A federal lawsuit against a Nevada school system over a teacher’s demands that a student read an offensive, sexually explicit and obscene script—written by another student—is continuing.
This from wndnewscenter.org.
The teacher, in fact, made the young student’s grade dependent on her “performing the pornographic monologue.”
The American Center for Law and Justice reported:
[T]he court denied in part the school’s demands that the case be dismissed.
The decision was the “first step” toward a victory:
[I]n protecting students from profane, sexually explicit,
and obscene material in the classroom.
The ACLJ reported:
[The issue is the parents’ fight against the district where a teacher] forced their child to perform a pornographic script, lied to the parents, and then prohibited the mother from reading the script given to her child before the school board.
Further:
Our clients’ daughter, who was 15 at the time, was required to perform a sexually explicit monologue prepared by another student, and edited by the teacher, before the entire class.
The ACLJ posted part of the monologue—edited—which readers may find offensive:
The monologue began:
I don’t love you. It’s not you, it’s just (looks down) your d***. I don’t like your d*** or any d*** in that case.
And the monologue continues with “progressively increasing profanity and description of sexual acts.”
The ACLJ stated:
[The parents] tried several different avenues to bring their concerns to the school but found it unresponsive to their requests and complaints.
Ultimately, a lawsuit was filed against the school district, and the ACLJ, alongside Lex Tecnica Ltd. (a firm committed to protecting students, parents, and teachers from the Clark County School District), represented this family in federal court.
The case charges the school with compelling the student to read the offensive script which “lacked a legitimate pedagogical purpose.”
The report stated:
[The case continues but the intermediate victory is] a significant win for parental rights, as courts are generally unwilling to interfere with teachers’ decisions on a student’s education and curriculum content.
In their arguments, the court noted, school officials were unable:
[To] point to any case that holds that courts must simply take schools at their word that every assignment fulfills a legitimate purpose merely because it was on the curriculum, particularly in a situation like this one, in which the type of language contained in that curriculum is similar to language which the Supreme Court has held is a school’s prerogative to proscribe.
WND reported when the case began:
[T]he student was forced to read to a class the script that the school itself later said was ‘too explicit to be read in public’ when a parent tried to give the details to the school board.
Further:
In fact, the school board shut off the mother’s microphone as she was trying to read the script.
