is now open on the following legislation LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. Quote SECTION I: NAME 1. This act shall be called the Students Have Rights Too Act. SECTION II: STUDENT RIGHTS IN PUBLIC PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS 1. Public school districts shall not discriminate against students or parents on the basis of their religious viewpoints or expressions of religion. 2. Students may wear clothing, accessories and jewelry that display religious messages or symbols in the same manner and to the same extent that other types of clothing, accessories and jewelry that display messages or symbols are permitted. 3. Students may express their beliefs about their religion in their class assignments, discussions, and artwork free of discrimination based on the religious content of their submissions. Such work must be evaluated by ordinary academic standards of substance and relevance. If assignments or artwork containing religious viewpoints are shown or made available to parents, the community, or the general public, it must be accompanied with a disclaimer that the viewpoints expressed are those of the student and are not endorsed by the school district. 4. Students in public schools may pray or engage in religious activities or religious expression before, during and after the school day in the same manner and to the same extent that students may engage in secular student-led activities or expression. Students may organize prayer groups, religious clubs, “see you at the pole” gatherings, or other religious gatherings before, during, and after school to the same extent that students may organize or participate in other extracurricular gatherings and groups. Religious groups must be granted the same access to school facilities as other student extracurricular groups. 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 or may incite hatred towards other groups, organizations or activities. Guests may not be paid or materially reimbursed in any way by the school district, parent association, or student association. 6. Students who speak in public forums such as assemblies, 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. 7. This act is not intended to, nor shall it be construed to, authorize this region or any of its political or administrative subdivisions to: a. Require any person to participate in prayer or other religious activities. b. Violate the constitutional rights of any person. 8. No student shall be forced to take part in any sort of religious activity before, during or after school hours. Participation in religious activities in any school in the region shall require authorization from the student and if said student is a minor, from their parents or legal tutors as well. Participation in religious activities shall also not be considered for the purposes of grading by any school in this region, nor by any university, college or graduate school in this region for the purposes of grading, access, enrollment, scholarships or dorm assignments 9. Upon reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, any educational personnel may request consent to search any student's belongings and/or property. The student that would be searched may, if they see fit, refuse consent to any such search. Such a refusal is not to be construed as insubordination. The taking of any disciplinary action by any educational official, as a response to refusal of consent to a request to search, is hereby prohibited. Nothing in this section shall be construed as prohibiting the right of an educational official to acquire a warrant for any search, to search when a warrant is possessed, or to search when a warrant is not required. Nothing in this section shall be construed as prohibiting "probable cause" based searches. Nothing in this section shall be construed as giving students property rights in an assigned locker, desk, or workspace. 10. Section IV of the Lincoln Gun Control Act mandating school employees search every item that enters a school before it enters a school is hereby repealed. 11. No student shall be required to obtain permission to possess lotion or sunscreen while at school. 12. No public school district may prohibit students from carrying bags or purses that are not transparent. 13. Any public school system may allow students in the same administrative district who are enrolled in a lawful home school program to participate in extracurricular activities conducted by the public school system, provided the home school students are subject to the same waiver of liability applicable to public school students. SECTION III: STUDENT RIGHTS IN PUBLIC COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES 1. Every public College and University in Lincoln has an obligation to protect peaceful expressive activities by enrolled students. Any enrolled student who: physically obstructs another enrolled student or their guest from engaging in protected expressive activities or who causes a disruption for the purpose of preventing another enrolled student or their guest from engaging in protected expressive activities, shall be sanctioned by the College. Colleges may determine the appropiate punishment for said students. Nothing in this section shall construe the police and the justice systems of this region from prosecuting the student to the full extent of the law for any laws they might have broken. 2. No public College shall consider the race or religion of any student when determining dormitory assignments. 3. Any student enrolled in a public College in Lincoln who has been accused of a crime, shall be entitled to due process prior to being suspended from the college. This shall include adequate notice of the time of, place of, and accusations being presented during a fair and impartial hearing, the right to attend the hearing with legal counsel, the right to offer evidence to challenge the accusations, the right to make a record or transcript of the hearing, and the right to address the hearing prior to a final decision. 4. The following information shall not be subject to Lincoln FOIA laws: a.) The name, address, any identifying information, and any contact information of any student in a public school or public college in Lincoln. SECTION IV: ENACTMENT 1. This act shall take effect forty-five (45) days after passage. Please vote AYE, NAY or Abstain This vote shall last for 48h or until all councillors have voted Title: Re: LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. Post by: lfromnj on May 17, 2019, 05:43:07 PM Aye
Title: Re: LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. Post by: S019 on May 17, 2019, 05:56:50 PM Nay
Title: Re: LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. Post by: Pyro on May 17, 2019, 07:08:59 PM NAY
Title: Re: LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. Post by: Former President tack50 on May 18, 2019, 01:13:42 PM After some thinking, while some of the worse aspects of the bill have been removed, I still can't fully endorse it. I am able to not cast a vote against though.
Abstain Title: Re: LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. Post by: Dipper Josh on May 18, 2019, 01:59:05 PM Nay
Title: Re: LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. Post by: Adam Griffin on May 18, 2019, 08:55:45 PM Nay, unfortunately
Title: Re: LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. Post by: Sirius_ on May 19, 2019, 02:37:47 PM Nay. Why was III.2 removed?
Title: Re: LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. Post by: Former President tack50 on May 19, 2019, 05:06:50 PM Nay. Why was III.2 removed? Personally, I felt that: 1. That section was better served by the generic freedom of speech rules, as they stand in the federal and regional constitutions 2. It was a tiny bit too broad for me. Colleges, might want to dissassociate themselves from certain kinds of speech. For example, a typical case might be some sort of fringe obscene protest or an extremist rally. A college is still an institution after all and probably would want to disassociate themselves from those kinds of speech (or others), so that it isn't seen as an endorsement by the college of those positions. Title: Re: LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. (Final vote!) Post by: Former President tack50 on May 20, 2019, 08:06:17 AM The FINAL vote on LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. is now closed.
Aye: 2 (thr33, lfromnj) Abstain: 1 (tack50) Nay: 5 (S019, Pyro, Dipper Josh, Griffin, Ninja) Not voting: 1 (Zaybay) So this bill is rejected Title: Re: LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. Post by: Sirius_ on May 20, 2019, 10:59:58 AM I'll be looking into a redo for this btw.
Title: Re: LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. Post by: S019 on May 20, 2019, 11:04:21 AM I would back that, but try to make it less about religion
Title: Re: LC 1.18 Students Have Rights Too Act. Post by: Mr. Reactionary on May 20, 2019, 11:59:11 AM I'll be looking into a redo for this btw. Im sure the courts would appreciate that ... |