 |
| Yosuf Chaudhry and Amena Alvi |
In the case of Chaudhry et al v. Community Unit School District 300 Board of Education et al, plaintiffs Yosuf Chaudhry and Amena Alvi filed a lawsuit against Pierre Thorsen, a former teacher, and School District 300, alleging violations of their free-exercise. The plaintiffs asserted that Thorsen, a history and world religion teacher, sponsored a club called “Uprising”, in which students were taught Christian values and beliefs. Thorsen was claimed to have hosted movie showings during lunch breaks, sharing Christian testimonies, and engaging in confrontational discussions about religion during and after class, promoting Christianity throughout his long tenure, and denigrating other religions, including Islam, the religion of this family. According to the complaint, Thorsen influenced Aliya Chaudhry (15), the plaintiffs' daughter, to convert from Islam to Christianity. The parents claimed that Thorsen referred Aliya to members of his church and sought help for her emancipation from her parents, whom he characterized as dangerous.
Upon discovering these events, the parents informed the District, leading to Thorsen's suspension, investigation, and subsequent transfer to another school. The plaintiffs focused on Monell claims, asserting that the District allowed a custom that violated the Establishment Clause and substantive due process (A Monell claim is seeking payment for damages after violations of constitutional rights). As the court writes “Under Monell, the plaintiff may hold a municipality liable under section 1983—not vicariously, but in itself—for “its own violations of the federal Constitution.” … One valid theory of such liability—which the Parents attempt to establish in this case—is that of a widespread practice “so permanent and well-settled” that it constitutes a custom of the municipality” (Johnston).
The court, in its memorandum opinion, dismissed these Monell claims, emphasizing the lack of specificity in identifying other teachers involved in similar activities and the District's prompt actions in response to the parents' concerns. The court concluded that the complaint did not plead enough factual matter to support the inference of a widespread unconstitutional practice or the District's knowledge of it. As a result, the claims against the District were dismissed with prejudice on December 29, 2023.
I believe that two questions remain after this decision, obviously was the court right, should the school board be forced to pay Monell damages? And, in addition, did Thorsen deserve to be fired for his actions? Did he disallow Yosuf Chaudhry and Amena Alvi the ability to freely-exercise their religion with their child specifically?
I find that the answers are yes the court is correct, and yes, Thorsen did deserve to be fired. The court states that the evidence presented by the school shows swift action taken once these claims were made, and that their inability to name any other instructors limited their ability to find the school liable. If Yosuf Chaudhry and Amena Alvi were able to name more instructors who committed such acts, or if they had evidence they had contacted the school about this issue and nothing had changed, then I believe the court would have found it differently.
While this is not the exact case in question, Thorsen himself has made a claim against the school for essentially wrongful termination. Do you believe the courts should side with him? I believe they should not, as he allegedly made claims against the family's religious practices, with the couple claiming “‘they have implied in their communications (with our daughter) that we would disown, mistreat or even kill our own child because of her conversion to Christianity” (Krishnamurthy). If Thorsen had simply been describing the history of Christianity in the classroom, and running a Christian club, then this seems like his valid exercise. However, when it involves denouncing the religion of the family through manipulation, then this seems like another story. If educators promote their own religious views in the classroom, this directly normalizes the fusion of church and state. Children learn norms from both their schools and their families, and if the school is promoting a religion, parents do not have the proper ability to exercise their religion.
Lastly, an interesting point presented by Yosuf Chadhry was that “there would be clear outrage if the situation were reversed and a Muslim teacher were found to be converting students to Islam at a public school under the guise of education” (Krishnamurthy) and I wholeheartedly agree. Many default to Christian values and norms being the standard in the United States, and Madison in his Memorial and Remonstrance seemed to directly hope against this. Any normalization of one religion in society leads to persecution of minority practice, and I find this example to be a key example of this. Therefore, if these allegations are true, which they appear to be based on the actions of the school board, then Thorsen should not win his suit.
Sources:
Johnston, Iain. “Chaudhry et al v. Community Unit School District 300 Board of Education et al, No. 3:2020cv50381 -
Document 209 (N.D. Ill. 2023).” Justia Law, https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/illinois/ilndce/3:2020cv50381/392015/209/0.pdf?ts=1703953811 Accessed 28 January 2024.
Krishnamurthy, Madhu, and Mark Welsh. “'Our entire world was shattered': Parents say ex-teacher 'brainwashed'
daughter to convert to Christianity.” Southern Illinoisan, 5 July 2021, https://thesouthern.com/news/state-regional/our-entire-world-was-shattered-parents-say-ex-teacher-brainwashed-daughter-to-convert-to-christianity/article_d35cba72-9f21-5684-8df0-68731791f2cf.html Accessed 28 January 2024.
Smietana, Bob. “Judge dismisses Muslim couple's lawsuit against school where daughter converted to Christianity.”
Religion News Service, 4 January 2024, https://religionnews.com/2024/01/04/a-muslim-couple-sued-a-public-school-after-their-daughter-converted-to-christianity-a-judge-dismissed-the-case/ Accessed 28 January 2024.
https://dockets.justia.com/docket/illinois/ilndce/3:2020cv50381/392015
I found this to be a very interesting case. I can also relate to it as my public school also had a christian club. Based of the information given and the facts I would have to agree with the writer. Thorsen did deserve to be relinquished from his duties due to the nature of his teachings. Denouncing a students religion is not in alliance with the law. I would be completely fine with him just running a normal after school christian club. I also do not think Chaudhry should be given financial compensation for this however or the district be held responsible as they took sensible action.
ReplyDeleteThis was an extremely interesting read. I always find establishment clause cases to be compelling, and this case definitely fits that.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the writer in the claims that a Monell claim should be paid and Thorsen should be fired. I liked the writer's commentary when stating their decision. It is true that if this situation had consisted of numerous instructors forcefully putting their beliefs on students and participating in manipulation, the school instead of the teacher himself may have been in a larger debacle. However, highlighting the threats that Thorsen made towards his Islam-practicing student, which potentially may have put the student and their family in danger, Thorsen's expulsion is valid.
Additionally, I think that the final paragraph makes a great point and speaks on the favorability of majority over minority religious rights. I wholeheartedly agree with the fact that if the roles were reversed, there would be the same punishment, if not worse towards a Muslim teacher.
Overall, I really enjoyed this post! Super insightful.
This was a very interesting topic, and probably something that happens often in many school districts at varying levels of intensity. I think the court was completely correct in their ruling, therefore agreeing with what you wrote. I think this was the correct decision because the teachings of the professor inflicted many emotions on not only the student but also their family. The common good of the people, and quite frankly safety, was at risk as the teacher brought disownment, killing, and other violent acts associated with the student's possible conversion to Christianity. Again, I also agree with your last point since Islam is seen more as a minority is modern US, it would be a much different case if this situation was reversed. Finally, the financial aspect of this case is difficult, but I do not think the family should be compensated for this. Great post!
ReplyDeleteI agree with the author. I believe that if Thorsen had isolated his religious teachings to his Christian club there would not have been a violation. However, since he chose to besmirch another religion as a way to coerce a child into converting and emancipating from her parents, he should be removed as a teacher. While Thorsen is permitted, under the free exercise clause, to follow whatever religion he may choose he is not permitted to manipulate a child into changing her beliefs, and thus he should be held responsible.
ReplyDeleteThis was a very valid argument by the parents. I believe Thorsen is completely in the wrong here. Being at a public school this means that there should be no Religion preached about or looked down upon by any teacher during normal class time hours. With that being said if Thorsen was simply teaching kids that joined his Christian club about beliefs and values after school there wouldn't be a problem. Not only did he do this during regular classtime, but he was denouncing the religion of Islam and telling kids thats their parents would disown them if they converted. This was way over the line and the punishment of being fired was totally warranted.
ReplyDeleteThis is a fascinating case Thomas. I do agree with your standpoint that Thorsen is wrong here. Since he taught at a public school, there should be no club that preaches one religion, while belittling others. While it would be one thing to preach about the teachings of one religion, he seemly was trying to proselytize. And on top of that, he was teaching his students that Christianity was the only acceptable form of religion. While students can make their own religious decisions, Thorsen was an authority and knowledgeable figure to these students and used his power to influence them. Thorsen is permitted to preach his own religion, however, he should not be allowed to speak poorly of other religions or manipulate children to his own beliefs.
ReplyDeleteThomas,
ReplyDeleteThis was a really interesting read! I agree with your assertion that Thorsen is in the wrong and that the court is correct in its assessment of this case. If the claims from the family are true, Thorsen’s behavior was absolutely inappropriate and he deserved to be fired. Yes, Thorsen was practicing his religion freely, but in doing so, I think he actually infringed on the daughter’s free exercise with his disparaging and threatening comments. Because this case occurred in a public school, a government-run institution, it is even more obvious to me that Thorsen acted in a manner that was highly unacceptable for someone with a position of authority and influence.
I enjoyed your last point about the public reaction if the religions were reversed. It is true that Christian values and morals are ingrained in much of American society, so it is sometimes hard to fully separate morality from the teachings of Christianity. Although Islam is not the smallest religious group in the US, it is still a minority religion, meaning that its members must continue to be protected under the law. In this case, I believe that the family was correct in pursuing this matter because it shows the potential threat that majority religious groups pose to minorities, highlighting the importance of the protection of their rights.
I agree with the court that this was not a case of establishment, and the parents weren't owed damages. The teacher didn't require his students to engage in any religious ritual, nor did the school as a whole, which promptly responded to the issue. Further, it doesn't seem the teacher prevented the students from exercising their beliefs. Perhaps he said offensive things, but that doesn't signal an infringement of the family's or student's rights.
ReplyDeleteThis was a very interesting case. I agree with the court in this specific case. I think that they both (parents and teacher) should have their right to exercise their own religion. Therefore, what the teacher was doing by starting a Christian club should be allowed, but due to his other actions that scared the daughter into Christianity was the reasoning of him being fired. He also stated that the parents were dangerous to her. I agree with the school that he was fired due to those actions.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis was a super interesting case. I think it's fair to criticize this particular teacher for taking perhaps an excessive interest in the religious beliefs of his students. However, nothing he did, in my opinion, is legitimate grounds for a firing. One may ask themselves what would happen if a muslim teacher did what he did. Would such a person be receive the same vitriol? I don't think its his job to actively evangelize his students, and one could argue that doing so is in fact a fundamentally unchristian type of behavior since christianity is all about the choice to believe. However, ultimately I think he should be allowed to talk about religion with his students, and if a student happens to be compelled towards conversion, thats her right as an American to do so, whether her parents agree with it or not.
ReplyDeleteI also think this case was super interesting. First off, because this is a public school which cannot hold any sort of religious identity, I believe that this teacher was certainly in the wrong. Yes, they can teach about the religion, but when it comes to conversion, that is where the line is drawn, particularly when this teacher is discussing how this students specific religion is a danger. Because it seems like manipulation and inappropriate discussions occurred between a student and teacher, I believe he was rightfully terminated. If this were just a simple discussion where it was a consensual interest between student and teacher, that may be a different outcome. I also believe if this were a private religious school, the outcome also would be different and perhaps Thorsen would not be fired. Additionally, I do not think the family would necessarily have a legitimate claim to the Monell claim as no physical actions occurred to the victim, such as having to switch schools, being forced to change religions, etc.
ReplyDelete