Expulsion threatened over prayer for sick teacher

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | April 09, 2009

[Man50D]

Attorneys representing two students who have been threatened with expulsion by a California college because of a prayer for a sick professor say a federal judge has refused the school's efforts to have the case dismissed.

"It's outrageous," said Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute, which is working on the case brought by students Kandy Kyriacou and Ojoma Omaga of the College of Alameda in Alameda, near Oakland.

"Since when does praying for a sick teacher to get well – with her consent – earn a suspension? This is not just a constitutional violation; it is a complete lack of common sense. These students were not looking for a fight, but since the school to this day insists that it can expel them if they pray again, we will have to resolve it in federal court," he said.

The public-interest legal group said the decision by a San Francisco federal judge means the lawsuit will move forward.

The case was prompted by an incident just before Christmas in 2007 in which the students went to deliver a Christmas gift to a professor.

"Kandy found the instructor alone in her shared office," according to Pacific Justice. "When the instructor indicated she was ill, Kandy offered to pray for her. The instructor bowed her head, and Kandy began to pray – until she was interrupted by another faculty member, Derek Piazza, who walked in and said, 'You can't be doing that in here!' Kandy quickly left and rejoined her friend and fellow student, Ojoma Omaga. Piazza followed Kandy outside and repeated his rebuke."

[nathanbedford]

As I understand it, this was an incidence of private prayer, done at the instance of this child and with the tacit agreement of the teacher.

Sounds like Free Exercise of Religion to me and it would take a ACLU lawyer like Ruth Ginsburg to contrive it into a Establishment of Religion case.

[Abby4116]

When prayer is forbidden in a public institution, it is time to close the institution. It is trampling on the “free exercise thereof” clause.

[Arguendo]

Somehow I got the impression this article did not come close to explaining all the facts.

[Mr. K]

Read the article- it is prety clear

[Arguendo]

That’s my point—there’s no way that tells the entire story. I go to a liberal school, and I could not imagine anything close to that happening; many of the non-religious liberal administrators would be as outraged as I would be at a blatant attempt to censor religion like that.

[vladimir998]

unFRICKINbelievable

[rwa265]

There not much more to the story in other articles. From the San Francisco Chronicle In seeking dismissal of the suit, lawyers for the Peralta Community College District argued that the school was entitled to designate faculty offices as "places for teaching and learning and working," and not for "protests, demonstrations, prayer or other activities" that would be disruptive. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/04/09/BA3416VVJI.DTL&feed=rss.bayarea From the Alemeda Journal: Less than a week later, both students received letters informing them that they were being suspended, citing violation of Section III.A.12 of the district's student conduct policy, which reads, "Disruptive or insulting behavior, willful disobedience, habitual profanity or vulgarity; or the open and persistent defiance of the authority of, refusal to comply with directions of, or persistent abuse of, college employees in the performance of their duty on or near the school premises or public sidewalks adjacent to school premises." and According to the complaint, "They sometimes take short breaks to quietly pray with each other or with other classmates on the balcony outside class," and Kyriacou "occasionally makes quiet, nondisruptive personal prayers during class and lab, such as saying 'Lord Jesus, help me.' " http://www.insidebayarea.com/timesstar/localnews/ci_12110179?source=rss

[Lucky Dog]

That’s my point—there’s no way that tells the entire story.

Actually, you should consider the judge's refusal to dismiss the case even after the institution withdrew the threat of dismissal. That fact seems to pretty well confirm that the situation was as it was portrayed in the article.

[rwa265]

Let’s try this again:

There not much more to the story in other articles.

From the San Francisco Chronicle In seeking dismissal of the suit, lawyers for the Peralta Community College District argued that the school was entitled to designate faculty offices as “places for teaching and learning and working,” and not for “protests, demonstrations, prayer or other activities” that would be disruptive.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/04/09/BA3416VVJI.DTL&feed=rss.bayarea

From the Alemeda Journal: Less than a week later, both students received letters informing them that they were being suspended, citing violation of Section III.A.12 of the district’s student conduct policy, which reads, “Disruptive or insulting behavior, willful disobedience, habitual profanity or vulgarity; or the open and persistent defiance of the authority of, refusal to comply with directions of, or persistent abuse of, college employees in the performance of their duty on or near the school premises or public sidewalks adjacent to school premises.” and According to the complaint, “They sometimes take short breaks to quietly pray with each other or with other classmates on the balcony outside class,”

and

Kyriacou “occasionally makes quiet, nondisruptive personal prayers during class and lab, such as saying ‘Lord Jesus, help me.’ “

http://www.insidebayarea.com/timesstar/localnews/ci_12110179?source=rss

[flowerplough]

RE: Establishment of Religion

Public Minnesota College to Install Foot-Washing Basins for Muslim Students ( http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,265913,00.html )

[NurdlyPeon]

But it’s not okay to fire Ward Churchill.

[ProtectOurFreedom]

“Derek Piazza” teaches apparel design and merchandising. Figures. I can just see his sashshaying hips while he tells them “you can’t do that in here.” Probably thputters like Bwaney Fwank, too.

[wintertime]

The Marxist left **hate** us.

We will be living in catacombs before long.

[wintertime]

The Marxists would kill us if they could. They just can’t get away with it.....( yet).

[Larry Lucido]

If it was clear, the opening sentence would have left no doubt in whose favor the judge ruled.

[Right Wing Assault]

"Since when does praying for a sick teacher to get well – with her consent – earn a suspension?"

Since recently.

[Arguendo]

Not really. Rulings on pre-trial motions rarely involve a determination of the facts, but rather a determination of whether the plaintiffs have a valid legal argument if the facts are as they allege. Factual determinations are then made at trial.

[Arguendo]

Thank you--that does sound like an absurd policy, but I'd be interested in knowing whether the college cited any other behavior than just "quiet prayer" in the reprimand.

The problem with World Net Daily is that their sensationalist rhetoric and obviously one-sided reporting make it hard to take anything they write at face value. It's a shame, because if something outrageous really does happen I'd like to know about it and be confident I actually understand the story.

[Lucky Dog]

Rulings on pre-trial motions rarely involve a determination of the facts, but rather a determination of whether the plaintiffs have a valid legal argument if the facts are as they allege. Factual determinations are then made at trial.

My point exactly... The motion to dismiss turns on whether the behavior (if it occurred in the manner alleged) violates any laws or whether the threatened student suspension and dismissal action was within the institution's legal authority.

The facts strongly appear to be as alleged in the article. To wit, the article cites the existence of letters (presumably undenied by the parties) that demonstrate, prima facia, that the action by the institution occurred. Additionally, the students apparently have not publicly denied their behavior as the genesis of the institution's actions. These would be the factual issues to be determined by a jury.

You are correct that the judge would be able to dismiss if law was firmly on the side of the "moving party" (the institution). Given that he did not, and the inferences possible noted in previous paragraph, my encouragement to you in my previous post stands.