True diversity?

Phi Delta Kappan

Volumn 89, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 238-239

  Zirkel, Perry A ^a  

^a LEHIGH UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 36348966619     PISSN: 00317217     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/003172170708900318     Document Type: Review

References (13)

1. Inasmuch as the court issued its decision based on a dismissal motion, the "facts" are merely allegations construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff parents.
2. Parker v. Hurley, 474 F. Supp. 2d 261 (D. Mass. 2007). I obtained supplementary information via e-mail interviews in late July 2007 with attorneys Robert Sinsheimer and John J. Davis, who represented the plaintiff parents and the district defendants, respectively.
3. 68 F.3d 525 (1st Cir. 1995). For a summary of this decision, see Perry A. Zirkel, "Hot, Sexy - and Safer?," Phi Delta Kappan, September 1996, pp. 93-94.
4. For an extreme example, see Perry A. Zirkel, "Boring or Bunkum?," Phi Delta Kappan, June 1998, pp. 791-92. As a more recent Fourth Circuit decision illustrates, the definition of curriculum is quite broad in this context.
5. See Lee v. York County Sch. Dist., 484 F.3d 687 (4th Cir. 2007).
6. See, for example, Daugherty v. Vanguard Charter School Academy, 116 F. Supp. 2d 897 (WD. Mich. 2000), which rejected a First Amendment establishment clause challenge to the "Moral Focus Curriculum" and related religion-oriented practices at public charter school.
7. See, for example, Michael Janofsky, "Gay Rights Battlefields Spread to Public Schools," New York Times, 9 June 2005, p. 18.
8. See, for example, Harper v. Poway, 445 F.3d 1166 (9th Cir. 2006), dismissed as moot, 485 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2007); Nixon v. N. Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 383 F. Supp. 2d 965 (S.D. Ohio 2005); Hansen v. Ann Arbor Pub. Sch., 293 F. Supp. 2d 780 (E.D. Mich. 2003);
9. and Chambersv. Babbit, 145 F. Supp. 2d 1068 (D. Minn. 2001).
10. For an only partially related but still notable case of a parent who openly objected to "Opposite Sex Day," see Stanley v. Carrier Mills-Stonefort Sch. Dist. No. 2, 459 F. Supp. 2d 766 (S.D. Ill. 2006).
11. See, for example, Straights and Gays for Equality v. Osseo Area Sch., 471 F.3d 908 (8th Cir. 2006); Martin v. Swartz Creek Cmty. Sch., 419 F. Supp. 2d 967 (E.D. Mich. 2006); Schroeder v. Maumee Bd. of Educ., 296 F. Supp. 2d 869 (N.D. Ohio 2003); Henkle v. Gregory, 150 F. Supp. 2d 1067 (D. Nev. 2001); and Ray v. Antioch Sch. Dist., 107 F. Supp. 2d 1165 (N.D. Cal. 2000). For cases based on the 14th Amendment equal protection clause, see, for example, Flores v. Morgan Hill Unified Sch. Dist., 324 F.3d 1130 (9th Cir. 2003); Masseyv. Banning Unified Sch. Dist., 256 F. Supp. 2d 1090 (N.D. Cal. 2003); and Lovell v. Comsewogue Sch. Dist., 214 F. Supp. 2d 319 (E.D.N.Y. 2002).
12. See, for example, Gay-Straight Alliance of Okeechobee High Sch. v. Sch. Bd., 483 F. Supp. 2d 1224 (S.D. Fla. 2007); Caudillo v. Lubbock Indep. Sch. Dist., 311 E Supp. 2d 550 (N.D. Tex. 2004); Boyd County High Sch. Gay Straight Alliance v. Bd. of Educ., 258 F. Supp. 2d 667 (E.D. Ky. 2003); Gay-Straight Alliance v. Visalia Unified Sch. Dist., 262 F. Supp. 2d 1088 (E.D. Cal. 2001); E. High Sch. Prism Club v. Seidel, 95 F. Supp. 2d 1239 (D. Utah 2000); and Colin v. Orange Unified Sch. Dist., 83 F. Supp. 2d 1135 (CD. Cal. 2000).
13. See, for example, Daniel de Vise, "Groups Take Fight Against Lessons to Court," Washington Post, 3 August 2007, p. B-3.