ILNews

Southern Indiana teams win championship trophies in national civics competition

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana high school teams swept the 2014 We the People competition, bringing home first place trophies to both Brown and Floyd counties.

Brown County Junior High School was crowned the national champion of the 2014 We the People National Invitational for middle schools for the second year in a row.

“It’s very big news,” said Gavin Steele, assistant principal. “We’re very excited.”

The team from Floyd Central High School in southern Indiana placed first in the We the People National Invitational for high schools. Floyd Central has had a team participate in state competitions for about eight years, but this was the first time the team has gone to nationals.

“We will definitely celebrate this,” said Janie Whaley, Floyd Central principal.

The Brown County team left April 4 for the We the People civics competition in Washington, D.C., where they matched their skills and knowledge against other teams from across the United States. After successfully navigating the opening rounds of the competition during the weekend, the Indiana group – dubbed the Brown County Weeples – competed in the final round Monday.
 
Coached by social studies teacher Michael Potts and Brown County Prosecutor James Oliver, the 24-member team is comprised of 8th grade students who prepare for the WTP competition as part of their constitution class.

Brown County Junior High School won the 2013 civics championship, the first time the We the People program held a national competition for middle schools.

Suzanne Moss, social studies teacher at Floyd Central, coached that school’s high school team and, according to Whaley, local attorneys assisted by coming to the practice sessions to quiz the students. Whaley said local law firms made donations to help the Floyd Central team fund the trip to Washington.  

 

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  2. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  3. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  4. I totally agree with John Smith.

  5. An idea that would harm the public good which is protected by licensing. Might as well abolish doctor and health care professions licensing too. Ridiculous. Unrealistic. Would open the floodgates of mischief and abuse. Even veteranarians are licensed. How has deregulation served the public good in banking, for example? Enough ideology already!

ADVERTISEMENT