9th grader expelled for kissing a girl

[oliegirl]

School defends expulsion over kiss
Academy faces student lawsuit

By LATEEF MUNGIN
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 01/11/06

A private Christian academy is defending its right to expel a female student for kissing another girl off campus.

In court documents filed Jan. 4, attorneys for Covenant Christian Academy in Loganville say the school has a constitutional right to expel students for "sexual immorality."
(ENLARGE)
Jessica Bradley was expelled from the Loganville school for kissing another girl at a slumber party in 2005.

The school filed its statement in response to a lawsuit by former student Jessica Bradley. The ninth-grader was expelled from the school last April. That prompted Bradley and her father to file a Gwinnett County Superior Court lawsuit in December.

In the suit, Bradley alleges invasion of privacy and breach of contract. The Bradleys are seeking at least$1 million in damages.

According to the suit, Bradley attended a sleepover party off campus with several other female students April 22, 2005.

At the party, she kissed another student and at an earlier date had kissed a different female student, according to the suit.

Four days later, Bradley and several other girls were called into the principal's office.

After being questioned about her "inappropriate relationship" for more than an hour, Bradley, who had a 3.5 grade-point average, was expelled, according to the suit.

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.

Administrators cited the school handbook when expelling Bradley. The handbook states that "any behavior, on campus or away which indicates that a student has disregard for the spirit of the school standards, would be sufficient reason to ask for him/her to withdraw from Covenant Christian Academy."

Clark said the guidelines in the student handbook are too vague, are unenforceable and never specifically talk about a same-sex relationship.

Covenant Principal Anthony Knight and the school's lawyer both declined to comment, citing the pending suit. But in the court documents, school attorneys called the lawsuit frivolous and said the private school's decision was protected by the First Amendment.

The school cited a defense of "ecclesiastical abstention," which prohibits courts from interfering in the internal politics of a church.

Clark said the defense is not valid.

"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.

"Covenant is not going to get off on a constitutional technicality," Clark said. "If the jury believes that they treated the Bradleys unfairly and invaded Jessica's privacy, they are going to have to pay for it."


Wow. Just wow.

[jeff061]

I was stunned until the third word of the article.

[Ksyrup]

The school cited a defense of "ecclesiastical abstention," which prohibits courts from interfering in the internal politics of a church.


I guess I missed the class where we discussed this. I recall the Pullman Absention Doctrine, but not this one...

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by oliegirl

Administrators cited the school handbook when expelling Bradley. The handbook states that "any behavior, on campus or away which indicates that a student has disregard for the spirit of the school standards, would be sufficient reason to ask for him/her to withdraw from Covenant Christian Academy."

How is expelling someone the same as "asking them to withdraw"? I think this is a pretty poor defense...aside from the fact that the whole situation is crazy.

[clintl]

There was a Christian school in Sacramento that, a few years ago, expelled a student for "shaving his head." It apparently wasn't really shaved, his hair was just cut very, very short, but they apparently had a policy against it.

[wade moore]

This should be interesting...

I really would like to see how this goes by the law, and not the court of opinion.. I can see where it is quite possible that LEGALLY the school has the right to do this depending on the state laws..

morally is a different story of course...

[st.cronin]

I would be amazed if it turned out that private schools couldn't kick out whoever they wanted for any reason.

I also want to point out that that sounds like a really, really fun school.

[Coffee Warlord]

I think it's ridiculous, but technically speaking, I think they have a right to do so, asinine or not. Though I think the student is entitled to any and all tuition paid for that year.

[Icy]

"Jesus Christ taught a message of Love, Tolerance, Peace, and Harmony" ... exactly like that Christian school.

[Drake]

"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.

For me, this quote is the critical issue. In other words, you can believe whatever you want to believe, but as soon as you start putting your beliefs into action and I disagree with them, then you're in trouble.

Look, I went to private Xian schools growing up. Anybody who goes to a private Xian school and thinks they wouldn't get nailed for something like this (as petty as it is) is just stupid. It's a private school. They set the rules. If you want to continue to attend that school, you abide by those rules. It's really pretty simple.

This dude is saying: "I want to play in your sandbox, but I shouldn't be required to follow your rules". If you want your own rules, get your own sandbox.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Drake

This dude is saying: "I want to play in your sandbox, but I shouldn't be required to follow your rules". If you want your own rules, get your own sandbox.

Actually, I think this is a "dudette", but otherwise you're spot on AFAIC.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Icy

"Jesus Christ taught a message of Love, Tolerance, Peace, and Harmony" ... exactly like that Christian school.

Define tolerance.

(And no, this has nothing to do with the female on female action -- of which I'm a big fan.)

I hear lots of people talk about how Jesus preached tolerance, but I'm not sure that the tolerance we talk about and the tolerance He talked about are the same sort of thing.

[Coffee Warlord]

Although. In retrospect, I have MANY issues with any organization (school, business, whatever) controlling what you do *outside* of their time & building.

Just because you go to school somewhere or work somewhere does not mean you have the right to dictate the terms of my entire existance outside of said school/work.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

Just because you go to school somewhere or work somewhere does not mean you have the right to dictate the terms of my entire existance outside of said school/work.

Actually I do ... IF you agreed to it when we struck our bargain.
(in this case, it appears to be part of the agreement. Don't like it? Then don't go there/work there/etc.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by clintl

There was a Christian school in Sacramento that, a few years ago, expelled a student for "shaving his head." It apparently wasn't really shaved, his hair was just cut very, very short, but they apparently had a policy against it.

That's weird, I would expect that a private Christian school would be more likely to have a rule against long "hippie" hair...

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

Although. In retrospect, I have MANY issues with any organization (school, business, whatever) controlling what you do *outside* of their time & building.

Just because you go to school somewhere or work somewhere does not mean you have the right to dictate the terms of my entire existance outside of said school/work.

What are you talking about? Almost every job has rules about what you can and cannot do when you're not on the clock.

[Icy]

Originally Posted by Drake

I hear lots of people talk about how Jesus preached tolerance, but I'm not sure that the tolerance we talk about and the tolerance He talked about are the same sort of thing.

That is the main problem, the things that he was supossed to preach and the things that the church says that he did.

Originally Posted by Drake

This dude is saying: "I want to play in your sandbox, but I shouldn't be required to follow your rules". If you want your own rules, get your own sandbox.

Probably who chose that sandbox was not the girl but her parents.

[Gary Gorski]

Agreed with the latter part of this thread - its a private school - you play by their rules and their rules apparently are setup very, very broadly but I would think they make the students and parents sign that they have received and read the handbook and agree to abide by everything in it. If that's the case I don't see where there is a case no matter how ridiculous the reason for expelling her may be.

[Coffee Warlord]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Actually I do ... IF you agreed to it when we struck our bargain.
(in this case, it appears to be part of the agreement. Don't like it? Then don't go there/work there/etc.

You can agree to something illegal all day, it doesn't make it binding. A company should never have the right to dictate behavior when you are not representing said company. You can't sign over your constitutional rights.

Granted, a private school is a very different situation. You can attend different schools with ease. Getting a new job is a lot harder.

[JHandley]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

Although. In retrospect, I have MANY issues with any organization (school, business, whatever) controlling what you do *outside* of their time & building.

Just because you go to school somewhere or work somewhere does not mean you have the right to dictate the terms of my entire existance outside of said school/work.

Then what are your feelings about Marcus Vick being put on "zero tolerance" for actions taking place off the football field? He was then expelled from the football team for actions taking place off the football field. I think the stomping incident is deplorable, but I don't think it's reason to kick him off the team and the team has said as much.

CW, you may very well be consistent on this issue and don't think he should have recieved the boot, I'm just quoting you to bring up the point that very often we have to pay the consequences of our actions outside of school/work.

[sterlingice]

One, there seems to be more to this case than the story lets on. Why did they dismiss her and not the others involved?

Two, the lawyers will have a field day with this one.

SI

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Icy

That is the main problem, the things that he was supossed to preach and the things that the church says that he did.

This is where I'm still frequently confused. As I read the scriptures, Jesus was a lot more intolerant than the modern church is, and definitely a lot less tolerant than I am.

After all, it was Jesus who said, "I am the the Way, the Truth and the Life. No man comes to the Father except through me." I have trouble rectifying that with my broader desire to be more universalist in my concept of salvation.

So either Jesus is wrong or I am. I haven't decided which.

[JeeberD]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I would be amazed if it turned out that private schools couldn't kick out whoever they wanted for any reason.

That's what I'm thinking. They're a private school, can't they do whatever the hell they want?

[Coffee Warlord]

Originally Posted by JHandley

Then what are your feelings about Marcus Vick being put on "zero tolerance" for actions taking place off the football field? He was then expelled from the football team for actions taking place off the football field. I think the stomping incident is deplorable, but I don't think it's reason to kick him off the team and the team has said as much.

CW, you may very well be consistent on this issue and don't think he should have recieved the boot, I'm just quoting you to bring up the point that very often we have to pay the consequences of our actions outside of school/work.

Here's the simple difference between these two situations. Vick was breaking the law. This chick is not.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

One, there seems to be more to this case than the story lets on. Why did they dismiss her and not the others involved?

Two, the lawyers will have a field day with this one.

SI

I'd be willing to bet that there's more going on here, too. Likely, this student didn't fit the traditional mold of a Xian school kid.

Did I mention that almost got kicked out of private school because the rules said I had to wear a tie every day, but didn't specify that it had to be around my neck? While true to the letter of the law, wearing my tie around my forehead didn't make me any friends with the administration.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by JeeberD

That's what I'm thinking. They're a private school, can't they do whatever the hell they want?

Don't know. I'm pretty sure that most private schools do accept some form of state aid (could be recycled textbooks, free or subsidized busing, etc.). Wouldn't that leave private schools open to at least some scrutiny from outsiders?

[oliegirl]

I agree that as a private organization, they can choose to allow who they want to attend their school and who they don't. However, I get very upset when I read things like this and realize that their beliefs go against everything that they claim to teach and believe in, most obviously, tolerance. This is tantamount to legalized discrimination and it makes me sick that an organization that calls itself Christian is doing this, and then I realize why when I tell people I am a Republican and also consider myself a Christian, they assume I am a part of the Religious Right.

Being a Christian is living a life that is accepting of others, despite their differences. Living the best life you can every day and trying to be a good person and make the right decisions regardless of the temptations. I would hope that most people consider themselves a Christian even if they don't associate with a specific religion. It's not a bad thing to be a Christian, but people like the idiots at this school seem to be trying really hard to make it into a bad thing.

[JHandley]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

Here's the simple difference between these two situations. Vick was breaking the law. This chick is not.

We're not talking about morality. Vick was not expelled for breaking the law, he was kicked off for breaking team rules. This chick was not expelled for breaking the law, she was kicked off for breaking school rules.

Let's be clear, I don't think what she did was wrong. I think what she did violated school rules and as a private school, they have the right to set their own rules of behavior.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by oliegirl

I agree that as a private organization, they can choose to allow who they want to attend their school and who they don't. However, I get very upset when I read things like this and realize that their beliefs go against everything that they claim to teach and believe in, most obviously, tolerance. This is tantamount to legalized discrimination and it makes me sick that an organization that calls itself Christian is doing this, and then I realize why when I tell people I am a Republican and also consider myself a Christian, they assume I am a part of the Religious Right.

Being a Christian is living a life that is accepting of others, despite their differences. Living the best life you can every day and trying to be a good person and make the right decisions regardless of the temptations. I would hope that most people consider themselves a Christian even if they don't associate with a specific religion. It's not a bad thing to be a Christian, but people like the idiots at this school seem to be trying really hard to make it into a bad thing.

Unless you are arguing that a Christian school should not kick out anybody for any reason, and that they should accept any student who applies, then your argument is that they should 'tolerate' who you want them to tolerate in the way that you want them to tolerate.

[Coffee Warlord]

Originally Posted by JHandley

We're not talking about morality. Vick was not expelled for breaking the law, he was kicked off for breaking team rules. This chick was not expelled for breaking the law, she was kicked off for breaking school rules.

Let's be clear, I don't think what she did was wrong. I think what she did violated school rules and as a private school, they have the right to set their own rules of behavior.

However. Vick violated team rules by breaking actual written law. Hot Lesbo Chick broke no *law*.

[JHandley]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

However. Vick violated team rules by breaking actual written law. Hot Lesbo Chick broke no *law*.

But the question is, does VT have a right to kick Vick off the team for actions taking place off the football field. Your orginal statement was that you had issues with school/work taking actions against people who do things on their own time. Vick didn't break the law on VT's football time, he did it on his own time.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

However. Vick violated team rules by breaking actual written law. Hot Lesbo Chick broke no *law*.

I missed where Vick was convicted of breaking any laws in the last week or so.

Not trying to be a jerk, but make a key point here. If Vick was purely kicked off for breaking the law, shouldn't we determine (via the court system) whether he actually broke the law first?

I have to agree that we're talking apples and apples here as far as whether this school is within their legal rights.

[dacman]

Tolerance. I hate that word. It doesn't mean anything anymore. Too many vocal advocates scream that you have to be "tolerant" and then are intolerant of anyone who doesn't perscribe to their particular version of it. Clear as mud that is.

[oliegirl]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Unless you are arguing that a Christian school should not kick out anybody for any reason, and that they should accept any student who applies, then your argument is that they should 'tolerate' who you want them to tolerate in the way that you want them to tolerate.

No. I have no problem with them being a private organization and I said so. And if they had the right to do this, then that is fine. But having the right to do something and doing the right thing are two different things.

This girl didn't do anything to hurt anyone. None of the girls she kissed complained that it was forced or "non consetual". It didn't happen on school grounds, or at a school sponsored event. So where was the harm? Why would it have been a bad thing to allow the girl to continue to attend the school? If she wore nazi emblems and preached hate, that is one thing. If she was being sexually provocative at school, fine. But she wasn't.

The gov't isn't allowed to come into our homes and decide what we can and can't do - why is the church?

[MrBigglesworth]

It's a private school, they should be able to do what they want. It differs from a business descriminating based on sexual orientation in that she can just go to public school for free or pay to go to another private school.

I'd think though that according to their theory that they would try to help this wayward girl, not excommunicate her. Not that I would necessarily want that to be their attitude, but isn't that what it should be?

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by oliegirl

No. I have no problem with them being a private organization and I said so. And if they had the right to do this, then that is fine. But having the right to do something and doing the right thing are two different things.

This girl didn't do anything to hurt anyone. None of the girls she kissed complained that it was forced or "non consetual". It didn't happen on school grounds, or at a school sponsored event. So where was the harm? Why would it have been a bad thing to allow the girl to continue to attend the school? If she wore nazi emblems and preached hate, that is one thing. If she was being sexually provocative at school, fine. But she wasn't.

The gov't isn't allowed to come into our homes and decide what we can and can't do - why is the church?

That's exactly my point - wearing nazi emblems offends your sensibilities, but girls kissing girls doesn't. And your argument is that this school should share your sensibilities.

[oliegirl]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

That's exactly my point - wearing nazi emblems offends your sensibilities, but girls kissing girls doesn't. And your argument is that this school should share your sensibilities.

Girls kissing girls doens't promote violence and hatred. Nazi symbols do. My point was that the punishment for someone displaying nazi symbols and preaching their hatred should not be the same punishment for someone who is exploring their sexuality at a young age.

[Subby]

Originally Posted by oliegirl

The gov't isn't allowed to come into our homes and decide what we can and can't do - why is the church?

Sure they are.

[jeff061]

Godwin'd in the worst way.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by oliegirl

Girls kissing girls doens't promote violence and hatred. Nazi symbols do. My point was that the punishment for someone displaying nazi symbols and preaching their hatred should not be the same punishment for someone who is exploring their sexuality at a young age.

According to the Church they are the same severity of crime, so why not punish them the same?

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by oliegirl

Girls kissing girls doens't promote violence and hatred. Nazi symbols do. My point was that the punishment for someone displaying nazi symbols and preaching their hatred should not be the same punishment for someone who is exploring their sexuality at a young age.

I'm not arguing that - I'm just pointing out that you're trying to impose your own values on the school. You're arguing that they should 'tolerate' what you want them to tolerate. Which is fine, we all do that all the time, just don't pretend that you're not doing that. It's disingenuous.

[Shkspr]

Originally Posted by oliegirl

punishment for someone who is exploring their sexuality at a young age.

See, I suspect Christian schools don't want you to explore your sexuality at a young age.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Shkspr

See, I suspect Christian schools don't want you to explore your sexuality at a young age.

I suspect even public schools aren't particularly interested in that.

[Drake]

st.cronin made the same point I was trying to make, only much better.

I'd think though that according to their theory that they would try to help this wayward girl, not excommunicate her. Not that I would necessarily want that to be their attitude, but isn't that what it should be?

I'd agree with you in general, Mr. B., but my guess is that this is more of an excuse to get rid of someone who has frequently pushed the envelope and is starting to (in the school's opinion) negatively impact their indoctrina--er, educational mission.

(I'll admit that I'm being an ass about private schools. As much hell as I gave them, I actually really enjoyed my time in private school. The great thing about strict school environments is that when you push the envelope of acceptable behavior, you're really not pushing very far. It's a safe sort of pushing that usually doesn't involve drugs, violence and other social vices.)

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

I'm pretty sure that most private schools do accept some form of state aid (could be recycled textbooks, free or subsidized busing, etc.). Wouldn't that leave private schools open to at least some scrutiny from outsiders?

I'm sure things vary from place to place, but I don't know of a single private school that accepts hardly anything at all from the state for the very reason you mention. Their money = their rules, and usually that isn't worth the money.
Most private schools I'm familiar with scrupulous avoid anything that would bring about the situation, with the one exception of some Pre-K programs which are forced into dealing with the state, oddly enough not because of laws involving education but rather with the Pre-K program here falling under a number of state laws concerning daycare. (or something to that effect).

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Drake

It's a safe sort of pushing that usually doesn't involve drugs, violence and other social vices.)

Are you sure you went to private school?

My Catholic school had the drugs and social vices in droves. But then again, I always thought of Catholic school as having "many of the disadvantages of public school, with none of the advantages of private school".

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by plaintiff's lawyer

Covenant is not going to get off on a constitutional technicality.

That's the legal profession these days. The Constitution is just full of technicalities, like that evil freedom of religion and speech.

I don't agree with the school, either. But I don't feel the state has the right to tell them who they can and can not admit. Freedom means freedom. They're not beating her, they're not forcing her to rob local liquor stores.

This is where the wall of separation helps the church out. Everyone is better served when government and church don't mix.

Ultimately, they feel they're better serving their Christian parents by having a very strict code of personal conduct. Are they right? Only time will tell.

I think this would be different if she said she were gay, but hadn't acted on it. Then it would be a more clear-cut civil rights case.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I'm sure things vary from place to place, but I don't know of a single private school that accepts hardly anything at all from the state for the very reason you mention. Their money = their rules, and usually that isn't worth the money.
Most private schools I'm familiar with scrupulous avoid anything that would bring about the situation, with the one exception of some Pre-K programs which are forced into dealing with the state, oddly enough not because of laws involving education but rather with the Pre-K program here falling under a number of state laws concerning daycare. (or something to that effect).

Yes, no doubt that policies differ depending on the school. I'm coming from a Catholic school perspective, where because of the shoestring budgets and the relative lack of wealthy alums/parents to bankroll things, they take all the aid wherever they can get it. My school even signed up for the then-controversial Channel One to get the free AV equipment. They did draw the line at having Coke or Pepsi (I can't remember which) install an astro-turf football field emblazoned with corporate logos, however.

[albionmoonlight]

As a private school, this academy has a LOT more freedom to do what it wants than a public school. Private entities have First Amendment rights.

Note that the suit does not raise constitutional issues--it simply raises the civil actions of breach of contract and invasion of privacy. Any private party has the right to bring these suits against any other private party.

What makes this case seem more important than it is is the fact that 1.) it happens to be a school--which, in most cases of this nature, is public and therefore is constrained by constitutional provisions limiting the power of the government, and 2.) the school raises the somewhat bizzare defense of "ecclesiastical abstention" when it does not need to do so at all. All it needs to say is "we did not breach a contract and we did not invade her privacy."

[Crapshoot]

Fyi,
while I agree that its the church's right and what not and the girl knew the rules - would we be okay with this if the girl was expelled for kissing a black or jewish boy ? I think CW may have alluded to this earlier, but church rules do not override the law.