• Email this page
  • Share:

The truth about TiZA

As John notes below, we’ve written a lot about the Tarek ibn Ziyad Academy K-8 public charter school in suburban St. Paul. It appears to be is an Islamic school operating illegally at taxpayer expense.
Among other things, the school’s principal is an imam and almost all of its students are Muslim. It is housed in a building that was owned originally by the Muslim American Society of Minnesota (I’m not sure who owns it now). The school has in any event had a mutually beneficial relationship with MAS Minnesota since the school’s inception. The study of Arabic is required at the school. The Arabic comes in handy for the Koranic studies that follow the regular school day.
The ACLU Minnesota has brought a lawsuit challenging the legality of the school’s operation on public funds; the lawsuit is pending in federal court in Minnesota. Prompted by the reportage of then-Star Tribune metro columnist Katherine Kersten, the ACLU Minnesota commenced an investigation of the school. Concluding that the school was in fact operating illegally as a religious institution, the ACLU Minnesota filed the lawsuit. The ACLU Minnesota is represented in the lawsuit by one of the most prominent law firms in the state.
Discussing the lawsuit, ACLU Minnesota executive director Chuck Samuelson observed: “The issue with TiZA, frankly, was the incredible commingling of church and state. It’s a theocratic school. It is as plain as the substantial nose on my face.” As a result of Samuelson’s statement of the ACLU Minnesota’s position in the lawsuit, TiZA alleged that Samuelson and the ACLU had defamed it, asserting several counterclaims against the ACLU Minnesota for amounts in excess of $100,000 (i.e., an unlimited amount).
The ACLU Minnesota’s lawsuit against TiZA is predicated on the establishment clause of the First Amendment as interpreted by the Supreme Court. I was quite sure that there was another clause of the First Amendment that applied to TiZA’s counterclaims against the ACLU Minnesota, but even the common law of defamation provides that truth is a defense.
in the event, Minnesota federal district Judge Donovan Frank summarily dismissed TiZA’s counterclaims. In an order issued this past December, Judge Frank held that, as a public school, TiZA could not assert a claim for defamation.
As to the merits of TiZA’s defamation and defamation-related claims, Judge Frank held that “the allegedly defamatory statements all reflect Plaintiff’s belief [that TiZA is illegally operating as a religious school] and TiZA has alleged no facts that would demonstrate that Plaintiff entertains any doubts as to the truth of its statements.” TiZA therefore had “wholly failed” to allege facts making out the actual malice constitutionally required to support a claim of defamation by a public official or, Judge Frank held, a public school.
In asserting its defamation and defamation-related counterclaims against Samuelson and the ACLU Minnesota, TiZA was taking a leaf from the old Islamist playbook written by CAIR. The irony in this case is that TiZA pretends to be a nonsectarian institution; it is this pretense that goes to the heart of the pending lawsuit.
In her Star Tribune op-ed column today, Kersten reports on affidavits filed in the pending lawsuit against TiZA. The affidavits suggest that TiZA is engaged in serious acts of intimidation to prevent the truth about the school from emerging.
Kersten reports that the ACLU Minnesota “sought a protective order, telling the court that intimidation by TiZA was discouraging potential witnesses from appearing. On February 10, the court barred witness harassment or intimidation by either party.” As I read that, the court granted the ACLU’s motion, but made it binding on both sides.
The pending lawsuit is important, and not just for the result to which it might give rise when it is concluded. Along the way it is producing revelations that deserve attention regardless of the result.

Recommend this Power Line article to your Facebook friends.

Responses