If this sounds confusing, pity school administrators
charged with figuring out if and when to draw the line on student prayers.
Current controversies in two regions of the country
illustrate how complicated this line-drawing has become:
School officials in Birdville School District, near
Fort Worth, Texas, allow students to offer prayers before football games,
claiming that since the students freely choose to do so, the prayers are not
endorsed by the school.
Meanwhile school officials in Taconic Hills Central
District in Craryville, New York recently barred a student from closing her
middle school graduation speech with a prayer, claiming that prayers at
graduation – even when given by a student – constitute school-sponsored
religion in violation of the First Amendment.
Before sorting out who got it right or wrong, let’s
remind ourselves of what we know about the constitutionality of student prayers
in public schools under current law:
According to the U.S. Supreme Court, school
officials may not sponsor or promote religious exercises in public schools. At
the same time, however, no Supreme Court decision prohibits public school
students from praying alone or in groups, as long as such prayers don’t disrupt
the school or interfere with the rights of others.
So far, so good.
But what do school administrators do when a student
speaker decides to offer a prayer before a captive audience at graduation or
some other school-sponsored event?
Is a prayer given by a student school-sponsored
religion prohibited by the Establishment clause – or is it religious expression
protected by the Free Exercise and Free Speech clauses?
In the culture wars, one side argues that all
prayers at public school events are school promotion of religion, even if
delivered by a student. But the other side insists that student prayers are
always free speech, whatever the setting or circumstances.
Although the Supreme Court has yet to draw a bright
line on this issue, past decisions make clear that when school officials
arrange for prayers at school events, those prayers are the unconstitutional
government endorsement of religion – even when delivered by outside speakers or
students.
Some lower courts, however, have allowed student
prayers at school events under certain conditions: If a student speaker is
chosen by genuinely neutral, evenhanded criteria (i.e., without regard to the
student’s religious or non-religious views) and given primary control over the
content of the speech, then the student is free to give a religious or
anti-religious message.
Relying on these court rulings, the U.S. Department
of Education (USDOE) issued guidelines in 2003 on “constitutionally protected
prayer” stating that schools should allow student prayers under those
circumstances. And a few states, including Texas, have passed laws urging
schools to turn the podium over to students at school events without controlling
the content of their speech.
That brings us back to Birdville, where school
officials claim that student speakers at football games aren’t selected to give
prayers, but are free to give any message they choose. If they happen to give a
prayer, then the district argues that Texas law and the USDOE guidelines
support their right to do so.
What isn’t known from news reports is exactly how
the students are selected to speak at the games – and whether school officials
actually allow student speakers to say whatever they like.
But if the Birdville School District really does
give students a “free speech moment,” then it is likely that the courts would
uphold the practice should the policy be challenged.
But in Taconic Hills, school administrators retain
control over the content of student speeches. Permitting students to pray, the
district argues, would put the schools in the position of endorsing religion.
Earlier this month, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Taconic Hill’s
right to bar student prayers.
It’s possible, then, that both school districts got
it right under current law.
Whether we’ll see more students praying at school
events is difficult to predict. After all, many school officials are
understandably reluctant to adopt policies that create a free speech forum at
graduations and assemblies.
Turning the microphone over to student speakers can
be a risky business for school officials, especially when religious expression
is involved.
What I can predict is that when the inevitable happens
and a student delivers a prayer from an unpopular religion – or gives a message
promoting atheism – public enthusiasm for the free-speech model will wane.
In other words, it might not take long for Birdville
to decide that Toconic Hills got it right after all.
About the author: Charles C. Haynes is director of
the Religious Freedom Education Project at the Newseum, 555 Pennsylvania Ave.,
N.W., Washington, D.C., 20001. Web: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/.
E-mail: chaynes[at]freedomforum.org.
This article was published by the First Amendment
Center.
No comments:
Post a Comment