December 15, 2009 Jerry Prater Chair, Board of Trustees, District #3 Dallas County Community College District 1601 S. Lamar St. Dallas, TX 75215 214-378-1602 Fax: 214-378-1610 via certified mail RRR and fax

Rachel Wolf Dean of Arts, Language, & Literature Eastfield College 3737 Motley Drive Mesquite, Texas 75150 Office G138 972-860-7124 Fax: (972) 860-7248 RWolf@dcccd.edu Via certified mail RRR, fax, and email

Diana Flores Vice Chair, Board of Trustees, District #6 via certified mail RRR and fax

Martha Sanchez Metzger Trustee, District #4 via certified mail RRR and fax

Kitty Boyle Trustee, District #5 via certified mail RRR and fax

Charletta Compton Trustee, District #7 via certified mail RRR and fax

Bob Ferguson Trustee, District #2 via certified mail RRR and fax

JL Sonny Williams Trustee, District #1 via certified mail RRR and fax

James Watral Ceramics Department Chair Eastfield College James_Watral@dcccd.edu Via certified mail RRR, fax, and email

Chris Blackhurst Ceramics Instructor Eastfield College bhcArt@dcccd.edu Via certified mail RRR, fax, and email

Dear Ms. Wolf, Mr. Watral, Ms. Blackhurst, and Trustees,

with Eastfield Community Coll right to religious expression. This letter is written to inform you of the relevant law so that Eastfield and the Dallas County Community College District can take the necessary steps to avoid litigation. This letter also serves as the written notice required by the Texas Religious

TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE. ANN. § 110.006. Please direct any further communications regarding this matter to Liberty Legal Institute.

F A C TS

Eastfield College Forbids M r . Mitchell f rom Constructing Ceramic C rosses

Joe Mitchell is a 69 year-old retired General Motors employee, and resident of Dallas

County. In 2006, he enrolled in a non-credit ceramics course at Eastfield Community College mainly comprised of retired citizens from the community. For three years, Mr. Mitchell took ceramics courses at Eastfield and constructed ceramics pieces that were not religious in nature, such as wine chillers, and did not encounter any problems.

On the first day of the spring 2009 ceramics class, James Watral, the Chair of the

Ceramics Department at Eastfield College, filled in for the regular ceramics instructor, Leslie Bruce, who was unable to attend the first class. As Mr. Watral was giving the students a tour of the pottery department, he took them to the shelving area where ceramics pieces are stored prior to being fired in the kiln. Mr. Watral then pointed to a cross and stated in front of the entire class

but only by hiding them behind other larger pieces of work so they would not be readily visible. Mr. Mitchell would give the crosses as gifts to volunteers and parishioners at his local church, St. Bernard of Clairvaux Catholic Church.

At the beginning of the 2009 summer session, however, a memo from Mr. Watral,

attached hereto as Exhibit A, was distributed to all ceramics students and instructors. It prohibited inter alia the crea Christmas,

ceramics instructor, stated that the memo did not reflect her beliefs but that it was the policy of Mr. Watral and the department. In response to the memo, Mr. Mitchell ceased constructing religious items, but filed a complaint with the Arts Department, arguing that the memo discriminated against people of faith.

Literature at Eastfield College, set up a meeting with Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Watral. During the meeting, Mr. Watral apologized for making the offensive remark about the cross. He also presented a revised memo, attached hereto as Exhibit B

he -approved by your

have to submit a written proposal every time he wished to construct a cross or other religious item. Mr. Mitchell brought a ceramic cross to the meeting as an example of the things he wished to make; when Mr. Watral saw it, he physically recoiled in disgust, throwing his arms up into the air.

The day after the meeting, Ms. Wolf communicated to Mr. Mitchell that he could -

After the meeting, Mr. Mitchell was concerned that crosses would still be prohibited

since all crosses could be considered replicas. Mr. Mitchell emailed Ms. Wolf on July 23, asking her have the language removed that prohibits religious and seasonal items. Ms. Wolf did not respond to his email.

When the fall 2009 session began, Mr. Mitchell twice asked the ceramics instructor,

Chris Blackhurst, if she had any handout from Mr. Watral specifying what items would be permitted in the kiln. Ms. Blackhurst responded that she was unaware of any such handout. When Mr. Mitchell said he would have to check with the administration concerning its policy, she then pulled out a file folder with 25-30 copies of a revised policy, attached hereto as Exhibit C. She stated that she was instructed not to distribute the new policy, but provided Mr. Mitchell with a copy and pointed to a crowded bulletin board in the classroom that contained a posted

religious or seasonal items. The new policy was neither mentioned nor discussed in class. During the fall 2009 session, Ms. Blackhurst constantly asked Mr. Mitchell if his next

project would be religious. The class met once per week, and every week Ms. Blackhurst would harass Mr. Mitchell about the subject of his projects. Mr. Mitchell tried to engage Ms. Blackhurst in a discussion about how religion has historically held a prominent place in the arts; during this discussion, he referenced the Latino Cultural Cente

Mr. Mitchell felt like Ms. Blackhurst refused to assist him on his projects due to their

religious content. For example, when Mr. Mitchell asked Ms. Blackhurst to teach him how to make a rose out of clay for a cross, she refused to assist him and stated that she did not know how to make clay roses, despite the fact that she is an experienced artist. When Mr. Mitchell had placed seven roses on a cross, Ms. Blackhurst questioned him on why he had chosen the number seven. He responded that he had been taught that using an odd number of elements in visual arts was more aesthetically pleasing than using even numbers. During a later class, Ms. Blackhurst explained that she had inquired about the number of roses because if Mr. Mitchell had made seven roses because of any symbolic meaning attached to the number seven, then the cross would not be allowed in class and would not be fired in the kiln.

Mr. Mitchell also created a ceramic Israeli Coat of Arms, which includes a Menorah, a

symbol of Judaism, and olive branches, which represent peace. Mr. Mitchell created the Coat of Arms to give to a Jewish friend who works with Catholic Ministries to help international refugees who have been granted asylum in the United States. After the Coat of Arms had been fired, Ms. Blackhurst asked Mr. Mitchell if she could take a look at it. She told Mr. Mitchell that

Ms. Blackhurst then proceeded to state that if Mr. Mitchell felt the need to continue making religious objects that he would need to buy his own kiln and work from home. She

stated that if he decided to enroll in a ceramics class next semester, he would not be allowed to make any religious items. She then handed Mr. Mitchell two crosses that he had previously made, but that had not yet been fired, declaring that the Ceramics department would not fire them. Ms. Blackhurst then asked Mr. Mitchell if he considered a swastika offensive. He

many individuals view the cross as an offensive symbol in the same way that many people are offended by swastikas, and that his crosses would therefore not be fired by the department. Mr. Mitchell has felt that Eastfield has singled him out as a person of faith, harassed, and demeaned him because of his religious expression. He believes that college officials tried to make him feel uncomfortable in his classes so he would not re-register.

E .D .1 was L ikewise Prohibited from Making Ceramic C rosses at Eastfield College

Like Mr. Mitchell, E.D. took ceramics classes at Eastfield and was subjected to religious discrimination. E.D. is a long time friend of Mr. Mitchell, and shared with him her experience at Eastfield prior to his enrollment.

E.D. began taking ceramics courses at Eastfield around ten years ago, before Mr. Watral

joined the faculty; she made several religious pieces and was never told by any instructor that she was prohibited from doing so. It was only when Mr. Watral joined the Ceramics department that E.D. was first discouraged from making crosses and later completely prohibited from doing so.

After Mr. Watral

another student only made coil pots and was never discouraged from making coil pots. E.D. believes that no one else besides her was ever told not to make any particular item out of clay. The class was structured in such a way where students were given much latitude and choice in the objects they chose to construct. E.D. felt she was singled out due to the content of her work.

E.D was told that she was not allowed to make crosses; indeed, the adjunct professor

teaching the course told her that she could make anything but a cross. The instructor did not appear to approve of the policy but seemed pressured to enforce it.

In response, E.D. contacted the division chair and wrote a letter to the president of the

college. The division chair appeared to support the decision of the department; she received no response from the president, and instead received a refund for the course.

E.D. felt like the ceramics class provided her an important outlet for creative expression. She was heavily involved in exploring the shape, design, and history of the cross, and found that it appeared in several religions, including American Indian mythology. E.D. believed that the

                                                                                                               1

she received much fulfillment from exploring the cross through clay.

The hostility culminated when Mr. Watral phoned E.D

believes that her crosses were tampered with using carbon, causing them to be destroyed in the firing process.

E.D. went through a phase of depression that lasted around six months due to Eastfield

denying her a creative outlet of expression. She felt like Eastfield had discriminated against her because she chose to create crosses; she felt too humiliated and embarrassed to seek help.

L E G A L A N A L YSIS

T H E F IRST A M E ND M E N T O F T H E U .S. C O NST I T UI O N

Eastfield has engaged in unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination in violation of the United States Constitution2 by prohibiting its students from creating religious items in ceramics classes.3 Since the arrival of Mr. Watral, Eastfield has enforced a policy prohibiting all religious items, which was first unwritten and later memorialized in writing. Eastfield has continued to

he official wording of the guidelines distributed to students. The first two written policies (Exhibits A and B

religious viewpoints. The third written policy (Exhibit Cunconstitutional content-based discrimination.

Such viewpoint- and content-based discrimination is a blatant violation of the First

eans that government has no power to Police

, 408 U.S. 92, 95 (1972) (striking down a city ordinance because it unconstitutionally treated labor picketing differently than other picketing); Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of the Univ. of Va.government may not regulate speech based on its substantive content or the message it

Eastfield has done exactly what the constitution forbids: forbid religious items and symbols due to their content.

                                                                                                               2 The First Amendment, as incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment, forbids a government entity, including a community college,

U.S. CONST. amend. I. 3 It has long been established that the free speech guarantees of the First Amendment likewise apply to expressive conduct. E .g., Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989); Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503 (1969).

Furthermore, the Supreme Court has specifically held that government officials may not suppress or exclude the speech of private parties due to its religious perspective. Good News Club v. Milford Cent. Sch. Dist., 533 U.S. 98 (2001); Free Sch. Dist., 508 U.S. 384 (1993); Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263 (1981). The Supreme

nt establishes that private religious speech, far from being a First Amendment orphan, is as fully protected under the Free Speech Clause as secular private

Capitol Square Review and Advisory Bd. v. Pinette, 515 U.S. 753, 760 (1995). Thus, the Constitution requires Eastfield to allow Mr. Mitchell to express his faith through the items he creates in ceramics class.

T H E T E X AS R E L I G I O US F R E E D O M R EST O R A T I O N A C T

necessary to achieve a compelling government interest and it is the least restrictive means of furthering that interest. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE §§ 110.001(a)(2)(B), 1001.003(a). See also Barr v. Sinton, 295 S.W.3d 287 (Tex. 2009). When Eastfield prevents Mr. Mitchell from exploring his faith through artistic

ree

TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 110.001(a). When Mr. Mitchell allows his faith to influence his artistic expression, it cultivates a deeper appreciation of both the arts and his Catholic faith. Indeed, creating artistic crosses can be seen as an act of worship. Furthermore, Mr. Mitchell gives his artistic pieces to newly converted Catholics and to volunteers at his church to encourage them in their faith. In this way, these crosses are used to further the fellowship in his church and allow him to exercise his religious beliefs. on the free exercise of his religion, Eastfield must prove that its policy prohibiting religious items is necessary to further a compelling interest advanced by the least restrictive means. Id. at §

Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 215

compulsory school attendance laws4 and uniform unemployment compensation systems5 are insufficient to justify substantial burdens on religious freedom. It is hard to imagine any interest that Eastfield has in preventing the creation of private religious expression through the arts, much less a compelling one. Furthermore, Eastfield must also show that its policy prohibiting

ceramic crosses.

                                                                                                               4 Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 215 (1972). 5 Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 407 (1963).

D E M A ND

Eastfield must cease to suppress the religious expression of its students. Please advise Liberty Legal Institute in writing by Thursday, January 23, 2010 that Mr. Mitchell and other students will be allowed to freely express their faith through the construction of religious items in art courses at Eastfield. Unless we hear from you by this date, we will seek redress in federal

incurred in bringing the action. Sincerely,

Hiram S. Sasser, III Director of Litigation Roger L. Byron Erin Leu Attorneys LIBERTY LEGAL INSTITUTE

Exhibit A

 

Exhibit B

 

Exhibit C