If you walked into a classroom and saw Bibles being handed out along with hearing prayers being said, you may think you traveled back in time to the 1940s. However, American Humanist Association, Inc. v. Elementary School District No. 22 of Adair County Oklahoma shows these events still happen today. The American Humanist Association filed a lawsuit against these public schools in Oklahoma on behalf of a family whose child attends one of the schools within the district. For decades, the school district has brought Christian groups into the classrooms each month for an hour-long class period titled “Missionaries” to engage with children in grades ranging from pre-K to 8th grade. During these sessions, students are given Bibles and religious coloring books in addition to playing games and singing songs about Jesus. Furthermore, attendance is mandatory and students are not presented with the option to leave and attend another class or program during that time. The clear issue in question then is whether or not such religious activities taking place within public schools violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
On the one side, the school district sees these events as instilling good morals and character into its students and so, there is a clear secular purpose in having these officials come to the schools and engage students in secular ways such as in song and games. Furthermore, these Christian missionaries have been coming to the schools for decades and see this as being a part of the school’s tradition. In all the time of having these classes, this is the first time a problem has been raised. Additionally, the reason Christian missionaries were chosen over other religions is merely reflective of the fact that the area is predominantly Christian, although the program is not supporting one particular denomination over another and is treating all sects equally. One could also argue, as did Justice Scalia in previous cases, that students can respectfully observe and are not forced to be active participants in the religious activities. Additionally, the government and schools could be seen as not necessarily endorsing or encouraging religion but merely allowing it. Many other government institutions have religious activities and prayers, so the Missionaries classes in these schools could be looked upon as no different.
On the flip side, the AHA and the family involved see this as a clear violation of the Establishment Clause for various reasons. First off, the religious activities are not only taking place just on school property during the school day but are also oversaw and even promoted by teachers and other school officials who are employed by the government. Furthermore, the AHA believes the program is not being neutral between religions as well since only Christian groups were brought into the school. The family also takes great issue with the fact that the school does not seek out permission from parents. Furthermore, even after the parents came to the agreement with the school that their daughter did not have to participate, she was still forced to engage in the Missionaries program with no alternative option presented.
In my opinion, these events and classes at these schools clearly contradict so many years worth of precedence established by the Supreme Court. Clear parallels can be seen between this case and McCollum v. Board of Education decided nearly seventy years ago. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that bringing outside religious teachers into public schools to provide religious education was unconstitutional even if many religions were represented and the classes were not mandatory. In the current case, no other religions were represented besides Christianity and there was no alternative that students were provided with. Later on, the Court decided in Engel v. Vitale that it was unconstitutional for a general prayer to be said in public schools that was composed and approved of by the government even though students were not required to participate. The activities taking place in the current case were also of a religious nature that were approved of by the school officials. Potentially if this program was taking place after school hours as was the case in Lamb’s Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District and Good News Club v. Milford Central School, that may make a difference in my analysis, but that is surely not the case presented here. More recently, in Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, the Supreme Court held that even prayers led by students on school property violated the Establishment Clause, thus religious activities being initiated by Christian missionaries clearly would also violate the First Amendment.
Furthermore, the argument that these programs are for the purpose of instilling good character in students is not very compelling as there are many other ways to fulfill this interest that does not entangle religion so much with the government. Also, although coercion can be present at all ages, it is especially true when it comes to such impressionable, young children who are much more likely to be persuaded to participate as all their friends, teachers, and other school officials support such a program. Ultimately then, to me, it seems the real question is not whether this is an establishment issue but why this school believed they could get away with such unconstitutional acts.
9 comments:
I agree that this is a clear case of establishment of religion. It certainly is inappropriate for the school to mandate religious proselytization in the same manner in which it mandates secular subjects like math and literacy. I think that the fact that students are expected to participate in the "ministries" program in the same way that they are expected to participate in regular school programs reveals the school's endorsement of the religious teachings and reflects an establishment of religion. Furthermore, to require student attendance and not provide a secular alternative, the school creates a coercive environment in which young children are highly susceptible. The mandatory attendance could also be viewed as placing a burden upon the school children's individual free exercise as well.
I completely agree with the position taken on this issue that having Christian missionaries coming into a public school system to engage with the children is a clear violation of the establishment clause. The "compelling interest" of the school that these missionaries present good morals and values is not compelling enough at all, or a secular purpose for that matter. This policy in the school is clearly not neutral to all religions first of all, since only Christian missionaries are coming in and presenting to the children. Secondly it is not neutral to non-religious persons because of the way there is no secular alternative for children to attend. It is a mandatory hour long session that clearly demonstrates advancing a religious agenda, endorsed by the school and teachers there. If the Lemon Test were used in this case, I believe it would fail all three prongs.
I also agree that this is a clear violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. There simply is not an interest that is compelling in this case because there is not a secular purpose; the school can promote good moral in other ways without advancing religion. Having Christian missionaries come in is not neutral to all religions as the area is already predominantly Christian. Therefore non-Christian children are already the minority, which would make them even more easily impressionable. The only way this could potentially be constitutional is if all religions came into the school, but even then it teeters the line of constitutionality. As the author stated, this could be okay if it was an optional activity happening after hours in a limited open forum, but that is not the case so the present actions of the school is unconstitutional.
I agree with everything that's been said here, this is absolutely as clear cut a violation of the Establishment Clause as you can feasibly get. There's absolutely no secular purpose that overrides blatantly religious one; the school district may see it as instilling good morals, but those morals are inherently biased by religion, leading to serious concerns about coercion and indoctrination, especially since the children are so young. It seems clear that the district also treats these ministry times as equally as important to secular schooling, which is a clear misrepresentation of the intent of taxpayer dollars. I think your comparison to Engel v. Vitale is spot on, and the reference to Santa Fe v. Doe further makes it clear that there's no precedent for this behavior by the school district to be held as constitutional.
In addition to everyone else who previously commented on this post, I also believe that this violates the Establishment Clause. Firstly, there is no real way to prove that these programs or religious activities are actually helping to improve these children's "morals" or "good character." That just seems like a very flimsy argument in trying to justify these events that are quite frankly blatantly crossing the line between church and state. In addition, this is definitely not a situation that has really any neutrality involved, and if anything,this school is advancing religion and the christian faith by trying to show how these christian missionaries are "helping" their students. I especially thought the reference to Engel v. Vitale and McCollum v. Board of Ed. was also really helpful in showing your argument and position.
I also agree with your argument and belief in this case. I do think that this is a clear issue of an establishment of religion within this school. It is important to note that the school where the complaint was filed was a public school, which was funded with taxpayer dollars. In the case of the Founders, this would be a direct violation of the Establishment Clause because it is providing direct aid to religion. The program is not neutral either as it does not invite in non-religious people or people of different religions. The issue of coercion is also present because the teachers promote the program to students, which could result in them feeling pressure to attend.
I agree with the blog. The hour-long religious class advances Christianity over other religions and since
the sessions are done during school hours and they are mandatory, there is excessive government
promotion and entanglement with religion. Instilling good morals and character and having this as a
tradition is not a compelling interest since there are other non-religious ways to do this and the sessions
could be optional and held after school. Therefore, the missionaries are unconstitutional.
I fully agree with the author of the blog. We have studied various cases throughout the year addressing prayer or religious activities in school, such as Engel v. Vitale, with similar details and practices, but this case so overwhelmingly violates the Establishment Clause and the precedent set by these prior cases. The purpose of this program is clearly religious, rather than secular, and its mandatory attendance makes it coercive as well. I appreciate that the author thoroughly articulated the school's defense of this practice, but I find the argument of its historical or traditional value to be very weak; based on prior Supreme Court rulings, this practice has been deemed unconstitutional for decades as it was occurring seemingly without complaint.
From the information provided by the author, I have deducted that bringing Christian ministers into a public school (during the school day) without giving students the option to opt-out is unconstitutional. Public school is supposed to have zero incorporation of religious teachings, and this goal is clearly muddied by the presence of Christian ministers. A previous comment mentioned that if Christianity is incorporated, then it is only right for other religions to be involved as well; I argue that no religion should have a weekly appearance at a public school at all. However, the reasoning behind the presence of the Christian ministers is noteworthy, to me. The school claimed that the purpose of the ministers was to introduce a certain level of morality and ethics to the children through traditional Christian teachings. Not to mention, it was the sensible choice of religion, considering how much of the surrounding Oklahoma area was registered Christian. Thus, while I completely agree with the goal of teaching morals to developing children, I'd like to add that there are secular options for achieving this. Religion certainly makes teaching morality easier, considering that Christianity has many guidelines for the treatment of others (10 Commandments, etc.), but it is not the only avenue. So, while I understand where the school was coming from by incorporating Chrstian ministers into their curriculum, it was certainly unconstitutional to do so at a public school.
Post a Comment