5 Responses to “Parents sue private school for $1 million”

1.  KipEsquire  on January 11, 2006  

   So much for "the customer is always right."
   
   The weak link in your chain is, methinks, this part:
   
   "If the family found the guidelines vague or confusing, they would have been well advised to clear up any discrepancies before their child was admitted."
   
   Um, no. It is a fundamental rule of contract law -- and common sense -- that any ambiguity in a contract is to be strictly construed against the party that drafted it.
   
   The burden is therefore clearly on the school to "clear up any discrepancies before the child was admitted."

2.  The Phalanx  on January 11, 2006  

   That would be true if the plantiff's words are to be accepted as fact. Student guidelines in a handbook, however, cannot be regarded as a contract, requiring a line by line explaination of what constitutes "immoral behavior."

3.  Kira  on January 11, 2006  

   Wasn't she kissing other girls? What happened to them? Or was she forcibly kissing other girls? weird

4.  Bubba  on January 11, 2006  

   The unfortunate reality is that depending on how the trial shakes down, the parents may actually win this case on the basis of some sort of discrimination or disparate impact. I'm unsure of precedent on the matter, but it would not be surprising to see this case morph into something like "discrimination based on sexual conduct or lifestyle" or that the "code of conduct creates a disparate impact" against specific students, blah, blah, blah.
   
   From the ajc.com article, here's the part that, if true, may have the school in some trouble:
   
   "None of the other girls involved in the incident was expelled at the time, said David Clark, the Bradleys' Lawrenceville attorney. He said he does not know whether they were expelled later."
   
   If in fact the other girls involved were not expelled, it shows the school has not equally enforced the rule. This could be a problem for the school.
   
   And here's where the confusion lies:
   
   "The school cited a defense of "ecclesiastical abstention," which prohibits courts from interfering in the internal politics of a church."
   
   The school is a "Christian school", but it isn't a church. It may be a ministry of a church, but it isn't a church. It's a mixed bag as to whether or not the school is protected under such a defense.
   
   My opinion of the Constitutional issue here, if I may opine, is simply this: private faith-based institutions should not be beholden to the government to admit, retain, or dismiss their members based on lifestyle or behavior. Period. If a private faith-based institution holds to the belief that its members must abstain from sex outside of marriage, homosexual relationships, or experimentation with same-sex kissing, then let them do it and do not interfere. If a private faith-based institution holds to the belief that cardigan sweaters are immoral, let them do it and do not interfere. To *force* a faith-based institution to admit or retain members whose lifestyles and behaviors are not in keeping with its beliefs, or to punish an institution financially for the same, is to allow government to shape the doctrine of the faith-based institution. This is a clear violation of the separation of church and state. Well, it may be to me, but the defense for the girl has a different take:
   
   “"The First Amendment gives churches the absolute right to believe what they wish to believe; it does not give them the absolute right to act how they wish to act," he said.”
   
   If this isn’t a ridiculous contradiction of terms, I don’t know what is. If the government says “sure, you can believe that, but you’ll be fined $1M every time you practice your beliefs”, does any religious freedom remain? Will a Puritan scholar please weigh in here and remind us that a large contingent of American settlers who came to this land did so because their faith-based actions were being hindered, not merely their beliefs? For pete’s sake, this is just insane.
   As for the school, they need to spell out exactly which behaviors are acceptable and which are unacceptable. Fifty years ago, our culture possessed a generally accepted understanding of “sexual immorality”, but in today’s world, the term can mean many different things to many different people. Spell it out, and eliminate the confusion. Also, the school would do well to incorporate a plan of forgiveness and reconciliation into their discipline. This may have been attempted – we don’t know the whole story. But the core of the Christian faith, however, is based on forgiveness of sin and reconciliation, and their credibility is at stake if such efforts were not attempted.
   
   As for the girl and her father, they would do well to just get over it and move on with their lives. If they feel so strongly about it, hey, this is America. Start your own school that REQUIRES same-sex kissing among minors at parties. If a party is held where such behavior does not occur, expel the lame party-goers promptly. And while you’re at it, save $1M by spelling out exactly what types of behavior you’d like to see happen at the party.

5.  The Phalanx  on January 11, 2006  

   This raises a good point; exactly what was the fate of the other girls involved? If they were undisciplined, though equally complicit, while Jessica Bradley was summarily dismissed, then the school is certainly at fault and therefore liable, not to the tune of $1 million, but the $411.15 as mentioned earlier.

Leave a Reply