2020 or the 1940s?

  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.