Our little law school Christmas tree scandal made two local Indianapolis 11 o'clock news programs last night. Additionally, there is a front page article in the Indianapolis Star this morning. I've pasted it in its entirety.
Tree Display Vexes Law School
Call it the case of Christmas tree v. Indiana winter scene.
Students and professors wrapping up the semester at IU's School of Law in Indianapolis are hotly debating the dean's decision to remove a 12-foot tree after complaints that it was a religious display, then replace it with an exhibit featuring two smaller trees and a sleigh.
Many law students, who overwhelmingly opposed removing the first tree on Tuesday, wonder what the difference is. And the professor who led the charge to remove the original tree said she also opposes the alternative.
Dean of Students Tony Tarr said the new display represents Indiana woods during winter and that no one would attach religious meaning to it. That's also what he said about the first tree, which bore no religious ornaments or even a star on top.
"That was a nondenominational tree, I thought," he said. "It is now a normal Indiana scene. Some faculty and students said the other tree was too starkly religious."
One of the trees in the new display has lights on it -- but neither has ornaments -- and both trees are flecked with fake snow. The sleigh is stuffed with red and green poinsettia plants, which also are on the ground.
Law Professor Florence Roisman was the first to complain about the original tree. Even undecorated, she said, it was a symbol of Christianity on government property.
"The tree is placed there to celebrate a Christian holiday -- it is not put there in the middle of summer," said Roisman, who is Jewish. "To honor one religion and not honor others is exclusionary. This is unacceptable at a place that presents itself as inclusive of all people."
The Supreme Court disagrees. It has ruled Christmas trees are secular symbols of the holiday. At the same time, the court said putting up trees in a public place gives any other group the right to place a holiday symbol there.
In the mid-1990s, several groups placed displays at the Indianapolis City-County Building when a Christmas tree was put up there. The city eventually banned all public displays at the building.
Tarr said his decision to remove the original tree wasn't based on the law. He was trying to be sensitive to some student complaints. Roisman said she would have preferred several different displays and thinks the new one is just as offensive.
Many law students also said it would have been better to have several exhibits than no religious display at all.
"Removal of that tree is more symbolic than it being there," said Kenneth Allsop, 25, a first-year law student from Utah who described himself as a Christian. "If you want to be inclusive, you shouldn't be taking things down."
"This is (political correctness) gone crazy. It's beyond ridiculous," said Matt Nicholson, a 23-year-old first-year law student from Marion.
Some students said the dean shouldn't have let a handful of objections prompt the original tree's removal.
Student Audrey Smith, 29, said she is Jewish but still enjoys Christmas.
"I don't see the tree as a religious reminder," Smith said. "It reminds you of home. Santa used to come to my house, too."
Himka Shergill, a 26-year-old law student who was raised in India, agreed.
"I am not Christian, but I like to hear Christmas songs, and my schools all had trees when I was a kid," she said. "The students want the tree here. It is exam time, and it helps us relax."
Posted by Lawren at December 5, 2003 08:00 AM
You Said
Omg thats right! Please come see me and my friends! ;)
Says:
watch moi at March 16, 2005 03:44 PM