# Resolved: Plano ISD Did Not Ban Red & Green Because They're Christmas Colors. Discuss **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 18, 2006, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-plano-isd-did-not-ban-red-green-because-theyre-christmas-colors-discuss/345091 "2006-02-18T14:50:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2006, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-plano-isd-did-not-ban-red-green-because-theyre-christmas-colors-discuss/345091/21 "2006-02-19T13:42:48Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > So consider it withdrawn So long as you are at it, did you ever withdraw your [statement about the Democrats finding “extraordinary circumstances”](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=323677&highlight=oconnor) (filibuster) of O’Connor’s replacement? I’m not saying you didn’t, I just haven’t seen it. ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2006, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-plano-isd-did-not-ban-red-green-because-theyre-christmas-colors-discuss/345091/22 "2006-02-19T14:24:33Z")
Is there a point, **Bricker** – as each of the incidents held up by Gibson and O’Reilly as evidence of an anti-Christmas offensive are revealed to be, at best, vastly overblown – at which the burden shifts for you, and you start viewing _all_ such “evidence” with some degree of skepticism, considering the track record of your sources? Or are you gonna make someone like **Shayna** do the legwork to track down and disprove each claim of Gibson and O’Reilly’s that you adopt by proxy, as you continue to cling to them? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2006, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-plano-isd-did-not-ban-red-green-because-theyre-christmas-colors-discuss/345091/23 "2006-02-19T16:27:23Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > this kind of research is precisely in the spirit of the Straight Dope, just the kind of thing that Cecil Himself would do, and I for one am quite impressed. If only \*you \* had done even a token amount of independent research \*yourself \* on the subject, hmm? That would have saved you a considerable amount of embarrassment, and the near-total loss of your credibility that resulted from it. Will you take on a little responsibility before launching another thread as foolish as that one? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2006, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-plano-isd-did-not-ban-red-green-because-theyre-christmas-colors-discuss/345091/24 "2006-02-19T16:43:33Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > If only \*you \* had done even a token amount of independent research \*yourself \* on the subject, hmm? That would have saved you a considerable amount of embarrassment, and the near-total loss of your credibility that resulted from it. Will you take on a little responsibility before launching another thread as foolish as that one? I wonder whether anyone lost respect in **Bricker’s** credibility over this, given his response in this thread? **Elvis** , it’s pretty clear how you feel about **Bricker** , but even you didn’t lose respect for him, I think. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2006, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-plano-isd-did-not-ban-red-green-because-theyre-christmas-colors-discuss/345091/25 "2006-02-19T16:59:04Z")
I don’t think that’s a subject you really want to explore, **LHOD** , least of all in \*this \* forum. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2006, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-plano-isd-did-not-ban-red-green-because-theyre-christmas-colors-discuss/345091/26 "2006-02-19T17:38:21Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > If only \*you \* had done even a token amount of independent research \*yourself \* on the subject, hmm? That would have saved you a considerable amount of embarrassment, and the near-total loss of your credibility that resulted from it. Will you take on a little responsibility before launching another thread as foolish as that one? For Pete’s sake he withdrew and complimented Shayna on the excellent research. Show a little grace and let it go. Marc ---
**Author:** ![MandaJo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ac91a4/32.png) [@MandaJo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MandaJo)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2006, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-plano-isd-did-not-ban-red-green-because-theyre-christmas-colors-discuss/345091/27 "2006-02-19T18:25:54Z")
As an aside, I just want to say that this regimentation is the sort of think that the rest of the metroplex makes fun of Plano ISD for. Here in Dallas ISD, we’d have asked for napkins and been happy if they came with turkeys or birthday candles on them. Mind you, they make fun of us for the low test scores, the rampant embezzlement and corruption, the violence and drugs . . . .but damnit, we don’t stress over matching napkins. ---
**Author:** ![samclem](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@samclem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samclem)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2006, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-plano-isd-did-not-ban-red-green-because-theyre-christmas-colors-discuss/345091/28 "2006-02-19T18:57:09Z")
> [@Gadarene](#): > > Is there a point, **Bricker** – as each of the incidents held up by Gibson and O’Reilly as evidence of an anti-Christmas offensive are revealed to be, at best, vastly overblown – at which the burden shifts for you, and you start viewing _all_ such “evidence” with some degree of skepticism, considering the track record of your sources? > > Or are you gonna make someone like **Shayna** do the legwork to track down and disprove each claim of Gibson and O’Reilly’s that you adopt by proxy, as you continue to cling to them? **Shayna**. Great work. And, if I can be allowed to piggyback on your thread– **Bricker** used in his original thread a story cited by Gibson which said something to the effect that > [@](#): > > Illinois state government directive to workers forbidding the words “Merry Christmas” at work . Of course, making it sound as if the State of Illinois instigated this is false. There are very few stories about this incident out there, but the press release from the Conservative [Alliance Defense Fund](http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/news/pressrelease.aspx?cid=3282) will do the job nicely. > [@](#): > > On December 15, Chandler wrote a letter to the Rock Island County Health Department on behalf of a department employee troubled by a new departmental policy restricting Christmas expression. In November, a department official informed its employees that they would no longer be permitted to say “Merry Christmas” or put up any decorations that refer to Christmas, as they had been allowed to do in the past. So, it was an isolated incident concerning only the Rock Island County Health Department. The ACLU was nowhere in sight, but if the employee had contacted the ACLU instead of the ADF, I’m sure you’d agree that the outcome would have been the same and the ACLU would have been on the side of the employees. Another overblown example of the conspiracy. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2006, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-plano-isd-did-not-ban-red-green-because-theyre-christmas-colors-discuss/345091/29 "2006-02-19T18:58:20Z")
> [@Fear Itself](#): > > So long as you are at it, did you ever withdraw your [statement about the Democrats finding “extraordinary circumstances”](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=323677&highlight=oconnor) (filibuster) of O’Connor’s replacement? I’m not saying you didn’t, I just haven’t seen it. Yes, I did, in a couple of places. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2006, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-plano-isd-did-not-ban-red-green-because-theyre-christmas-colors-discuss/345091/30 "2006-02-19T19:35:53Z")
**TWEEEEEEEET!** OK, the original thread was closed (because the question in the OP had been beaten to pulp) with a couple of outstanding questions remaining. This thread addressed one of the questions and is a proper venue to seek resolution of a couple more. HOWEVER, it is not a proper venue (nor is **GD** the proper Forum) for everyone with a nit to pick with **Bricker** to wander in and throw darts, particularly regarding separate issues from totally unrelated threads. If there is specific question regarding social conflicts in the U.S. in the early 21st century that may or may not have a negative impact on the celebration of Christmas, feel free to bring it up (with the understanding that **Bricker** is under no obligation to respond). If you simply want to get **Bricker** to repeat for the fourth or fifth time that he does not think that a belief in a “war” on Christmas is tenable, then just don’t bother wasting our electrons. If this looks like it is going to turn into a “rag on **Bricker** ” thread with lots of nitpicking and vague assertions about unclear topics, it will be shut down. [/Moderating] ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2006, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-plano-isd-did-not-ban-red-green-because-theyre-christmas-colors-discuss/345091/31 "2006-02-19T23:46:34Z")
> [@Manda JO](#): > > As an aside, I just want to say that this regimentation is the sort of think that the rest of the metroplex makes fun of Plano ISD for. Here in Dallas ISD, we’d have asked for napkins and been happy if they came with turkeys or birthday candles on them. I graduated from P.I.S.D. a number of years ago and they do a lot of silly things. The elementary school kids in the late 90’s were learning such valuable things as Pig-Latin and how to hug trees. Still, I am constantly amazed by the number of opportunties I had in middle and high school by attending such a wealthy school district when compared to some of the other high schools in the nation. Marc ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2006, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-plano-isd-did-not-ban-red-green-because-theyre-christmas-colors-discuss/345091/32 "2006-02-20T01:33:56Z")
> [@Gadarene](#): > > Is there a point, **Bricker** – as each of the incidents held up by Gibson and O’Reilly as evidence of an anti-Christmas offensive are revealed to be, at best, vastly overblown – at which the burden shifts for you, and you start viewing _all_ such “evidence” with some degree of skepticism, considering the track record of your sources? > > Or are you gonna make someone like **Shayna** do the legwork to track down and disprove each claim of Gibson and O’Reilly’s that you adopt by proxy, as you continue to cling to them? I have been “scolded” at times for rejecting things out of hand and automatically, because if who said it. However, when hearing or reading what an O’Reilly, Hannity, Gibson, Moore, Limbaugh, whatever, says about something and then comparing their “facts” to the truth, there comes a point where you just have no reason to trust their word on anything anymore. There is some wisdom in the phrase “Consider the source”. When people have a long history of bending the truth, or outright fabrication, there is no reason to give them the benefit of the doubt anymore. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2006, 7:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-plano-isd-did-not-ban-red-green-because-theyre-christmas-colors-discuss/345091/33 "2006-02-20T07:24:59Z")
**Shayna** , you and **Bricker** are both examples of the reasons I love this place so much! **Bricker’s** thread was fascinating and I read every post. He is gifted with the ability to explain things clearly enough for me to know that I disagree with him. And he is honorable in his concessions. **Shayna** , I am amazed at your willingness to track this down. Well done, indeed! One bit of unfinished business for me. In the other thread I listed many violations against my civil and religious rights while I was a public school teacher. These things did happen long ago – prior to my retirement in 1989. That school administration was part of what drove me _nuts_ and I retired on a disability. I still have nightmares about it and it seems like the day before yesterday to me. But most of the time, I’m okay about it. I have no idea what the reality is in public schools in Nashville presently. I offer my apologies if what I said was confusing or misleading. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2006, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-plano-isd-did-not-ban-red-green-because-theyre-christmas-colors-discuss/345091/34 "2006-02-21T21:34:48Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > “We” started calling the break that occurs at the end of December (when Winter begins) the “Winter Break” when sufficient non-Christian kids began entering the schools that a reference to the Christian feast of Christmas made no real sense to them. YMMV But isn’t that what that whole “war on Christmas” referred to in the prior thread is? Things like changing “Christmas Break” to “Winter Break” instead of teaching them what Christmas is and encouraging them to celebrate it. And isn’t that wahst the people decrying a “war on Christmas” are complaining about? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2006, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-plano-isd-did-not-ban-red-green-because-theyre-christmas-colors-discuss/345091/35 "2006-02-21T21:37:44Z")
What kid doesn’t know what Christmas is and why should they be encouraged to celebrate it? How are Christians being harmed by more inclusive language? ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2006, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-plano-isd-did-not-ban-red-green-because-theyre-christmas-colors-discuss/345091/36 "2006-02-21T22:01:00Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > What kid doesn’t know what Christmas is and why should they be encouraged to celebrate it? How are Christians being harmed by more inclusive language? Well, it’s my understanding that the basic argument of the “War on Christmas” people, and more generally, the “War on Christianity” people, was that, while there is a seperation of Church and State in this country, and no official religion, the US is and has been a majority Christian country, and the government and society has traditionally, de facto, been biased toward Christianity. Recently (within the past 40-50 years), this has started to change, with things like the banning of teacher led prayer in schools, challenges about the “Under God” part of the Pledge, changing “Christmas Break” to “Winter Break”, etc., and that this change has gone even further than removing a Christian bias to removing a bias toward theism generally. Now whether this trend is good or bad is itself a matter for debate, but I think it’s safe to say that that’s what the War on Christmas people are complaining about. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2006, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-plano-isd-did-not-ban-red-green-because-theyre-christmas-colors-discuss/345091/37 "2006-02-21T22:39:35Z")
> [@Captain Amazing](#): > > But isn’t that what that whole “war on Christmas” referred to in the prior thread is? Things like changing “Christmas Break” to “Winter Break” instead of teaching them what Christmas is and encouraging them to celebrate it. And isn’t that wahst the people decrying a “war on Christmas” are complaining about? In the specific school districts with which I have (somewhat) direct contact, the choice of “Winter Break” was made by (predominantly Christian) administrations who recognized that Christians were no longer the overwhelming majority (although they tended to remain a simple majority) of students. On the other hand, those districts with which I have connections in which the population remains overwhelmingly Christian have tended to keep the name “Christmas Break.” The phrase “War on Christmas” as espoused by Gibson, O’Reilly, Falwell, and others is based on a claim that (good, Christian) people are being compelled to keep silent about Christmas. If Gibson or O’Reilly insisted that Beachwood, Ohio, with a population that is over 75% Jewish, had to keep the name “Christmas Break,” then I would be forced to move from a position that they are exploiting a general cultural phenomenon (and lying about its sources) to a position that they are being rabidly anti-semitic and pro Christian hegemony. Why should Solon, OH, with a population that, every year, is less solidly Christian and more a mixture of Christian, Jewish, Hindu, and Buddhist cling to a tradition of “Christmas” when an increasing number of students do not recognize the birth of Jesus as anything more than an opportunity to spend money and hang lights on houses? No one has gone out to Chardon and _demanded_ (or even asked, that I am aware) that they change the title of the break in December. So, from my perspective, we have retailers and agencies such as school districts recognizing that they will exclude fewer customers or clients with more religious-neutral language and opposed to them we have a group who is seeking self promotion by mischaracterizing the attendant changes as a deliberate conspiracy and a “war.” (Note that I am addressing the people who coined and popularized the phrase in the media and not any poster, here.) ---
**Author:** ![Shayna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shayna/32/17976_2.png) [@Shayna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shayna)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2006, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-plano-isd-did-not-ban-red-green-because-theyre-christmas-colors-discuss/345091/38 "2006-02-21T23:55:40Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Well, as I said in the other thread, I think the Plano letter will settle the issue one way or the other, and if it does not say what I understood it to say, then I’d have little choice but to withdraw Plano as an example. > > So consider it withdrawn > > And **Shayna** - despite what may have seemed rancorous exchanges in that thread, I hope you’ll accept my compliments as well – this kind of research is precisely in the spirit of the Straight Dope, just the kind of thing that Cecil Himself would do, and I for one am quite impressed. Of course I accept, and thank you. However, there are a couple of issues I’d still like to resolve or understand with regard to that debate, as it pertains to this case, specifically. First of all, I’d like to know – if you’re willing to share with us – how you were “given to understand” that the letter was from the district or the principal, or that it expressly prohibited red and green due to their association with Christmas. I ask because the cites you provided never supported such an allegation; they were either opinion pieces or, if they were legal documents, quite clearly never said anything like that. In fact, when [I pointed out](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7082093&postcount=444) that even the plaintiff’s attorney in the [official court transcript of the Hearing](http://www.libertylegal.org/pdfs/Excerpts%20from%20TRO%20hearing.pdf) didn’t even make that claim, you completely ignored that post and still clung to what you were “given to understand.” Additionally, I’d very much like to know how the law works with regard to whether one Circuit’s rulings can be used by attorneys arguing a case in another Circuit, to cite as precedent, or some other legal term I might not be familiar with. Specifically, considering that the Plano case also covers their “distribution” policy as it pertains to religiously themed candy canes and pencils, how could the ruling by the judges in the Third Circuit in _[Daniel Walz vs the Egg Harbor Township Board of Education](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/3rd/021665p.pdf)_, be used by the judge hearing the case in Plano? Can the attorneys introduce it? Can the judge cite it when writing his ruling? (all bolding mine) > [@](#): > > _by Scirica, Chief Judge_ > > OPINION OF THE COURT > > In this appeal, we address whether an elementary school student has a First Amendment right to promote an unsolicited religious message during an organized classroom activity. > > \ > > Whether Daniel’s attempted conduct merits First Amendment protection depends on whether it represented Daniel’s own expression and whether he suffered an injury of constitutional dimension. > > As the District Court noted, Daniel was in pre-kindergarten when he brought the “Jesus [Loves] The Little Children” pencils to the holiday party. Furthermore, Dana Walz appears to have driven her son’s activity and this litigation. Although we doubt whether the distribution of the pencils constituted Daniel’s own expression, other courts have recognized that a student of similar age can understand and interpret basic principles of religious expression. See, e.g., Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 42 (1985) (rejecting a state law authorizing a period of silence for voluntary prayer in a matter involving a kindergartner); DeSpain v. DeKalb County Comm. Sch. Dist., 384 F.2d 836, 837 (7th Cir. 1967) (“We are of the view that the verse is a prayer and that its compulsory recitation by kindergarten students in a public school comes within the proscription of the first amendment . . . .”). In any event, since we find the school’s action in preventing the distribution of the pencils was justified, this question is not dispositive here. > > We have examined the elementary school setting previously. In C.H. v. Oliva, 226 F.3d 198 (3d Cir. 2000) (en banc), an en banc court equally divided on the First Amendment claims of a first-grader, and accordingly affirmed the District Court without further explication. Id. at 200. **In Walker-Serrano by Walker v. Leonard, we found that although plaintiff had not suffered an injury of constitutional dimension, “[t]here can be little doubt that speech appropriate for eighteen-year-old high school students is not necessarily acceptable for seven-year-old grammar school students.”** 325 F.3d 412, 416-17, 419 (3d Cir. 2003). Moreover, in Muller by Muller v. Jefferson Lighthouse Sch., 98 F.3d 1530 (7th Cir. 1996), the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit addressed but did not reach agreement on the question of what speech rights elementary school children possess. > > In the elementary school setting, age and context are key. Elementary schools are responsible for teaching young children basic social, behavioral, and academic lessons in a structured environment. See Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578, 584 (1987) (“Families entrust public schools with the education of their children . . . .”); Bd. of Educ. v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853, 894 (1982) (Powell, J., dissenting) (“Unlike the governing bodies of cities and counties, school boards have only one responsibility: the education of the youth of our country during their most formative and impressionable years. Apart from health, no subject is closer to the hearts of parents than their children’s education during those years.”). Elementary educators design a structured curriculum to facilitate reaching these pedagogical and behavioral goals. See Hazelwood Sch. Dist. v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260, 272 (1988) (“[A] school must be able to take into account the emotional maturity of the intended audience in determining whether to disseminate student speech on potentially sensitive topics, which might range from the existence of Santa Claus in an elementary school setting to the particulars of teenage sexual activity in a high school setting.”). > > **While school students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate,”** Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 506 (1969), **a school’s need to control student behavior will necessarily result in limitations on student speech.** A quiet reading period necessarily requires silence, and a “show and tell” exercise may be restricted to age-appropriate items to prevent unsuitable discussions in a kindergarten classroom. E.g., Walker-Serrano, 325 F.3d at 416 (“[A]ny analysis of the students’ rights to expression on the one hand, and of schools’ need to control behavior and foster an environment conducive to learning on the other, must necessarily take into account the age and maturity of the student.”). > > \ > > As a general matter, the elementary school classroom, especially for kindergartners and first graders, is not a place for student advocacy. **To require a school to permit the promotion of a specific message would infringe upon a school’s legitimate area of control.** Hazelwood, 484 U.S. at 271 (“Educators are entitled to exercise greater control over [school-sponsored expressive activities] to assure that participants learn whatever lessons the activity is designed to teach, that readers or listeners are not exposed to material that may be inappropriate for their level of maturity, and that the views of the individual speaker are not erroneously attributed to the school.”). Curricular standards, especially those that occur in kindergarten and first grade, when children are most impressionable, should not be lightly overturned. See Edwards, 482 U.S. at 584 (noting elementary school children “are impressionable”). > > **Furthermore, in an elementary school classroom, the line between school-endorsed speech and merely allowable speech is blurred, not only for the young, impressionable students but also for their parents who trust the school to confine organized activities to legitimate and pedagogically-based goals.** See Edwards, 482 U.S. at 584 (“Families entrust public schools with the education of their children, but condition their trust on the understanding that the classroom will not purposely be used to advance religious views that may conflict with the private beliefs of the student and his or her family. Students in such institutions are impressionable and their attendance is involuntary.”). > > \ > > In short, Daniel Walz was not attempting to exercise a right to personal religious observance in response to a class assignment or activity. His mother’s stated purpose was to promote a religious message through the channel of a benign classroom activity. **In the context of its classroom holiday parties, the school’s restrictions on this expression were designed to prevent proselytizing speech that, if permitted, would be at cross-purposes with its educational goal and could appear to bear the school’s seal of approval.** > > \ > > For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court. So, given that the Plano case involves kindergarteners and 4th graders, knowing what you know about it (or can learn), how does it appear to hold up given the ruling in the above case? I asked this in the previous thread, though not nearly as thoroughly, but you once again chose mostly not to address it, only commenting that the revised distribution policy was “in line with the Third Circuit’s ruling.” However, at the time you acknowledged that, you were under the false assumption that the Plano case had been resolved, unaware that it is, in fact, still pending litigation. So, seeing as how it’s still in court, will you address this issue here? Also, you seemed to be quite concerned about over-cautious administrators and the “chilling effect” their (paraphrased) often too stringent rules, borne out of fear of lawsuits, is having on religious expression in public elementary schools. > [@Bricker](#): > > [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7079070&postcount=371](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7079070&postcount=371) > > Except that the effect of this movement goes beyond that. The effect is to chill constitutional governmental involvement with religion. There is no constitutional requirement that demands a rule forbidding students to distribute religious-themed material at school. Yet the Plano School District imposed such a rule. However, in reading the full Opinion in the above-referenced NJ case, I found this. . . > [@](#): > > **Determining the appropriate boundaries of student expression is better handled by those charged with educating our youth. School officials who exercise judgment based on their expertise and authority should be afforded leeway in making choices designed to foster an appropriate learning environment and further the educational process.** See id. at 273 (“[T]he education of the Nation’s youth is primarily the responsibility of parents, teachers, and state and local school officials, and not of federal judges.”); Walker-Serrano, 325 F.3d at 419 **(“The number of everyday decisions that must be made with respect to the boundaries of acceptable behavior of third graders is so great that courts cannot second guess elementary school officials on every minor dispute involving third graders’ expression.”)**; Sypniewski, 307 F.3d at 260 (“[P]ublic secondary and elementary school administrators are granted more leeway than public colleges and universities or legislative bodies.”). Accordingly, where an elementary school’s purpose in restricting student speech within an organized and structured educational activity is reasonably directed towards preserving its educational goals, \*\*we will ordinarily defer to the school’s judgment. \*\* It appears as if the courts are perfectly willing to afford administrators a great deal of leeway in curtailing all kinds of activity, including speech, based on the administrator’s expertise of what’s best for his or her schools and/or classrooms. How does that mesh with your assertion that constitutional rights are being “chilled?” Further, we have the part of the discussion that centered around Plano’s “Distribution of non-school materials” policy, which, whether considering it before or after it was amended, is neutral with regard to religious items, forbidding distribution during classtime of any and all non-school related materials, which you also never acknowledged or replied to. This type of policy appears to have Supreme Court authority behind it, as well. . . > [@](#): > > Daniel Walz averred two additional claims in his complaint, both of which the District Court **properly denied**. First, he alleged the school’s policy “engaged in hostility toward religion that the Establishment Clause itself forbids.” But, under the Supreme Court’s oft-quoted test in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 411 U.S. 192 (1973), the school’s policy did not advance or inhibit religion and did not create any type of “excessive entanglement” with religion. **Instead, the policy was neutral towards religion by prohibiting all endorsements of specific messages, including those with commercial, political, or religious undertones. In not isolating religious messages, the policy does not implicate the Establishment Clause.** Given this, do you still assert that such a policy “chills” your elementary school-aged child’s constitutional rights? And lastly, I wonder if you would be so kind as to apologize for the nasty personal insult directed at me, accusing me of "[[pretending] that the text of the Constitution. . . means anything to [me]" or that “\* don’t appear to have the slightest interest in reading the actual text of the Constitution in any issue.”](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7095119&postcount=574) Thank you. I look forward to your reply. ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2006, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-plano-isd-did-not-ban-red-green-because-theyre-christmas-colors-discuss/345091/39 "2006-02-22T01:01:10Z")
**Shayna** : Cases from other Circuits aren’t binding on a court, but they’re persuasive. That is to say, if the case is utterly on point, the judge should probably acknowledge its existence – and if the case supports the court’s argument, _especially_ if there are no contrary cases in the home Circuit, then the court will look to the other Circuit for support, insofar as the facts can be made to align. ---
**Author:** ![Shayna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shayna/32/17976_2.png) [@Shayna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shayna)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2006, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-plano-isd-did-not-ban-red-green-because-theyre-christmas-colors-discuss/345091/40 "2006-02-23T16:36:07Z")
Thanks, **Gadarene**. I realize cases from other courts aren’t “binding,” but I guess I’m unclear on the legal definition of “precedent” versus the common layperson’s usage of the term. What I think you’re saying is that, in matters of law, something that is “precedent” is therefore “binding,” so that, for instance, if another parent were to sue a school district on the issue of an elementary school student handing out candy canes with religious messages during class parties, anywhere in the jurisdiction of the Third Circuit, all the defendant’s attorneys would have to do is cite the _Walz_ case, and, assuming all the elements are “on point,” it’s pretty much a slam dunk that the plaintiffs lose, because basically that issue has been decided there. On the other hand, if a parent in a different jurisdiction were to file a similar case, defendants’ attorneys could say to the Court, "In _Walz v The Egg Harbor School Board_, the Third Circuit found that. . . " and the judge would then review that case and take it into consideration when making his or her own ruling. Is there a distinct legal term for such a reference/usage? And in somewhat the same fashion, if I were to point out in a discussion on a message board that legal “precedent” does exist for elementary school students not having their First Amendment rights infringed upon when they’re prohibited from distributing religiously-themed items during class parties, then cite the _Egg Harbor_ case, would that be a fair statement, even though the case I’m citing isn’t “binding” on the parties in the specific case under discussion? If not, what term should be used? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-plano-isd-did-not-ban-red-green-because-theyre-christmas-colors-discuss/345091.md?page=1)