Middle School Speech
I remember my middle school graduation as if it was
yesterday, the parents in the auditorium cheering for their children. The thing
that got students excited was the speech given by the top student in the class.
It felt good watching a fellow classmate talk about the school year and what waits
for us in high school. Recently at a middle school in Craryville , New York
The student known as A.M., in court papers, was giving the opportunity
to give a speech at her middle school “Moving up Ceremony”. A.M. asked her
English teacher to help her in revising her proposed speech. The final sentence
on the speech said,” As we say our goodbyes and leave middle school behind, I
say to you, may the LORD bless you and keep you; make His face shine upon you
and be gracious to you; lift up His countenance upon you, and give you peace.” This
decision could not been made on the teacher so the teacher told A.M. to consult
with the principal. Principal Neil Howard allegedly told A.M. that the last
line “sounded too religious” and should be omitted. A.M.’s mother requested
that Superintendent Mark Sposato review the matter. Sposato agreed with Howard.
The superintendent said the religious message delivered by A.M. could violate
the establishment clause of the First Amendment. Under the establishment
clause, government bodies, including public schools, are barred from promoting
religion. A.M. delivered her message on her graduation date as planned with the
last line of her speech omitted.
Soon after A.M. speech, A.M.’s mother sued the school
district contending that they violated her free-speech rights. Specifically,
she alleged that they discriminated against her on the basis of her religious
viewpoint. A.M. argued that the standard in the U.S. Supreme Court’s
student-speech decision in Tinker
v. Des Moines Independent School District , a court case in 1969 which
16 students planned to wear black armbands to school in an attempt to protest
the war on Vietnam ,
should control the analysis of the case. In the Tinker v. Des Moines case the principal of the school
found out about the students plan and mad e a ban on the arm bands and those
who wore it would not be permitted into the school. Through their parents, the
students sued the school district for violating the students’ right of
expression and sought an injunction to prevent the school district from
disciplining the students. The district court dismissed the case and held that
the school district’s actions were reasonable to uphold school discipline.
The school district argued that this case proper analysis
should come from the student-press decision Hazelwood
School District v. Kuhlmeier, a court cased in which a school overridden a
school newspaper of two articles that the school felt inappropriate. In this
case the court ordered that the school officials can censor school-sponsored
student expression if they have a legitimate educational reason for doing so.
A.M. tried to counter this argument by portraying that the school event was sponsored
by the student council. This argument became invalid because the court was told
the event was funded by the school. Along with this the school district had a legitimate
educational reason for not allowing the sentence to be said at the ceremony. Sharpe
noted that the school district had received complaints about a Christmas tree
from the parents of a Jewish student and complaints from the parents of a
Jehovah’s Witness student regarding the school’s Halloween activities. “Given
the past complaints Taconic received from the parents of the Jewish and
Jehovah’s Witness students, and their desire to avoid violating the Establishment
Clause, its decision to edit the last sentence of A.M.’s speech was reasonable,”
he wrote. After this argument the court dismissed the case and confirmed that
the School District acted appropriately and in
accordance with the requirements of the First Amendment with respect to this
matter at all times.
The factor that helped the school district win
this case was exactly what the court said as the school district acted and respected
the First Amendment. “The Establishment Clause is the first of
several pronouncements in the First Amendment to
the United States Constitution, stating,
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. . . .” The
education system is apart of the government and must withhold to the
Constitution for being a public institution of the government. The school
provided the evidence that they have not place one religion over another. The
school district portrayed they was neutral in the situation. But, does this
trump the beliefs of a citizen? The school stopped A.M. from practicing her
religion in a speech the school has asked her to write. The school has done
what the government has tried to protect in the majority over the minority.
I would have to agree with the court on this decision with
omitting the sentence out of the speech. I believe the school has to be neutral
in this situation and appeal to entire school. The ceremony was a school based
event and should appeal to the whole audience. By allowing the student to
express her religion at this event would put the school in a tight spot of them
praising one religion over another.. But who am I tell to tell that student that she can’t
express her religious belief to her fellow classmates? Even though the government
must be neutral but must protect the minority over the majority.
8 comments:
A.M. is acting as an agent of the school district in addressing her classmates. Her classmates are not free to come and go as they please but are obligated to attend the ceremony and witness her remarks. Because the school is not considered a public square, A.M. is not entitled to unlimited freedom of expression and must consider the sensibilities of all in attendance who will be subject to her words.
I agree with both Liz and Terry in this case. Had A.M. been allowed to include that sentence in her speech, it would have violated the Establishment Clause in prioritizing one religion over no religion, and one religion over all other religions. Because this public school is funded by and represents the government, it cannot set one religion above no/all other religions. While this may be a "burden" to the student to not be able to freely express her religious beliefs, I do not believe the burden is significant enough to prioritize her right to freely practice her religion over the state's interest to maintain religious neutrality.
Terry, this was tough call for me but I have to agree with your stance. The student was an extension of the school, therefore it should be the school's responsibility to ensure that religion does not take preference over non religion. If A.M. was giving a speech off school grounds, or had she sent an email, text, etc, her statements would have been protected by our right to free speech. School's must continue to be sensitive to the issue of religion in schools to ensure they remain secular in their approach to public education.
I agree with the comments made in that it was a good thing that A.M. omitted that final sentence in order to maintain neutrality. If A.M. were to keep that part of her speech it would definitely be a violation of the establishment clause. However, if I remember correctly, almost all my school ceremonies and assemblies began with the pledge allegiance to the flag, isn't that itself a violation of the establishment clause? We have discussed this in class and I do understand that today we are not obligated to say the pledge but if schools want to maintain neutrality, wouldn't be easier to just take the pledge out of all school ceremonies? Again, I want to emphasize that I do agree with the decision but I think we should start looking into other things that are still occurring in our schools that have not been changed.
I agree with the court and the school district in this case, as well as the other comments. A.M. can believe what ever she chooses, but as Liz pointed out, the students cannot leave. This is not like the Pledge of Allegiance where one can opt out - the other kids must sit and listen to her speech. Therefore she should not be allowed, as an extension of the school, to preach her religious beliefs.
I’ll have some fun and say that had A.M. kept the line in her speech it would not have been a breach of the Establishment Clause because they are merely A.M.’s views that are being expressed. I believe the school took the necessary steps to protect it from a lawsuit but the speech is just the views of one person being expressed. I just can’t see how a middle school student’s speech can be a breach of the Establishment Clause.
I have to say that I disagree with the court’s ruling on this case. I think this case is different from Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier in the sense that the school newspaper can be considered to represent the viewpoints of the school, which should be neutral as to not violate the establishment clause, while a graduation speech represents the viewpoint of an individual. While the establishment clause does not allow public schools to “promote” religion, A.M. is not employed by the school, and is therefore not bound by that rule. Therefore, I think allowing A.M. to recite her speech would not be a violation of the establishment clause, and that not allowing her to recite it is a violation of her right to free speech and indeed does discriminate against her due to her religion.
I agree with the decision of the court. The student still spoke at graduation and portrayed the main message of her speech to her fellow students and audience. I also agree with Terry, she was representing her school and this honor does not permit her to represent in the way that she chooses if it violates the Establishment Clause. I know that my school did the pledge of allegiance but there was never an instance where anyone who spoke publicly to the students mentioned God or any specific religion. Overall, the school district was definitley remaining neutral for religions and non religions and the last sentence of her speech did not prove to be essential to how her message got across to the audience.
Post a Comment