Sunday, November 12, 2006

First Amendment Victory For (Conservative) Social Work Student!

Last week I posted about a social worker student who was disciplined because--well, just go read it again. If you love the First Amendment as much as I do, it'll get your blood boiling all over again.

Well ain't today a happy day! Joanne (see blogroll at left) reports that not only did the student win her lawsuit, but the university completely and totally caved. As I said in a comment to that post, though--"Let's not celebrate too much. Diligence, it is said, is the price we must continually pay for our freedoms." Reading that again, I should probably have said continuously, but I'll chalk that mistake up, if it is in fact a mistake, to celebration over the verdict. Here's what's going to happen:

The university agreed to pay Emily Brooker, a May 2006 graduate, $9,000. Officials also said she could attend Missouri State to pursue a master’s degree in social work free of charge for two years — equivalent to about $12,000. In addition, Brooker could receive $3,000 per year in living expenses for two years of graduate education.

MSU also agreed to clear Brooker’s official record of a high-level grievance filed against her by the university’s School of Social Work...

The university learned Oct. 30 about Brooker’s lawsuit and launched an eight-day investigation into her allegations that Frank G. Kauffman, assistant professor of social work for two of Brooker’s required classes, had violated the student’s rights...

After the university’s investigation, Kauffman voluntarily gave up his post as director of the master of social work program and was reassigned to nonclassroom duties.


So the School of Social Work held a kangaroo court for this student, she eventually filed suit, and within two weeks of finding out, the university settles. That in itself tells you how bad it was--and how the lefties in the School of Social Work thought they were free to run roughshod over a student because of her Christian beliefs. Remarkable.

I'll bet that privately, the cockroaches are scurrying to cover up any other improprieties that may now be at risk of seeing the light of day.

15 comments:

Anonymous said...

Jesus is a myth.

Darren said...

He's more real than you are. He has a name.

Anonymous said...

So does Santa.

Is he real?

Darren said...

Yes, Virginia, there *is* a Santa Claus.

He lives in our hearts.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous #1

Jesus, an historical figure, is a myth in YOUR eyes. To this young woman and millions of Christians, Jesus is very real and is in fact the living God. Those Christians have rights in America thanks to the constitution and affirmed by the outcome of this case. Socialists extremists like you and this fool of a professor would love to deny Americans who do not share your values from exercising their rights. You are way out of line with American values. Your cause will not succeed.

Anonymous said...

But you *would* like to see the tyranny of the majority force non-Judeo-Christians to pray in school and utter the McCarthy-era "under God" addition to the Pledge?

Your cause is wrong whether or not it succeeds.

Anonymous said...

Dude the Sioux could kill Santa anyday. It'd be like no contest. I could see if Yoshi got involved, though...

Anonymous said...

I do not believe that Jesus ever existed, historical figure or otherwise.

Is Satan a real person too?

Darren said...

Anonymous, you're projecting your own prejudices onto me. I'm not in favor of coerced prayer for anyone.

And what does this case have to do with "tyranny of the majority"? It has to do with what's legal and not legal, and clearly the so-called majority view, which you apparently support, is not legal at all. That's why it took the university only a matter of days to settle once they became aware of what was going on in this one school/department.

I'm sure you'd prefer she do what she's told, legal or not. But that would be your way, not mine.

Anonymous said...

But you *would* like to see the tyranny of the majority force non-Judeo-Christians to pray in school and utter the McCarthy-era "under God" addition to the Pledge?


Learn your history. The origins of the phrase, "under God" are from a speech given by Abraham Lincoln.

Darren said...

Anonymous, *please* stop projecting your prejudices onto me, or assuming I have prejudices that I do not.

I have never, once, ever, stated a preference for mandated school prayer. As for "under God", the Supreme Court that no one is mandated to say it. I support the Supreme Court's ruling completely, because not to do so would be forcing someone to say something they don't believe.

As for your suggestion to "learn history"--when you can "read for understanding", meaning that you read what I write as opposed to reading what you'd like me to have written, then you can propose what I should learn.

To assume that I'm not familiar with the Gettysburg Address is pretty arrogant on your part. I've stood at the spot at which Lincoln spoke, marveling at the simplicity of his oratory. Perhaps you don't think this is one country, under God, but apparently President Lincoln did--and that puts me in pretty good company.

Anonymous said...

Whoa, Darren; you're getting your anonymousses confused. You just nailed an ally with firendly fire. Ouch!

Anyway, "under god" was added as a result of a Knights of Columbus campaign in the early 50s, and was supported by the HUAC crowd (hu-wackos; another proud moment in conservative history).

I'm pretty sure the phrase "under god" was uttered by others prior to that time, but that's not relevent.

Anonymous said...

Darren you misunderstood. The post about the Gettysburg address was directed at anonymous who said the phrase, "under God" came from the McCarthy era, not at you.

Darren said...

I apologize.

Anonymous said...

This is what Lincoln said:

that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

It is surely relevant to our pledge. Saying under God does not sanction any religion. It merely affirms the reality of what our entire legal system is founded on, the idea (ageed on by all of our founding fathers)that there is a diety whom we are all under. I think Lincoln said it best.