FFRF Spikes Pikeville's Graduation Prayers

In Pikeville, Kentucky, the Pikeville Independent School District is currently facing the issue of whether or not prayers may be allowed at graduation ceremonies. The Pikeville Independent School District has an elementary and high school and both schools in the district are public schools. After their class of 2020 graduation ceremony, which was of course very different due to COVID-19, they received a letter from the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) complaining that their ceremony included three student led Christian prayers. The ceremony and specifically the prayers can be seen in this video. The prayers included words and terms such as “In your son’s name, we pray”, “Oh Heavenly Father”, and thanks to the “Lord and savior, Jesus Christ”. The letter then continued to state that the prayers were unconstitutional and that the Supreme has struck down such type of prayers at school sponsored events in both Lee v. Weisman and Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, which I will talk about more later on.

Brendan Johnson, who wrote the letter on behalf of the FFRF, argued that there would be no different treatment based on the number of students supporting or opposing the prayer since the Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that the religious rights of minorities are protected in this instance. Johnson further stated that the school district has a duty to remain neutral when it comes to religion and that by allowing and scheduling these prayers at their graduation ceremony, the district is no longer neutral and “alienates the 38 percent of younger Americans who are not religious”. The letter ended by requiring that prayer or any other religious activities be allowed at future events and required a plan of action to address the issue.

In response to the letter, the school district and specifically Superintendent David Trimble has since responded and said that the district is working with their legal team to look at ways to handle future events to ensure that they are doing things “the appropriate way” while also “protecting the freedoms and rights of those involved in them”. Trimble, while not harshly defensive, also stated that their school’s 150 year history and tradition has been that the graduation ceremony is student led and that any adult or school official involvement was for “saying the names, confirming the class, and giving the perfect attendance award and handing diplomas”. Trimble and the district’s goals are to protect all rights and freedoms of students, both in terms of maintaining a neutral attitude towards religion, but also allowing students to speak and practice their own religions. Another interesting fact to note is that the salutatorian, who was one of the students who used religious speech and prayer, was the son of the principal of the school. While this issue can be viewed on from the lens of the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause, but since I will be focusing on the precedent cases mentioned above, I am going to focus on the Establishment Clause aspect of the issue.

In terms of this issue, I agree with the FFRF that having the student led prayer during graduation ceremonies is a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. In Lee v. Weisman, we saw a very similar issue with prayer being allowed at the public high school graduation ceremonies. I think that this issue is very similar to Lee v. Weisman and therefore much reach the same conclusion that the Supreme Court reached in 1992. In Lee v. Weisman, Justice Kennedy, delivering the majority opinion, stated that due to the amount of school involvement in the process of choosing prayers and religious officials to lead them, the graduation prayers “bore the imprint of the State” (Munoz 383). The case might have been decided differently if the school had no involvement in the process and simply observed prayers occurring during the ceremony, but they were planned and purposeful. This is also the case here. The school district plans the graduation ceremonies every year, chooses students to speak and represent the school and Trimble even admitted that student led prayers are part of the event even though the more specific Christian statements came from the students themselves. By planning the event and putting time aside for prayer, student, adult, or school official led, is excessive entanglement and violates the neutrality to religion required by the Establishment Clause. 

In Justice Scalia’s dissent in this case, he argued that there was no coercion at all, suggesting that the only coercion that does exist is physical coercion. Scalia argued that attendance was not mandatory at the graduation ceremony itself and that students would still receive their diplomas and graduate even if they did not attend the event (Munoz 394-396). However, the majority argued that while attendance may not be mandatory, it is a crucial event that all students should feel comfortable attending. They argued that saying that students have a fair choice of whether or not to attend their high school graduations is “formalistic in the extreme” (Munoz 385). The majority turns to the history and traditions of education and how high school graduations have been and continue to be critically important events in an individual’s life. I connected this to the FFRF’s co-President’s, Annie Laurie Gaylor, argument that the “culmination of 13 years of secular education should not end in divisive and exclusionary prayer, but in a celebration that welcomes all students and participants.” Finally, the majority acknowledged that taking offense at any and all religious actions, even nonreligious ones, and it may not result in a violation, but in this case, the conformity required by students are sufficient and did not withstand the test of the Establishment Clause (Munoz 385).

The second case referenced in the letter was Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe. This case was similar, dealing with student led prayer at school sponsored events, but instead of a high school graduation, this case dealt with prayer before football games and whether they violated the Establishment Clause. In this case, speech was a much bigger issue as it dealt with student speech as opposed to a religious official. The dissent and the school argued that the speech presented in this case was private speech and could therefore not be controlled. The majority, however, argued that while there is a significant difference between private speech and public speech, the speech in this matter was in fact public, not private. The football games are at the school which is government property and the games were government sponsored and school related events and while even if unintended to promote one religion or another, there are limitations and regulations that must be followed. Additionally, the schools did not properly distance itself from the event, showing excessive entanglement, as we saw in the previous case. The school was directly involved in the election of the speaker, by the nature of the policy, it invited religious messages to be shared. The message was broadcast over the school’s PA system, which was and is under the control of school officials and is quite undoubtably filled with crests, merchandise, and more of school pride and promotion. Justice Stevens examined the reasonable observer and argues that in that context, it would be difficult to argue that the school is not in full support of this program. In the issue with Pikeville, a similar argument about the kind of speech was used in favor of allowing the prayers at graduation, but I believe that the majority opinion in Santa Fe sufficiently addressed this argument. Additionally, the school in the Santa Fe case was private, while here the school is public, further clarifying the purpose of maintaining neutrality and the speech being public.

I believe that this case provided the perfect intersection of Lee v. Weisman and Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe. This case dealt with prayer at graduation like Lee, but was spoken by students rather than a school or religious official like in Santa Fe. Based on the precedent, I think that this issue should be decided as a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and the prayers should no longer be allowed at the school district’s graduation ceremonies. While it is important to protect every individual’s free exercise of religion, in the context of schools and government sponsored institutions, there must be great care taken to maintain religiously neutral in all aspects.