There is a new article in the LA Times about the lawsuit that I blogged about yesterday. The name of the case seems to be Hurst v. Newman. The article contains this about the son of the named plaintiff, Kenneth Hurst:
Jeremy Hurst, a 15-year-old sophomore, is caught in the crossfire in town and at home.
His father, Kenneth Hurst, is a scientist at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in La Cañada Flintridge and one of the parents behind the lawsuit. His mother is a practicing Christian and is not involved in the lawsuit.
"My mom takes me to Baptist Church every Sunday; my dad gives me all the science books he can," said the slender youth. "Personally, I don't know what to think."
He said his father, who stated in the lawsuit that the class is an inappropriate attempt to evangelize students, seems "really uptight about this whole thing." The son suggested a different tack: "I think kids should choose whether to take the class or not."
No! Allowing kids to chose whether to take an elective course? Solving the problem by letting the interested kids take it and letting those not interested or offended not take it? That is too easy! This is America, where we file lawsuits to censor information, and where people who do not like classes in high school try to stop others from taking them too. That is the American way, and that is what people for the American way do.
I believe that the father, Kenneth Hurst, was actually invited to be a speaker in the class to give it balance. He declined, and then apparently decided to sue. One of the grounds is that the presentation will not be balanced.
Is a lawsuit really the best way to resolve this?
I was also amused by this quote:
The San Andreas fault literally cuts through town, and right here "red state is slamming up against blue state like tectonic plates," said Patric Hedlund, managing editor of the Mountain Enterprise, a local weekly.
If you were wondering "What were they thinking?" when they filed the lawsuit, a copy of the complaint is available here.
Since the plaintiffs asked for a temporary restraining order, the initial phases of this one should move very quickly.
Let me clarify my position. I do not know all the details. I am not at all sure that this course is a good one, or a good idea from a policy standpoint. If I were on the school board, I probably would have required more changes to the course proposal. But does it violate the Constitution? With 13 kids taking it as an elective? Hardly. And I do not think Anthony Kennedy or Samuel Alito will either.