In Kansas, a seventh-grade student
at Robert E. Clark Middle School wanted to distribute and post fliers that
advertised a religious event. The event is called “See You at the Pole,”
involving a student-led prayer performed around the flagpole before the school
day. Even though many other fliers have been allowed to be distributed and
posted in the school, this student was prohibited from doing so.
The
Alliance Defending Freedom filed a lawsuit for the student, as her First
Amendment rights concerning freedom of religion and free speech had been
violated. They argued that students should not have to surrender their
constitutional rights in the public school. The freedom of speech cannot be
discriminated based on its viewpoint, which in this case was religious. The
school allows all kinds of fliers to be posted within the school, including a
poster of Lil’ Wayne that contained the phrase “Good Kush and Alcohol.” Also,
the religiously oriented fliers did not have any great impact that would hinder
the progression and order of the school day. Alliance Defending Freedom,
therefore, believed that the school policy should be altered to allow the
students their constitutionally protected rights.
The
issue here is whether this school policy of banning the distribution of
religious materials violates the students’ rights of free speech and free
exercise of religion as stated in the First Amendment. Although the school is allowed to
set policies to monitor the students’ behavior, students should not be expected
to give up their constitutionally protected rights while in the school domain. While
the rules set are formed to maintain order throughout the school, the students
should still be allowed some freedom, especially in situations concerning their
constitutionally given rights.
From
the school’s viewpoint, I can see that this policy may have been put in place
in order to avoid any sort of establishment or endorsement of religion.
However, this policy functions more closely to an act of hostility towards
religion. The policy singles out religion as the only subject of materials that
is banned from dispersal. Therefore, the concern of this case is based on the
individual students’ rights to free speech and free exercise of religion as
opposed to any issues of establishment.
There
have been several cases that have dealt with free speech and free exercise of
religion within the school setting. One example is Westside Community School v. Mergens (1990). In this case, a group
of students was prohibited from forming an after-school Christian club. The
Supreme Court ruled that the formation of this club was not a form of
establishment and the students were protected by the Equal Access Act, which
provides all students the ability to express themselves as they please, whether
it is religiously related or not. If all other clubs are allowed, the school
cannot deny a religious group to form a club as well. Similarly, in Rosenberger v. University of Virginia
(1994), a student group that distributed publications from the Christian perspective
was denied finance for publishing costs. The Supreme Court decided that denying
financial subsidy to the religious publication violated the students’ First
Amendment rights. Because the University funded all other publications
promoting free speech, it was unconstitutional to discriminate against this
specific group based on the religious content.
These
two cases and the one described here all commonly pertain to the issue of viewpoint
discrimination. In these cases, the policies that had been established and the actions
of the schools were prejudiced against a religious view. Even though all other
groups or clubs were allowed to convene or distribute materials advertising
their events, the religious groups were specifically discriminated, which is a
violation of the students’ First Amendment rights. All students are entitled to
their rights to free speech and the free exercise of their religions. The
student at Robert E. Clark Middle School should be allowed to distribute
pamphlets and advertise the religious ideas and events just as any other
student is allowed to express his or her views on any other type of subject
matter. Even though in some cases, such as Westside
Community School v. Mergens, the school authorities might fear
establishment, the overriding issue is the violation of appropriately allowing
the students their First Amendment rights. The actions of the students are a
reflection of the students themselves, and the schools should encourage the
sharing of their diverse beliefs instead of regulating them.
No
decision on this case has been reported yet, but how do you think the court
should decide? Do you think that the school policy should be changed to allow
distribution of religious materials in school? Or do you think that the policy should
remain the way it is because there is a legitimate fear of establishment?
6 comments:
I believe it the student should be allowed to hand out fliers about her religious event. The event is before school starts and is not infringing on anyone else's beliefs. The Bible verses on the fliers do not make a difference, in my opinion. Other students could easily reject a flier or throw it away if given one. I think it was especially wrong of the school to prevent her from distributing fliers when they allow ones that say "good kush and alcohol", as that seems more disruptive to me.
I agree with Maddie that this seem more hostile towards religion than preventive of an establishment. The girl should be allowed her first amendment rights to freedom of speech and religion. Changing the policy of the school would be the best course of action, because I feel there is no fear of establishment in a girl handing out a flier about a religious activity before school begins.
I believe that the student has the Constitutional right to pass out the fliers and hold a prayer before school hours. This is free speech and is similar to the Supreme Court case Cantwell v Connecticut. The case ruled that passing out fliers was acceptable as long as it was done in an nonthreatening manner. The school policy is hostile towards religion, and is not establishing or promoting any one religion. It is just a prayer. The event itself is not infringing upon anyone’s rights and is open to all. If a student of a different faith tradition wanted to start a similar event, he/she would have the same Constitutional right to do so. The event is optional and serves as an opportunity for students to gather and exercise their rights.
I agree with the comments in that the student does have the constitutional right to advertise the prayer. Would it be different if it were a student club rather than a single student? I'm not sure if it really matters but I think that it would be best for the student to form a club where students with similar interests can do things together and more organized. I think that by doing so it would prevent a wave of students creating various events that might conflict with each other and avoid the possibility of hostility between individual students with each other on their beliefs. As for the Establishment argument, it could be argued that by the school allowing such activity would result in other events and through time the school would be perceived to prefer religion over non-religion. I am taking it very far, but it just proves that slippery slope can always happen and could result to a bigger issue.
I agree with everyone that this seems to be hostility toward religion and that the student should have been allowed to distribute fliers. If the school was that concerned with being seen as violating the Establishment clause they could have asked her to put a disclaimer that the school was not sponsoring the activity, but to prevent her from advertising an event that she felt was important, and was strictly voluntary, is preventing her free speech and free exercise of religion.
I think because the student is distributing these fliers individually to people at the school and because the school is not sponsoring the event or paying for the fliers, this does not constitute an establishment of religion. I am persuaded by the viewpoint discrimination argument and think this student should be allowed to distribute her fliers. I too think the school policy should be changed so students can more freely exercise her rights to speech and religion in her school.
I do not really see the issue of Establishment in this case. It is one student who is an individual handing out her flyers before school hours. I do not think this one individual's actions is representative of the school's opinions at all. It is also very easy for other students on the receiving end to opt out of getting the flyers. They can simply walk away from them or discard them. This case is different than the one we have seen about the cheerleader's posters because those posters were presented by a school group at a school event. Here, these flyers are being passed out by an individual rather than a group funded by the school.
Post a Comment