Liz here from I Speak of Dreams. As I understand t...

Liz here from I Speak of Dreams. As I understand the case, the principal was acting on rumor from other students (and families) that there were pictures of the girls "in suggestive poses". The legal documents deny the existence of the photos.

The principal interrogated the girls separately and togther for hours, based on gossip going around the school. The girls' parents were NOT present. There was no evidence, other than gossip, that the girls were romantically involved. The suit is for invasion of privacy, discrimination, and unfair business practices. I have more details about the case on my blog:

Expelled on Suspicion.

Separation of church and state issue: In this case, the school is NOT consituted as part of a church, but is a non-profit operation acting as a business (as many religious and independent schools are).

One of the interesting issues here is that the school, Cal Lutheran, enrolls students who are not Christian--who don't meet the standard of professing Jesus as their personal savior. (beginning of school's mission statement: "CLHS exists to glorify God by using His inerrant Word to nurture discipleship in Christ, serving primarily the youth of WELS and ELS congregations, equipping them for a lifetime of service to their Savior in their homes, churches, vocations, and communities.")

Private school enrollment is a contract between the parents and the school. The enrollment contract typically lists the obligations of each party, usually referring to a code of student conduct that the parents and the student sign.

The issue seems to be here, can a school expel a student without evidence?

As a parent of a girl that age, I know that girls can and do have intense friendships that are entirely without erotic content.

Why should the girls sue to be reinstated? Because their entire lives are wound up in the school. As a parent, I might take the very steps those girls' parents are taking.