Over the weekend, Queen Nancy (aka SOCCCD board president Nancy Padberg) put out a highly-questionable press release concerning recent developments in Westphal v. Wagner. I responded by noting that the press release exhibited very significant "spin" (see Premature pronouncement).It appears that Queen Nancy even contacted the Lariat, hoping that they would promote the fiction that the district has won the case. In any case, I’ve been contacted by Lariat reporters for a story about recent developments. I've urged them to wait until after the Feb. 17 settlement conference.
AMERICANS UNITED RESPONDS. Today, the Legal Director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State (plaintiffs' legal representation) has sent the following to the Lariat:
The court's decision was far more balanced than the District's press release suggested. The court ruled that The Trustees have twice violated the Constitution by making religiously hostile presentations, and the court ordered them not to engage in any such behavior in the future. So the District actually LOST a significant portion of the case.Readers would do well to remember that the plaintiffs in this case for years asked trustees to moderate their prayer behavior, but, as usual, the board behaved arrogantly and irresponsibly, actually upping the ante by showing “Jesus” videos and imposing pro-religious rants upon the public in scholarship ceremonies. It was only after that behavior that plaintiffs finally pursued litigation.
And the plaintiffs are going to appeal the balance of the case to the United States Court of Appeals, where they have a very strong chance of success. So while the District has already spent over a million dollars on a high-priced law firm, its financial hemorrhage will only continue on appeal. And if the plaintiffs ultimately prevail, the District will have to pay the PLAINTIFFS' attorneys' fees as well. So the District could well be out several million dollars when the case is over.
Public colleges are places of learning, not worship – which is why none of the other 100+ community colleges in California includes prayer at their events. Students and faculty represent the full diversity of this great Nation – Christians, Muslims, and Jews, as well as Buddhists, Agnostics, and Atheists among them. Replacing the prayers with a moment-of-silence would avoid imposing the wishes of the majority on the minority, while still allowing those who wish to pray to do so in whatever way they hold sacred. And it would have the added benefit of allowing the District to focus its resources on teaching, not preaching.
And contrary to statements by at least some defendants (e.g., Don Wagner), plaintiffs are not “atheists” whose actions reflect hostility toward religion. Rather, plaintiffs comprise a group of faculty, students, and members of the community who embrace the notion, expressed in the 1st Amendment of the Constitution, that government should not act to establish religion. (In truth, plaintiffs include theists as well as agnostics and atheists.)
COMPARE AND CONTRAST:
You might want to compare my January 31 post ("The latest on the prayer case") about recent court developments with the district's curious recent press release (see below). Just who's doing the spinning here?
The district's cherry-picked Feb. 4 announcement:
The plaintiffs previously moved the District Court for a preliminary injunction over such speech. The Court denied that motion. The District then filed a motion for summary judgment, based upon uncontroverted evidence, to dismiss the case as a matter of law. On January 28, 2011, the District Court granted the District’s motion on plaintiffs’ challenge to the constitutionality of the invocations, and found that such speech, in this context, does not violate the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
DtB's Jan. 31 post:
Today, Judge Klausner issued a substantive ruling according to which (1) the Board’s generic invocations have a permissible purpose and effect; (2) we plaintiffs are entitled to a declaratory judgment that Mathur’s Fall 2009 “Jesus” video and Wagner’s 2008 scholarship ceremony rant were unconstitutional; (3) the Defendants will be ordered to comply with their policy regarding invocations (i.e., they can’t be sectarian, hostile, etc.).
Next come proposed judgments (by plaintiffs and defendants) and a settlement conference (with another judge).
1 comment:
Rite/right on. The years over which this matter has gone on has seen (evidence) that both student governments--IVC and SC, both Academic Senates--SC and IVC, our faculty association and the State Academic Senate have urged the Board to stop one sided prayers in a public institution. The Board not only ignored these requests and thoughtful advice but saw fit at meetings to be critical of these requests and the individuals and groups that made them.
Millions of dollars that could be going to PUBLIC education squandered on attorneys' fees--so public money is going to private law firms.
Wonder why who ever BOT members' god(s) are being protected can't fend for himself/themselves? Some Board members repeatedly think that deity is all powerful: they have said so in open session. You'd think that being would be a bit more active.
Post a Comment