For many people living in Smith County, Tennessee, religion is incredibly important to them. So much so, that school officials decided to implement religion into the daily activities within multiple schools in the Smith County School District. Kelly Butler, a U.S. Army veteran, and Sharona and Jason Carr had children who attended Smith County schools. Both families are atheists and were very uncomfortable with the way religion was being implemented into the school system. The unlawful activities reported by both families included: school directed prayer in mandatory assemblies, Bibles present during class, Bible verses posted in hallways, prayers broadcasted through loudspeakers at sporting events, coaches leading and participating in prayer with student-athletes, and a large cross painted on the wall of a school athletic facility. It is clear that religion was completely entangled in the daily functions of the Smith County School District. In addition to religion being very present during school hours, students who did not believe in Christianity were alienated and felt awkward attending their school. Leyna Carr, a student in the Smith County School District, expressed her discomfort explaining, “At school everybody makes it seem like you have to believe in one thing, just like them. It’s very awkward and uncomfortable. I respect other people’s religion, and I would like it if everyone else would respect my beliefs.” This case raises the issue of whether these school activities are a violation of the First Amendment, specifically the Establishment Clause. Not only is religion being implemented in these public schools, but also students are feeling ostracized and coerced into following a particular religion that is not their own.
In November of 2019, two families and the American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee sued the Smith County School District for violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because of the inappropriate and regular incorporation of religion into the school district’s events and other daily activities. In September of 2020, the federal district court issued a permanent injunction prohibiting the Smith County School District from continuing to unconstitutionally impose religion onto its students. A consent decree was issued by the court which is an agreement or settlement that resolves a dispute between two parties without admission of guilt or liability. This means that the school district agreed to resolve this issue and remove all forms of religion from its daily activities. The school officials were also prohibited from incorporating official prayer at school events and from promoting personal religious beliefs onto students. The issue of incorporating religion in public schools is something that has occurred before in cases like Engle v. Vitale, where New York State put a law in place requiring all public schools to say a morning prayer every day, or Stone v. Graham, where the state of Kentucky made a law requiring all public schools to have a poster displaying the Ten Commandments. In both cases, the Supreme Court ruled that incorporating religion into public schools is unconstitutional and violates the Establishment Clause. The federal district court remained consistent with the Supreme Court, in this case, ultimately ruling that the actions of the Smith County School District were completely unconstitutional.
I agree with the federal district court’s decision because I do not believe that religion should have any place within public schools unless it is being taught from a secular context, like in a history class. Hedy Weinberg, the executive director of the ACLU of Tennessee explained the importance of this case perfectly, stating that “families should be making the decisions about whether and how to educate their children about religion, not public schools. Today’s consent decree ensures that the Smith County schools will be focused on providing quality education to all students, regardless of their religious beliefs.” The actions of the Smith County School District were a clear violation of the Establishment Clause and the courts recognized this. When religion, typically Christianity, is incorporated into public schools, it alienates students who do not believe in that religion. This alienation can coerce students to agree with a religion that is not theirs and can create a religiously exclusionary or hostile environment for those who continue to not agree. Like Hedy Weinberg said, students and their families should be able to decide how they want religion to be a part of their lives. The Smith County School District is in no position to force religion onto its students. I believe that the federal district court made the right decision by prohibiting the Smith County School District from continuing its religious activities.
5 comments:
I agree that the Federal Courts made the right ruling and that it seems almost obvious that this school was exemplifying an establishment of religion. Not only were there religious symbols, prayers, and other activities in multiple school settings, but a school district is also full of children who the Court has argued are more likely to be coerced. In multiple cases regarding religion in schools, the Supreme Court has acknowledged that children are more likely to be coerced than adults because of the fear of being ostracized and the desire to fit in. Therefore, this case made the correct ruling in order to not violate the establishment clause.
I agree with the author's analysis of this case. Especially for young school children, as we've discussed before, it is necessary to refrain from biased practices that may compel them to conform to the majority of their peers despite their true beliefs. The state has a responsibility to protect those most vulnerable in our society, which I believe include children. Additionally, I think that the school's actions are a clear establishment of religion on behalf of the school, and, if the court were to protect their behavior, the state would be endorsing this distinct religious establishment. As the author eloquently puts it, the actions perpetrated and encouraged by the school are ones that directly advance the religious viewpoint they hold, not unbiased, educational information regarding religion that would aim to widen student's worldly perspectives. The latter should be the only permitted required usage of religion in schooling for all children.
I agree with Hallie's assessment of this case; it appears to be a clear violation of the Establishment Clause. I don't personally make the argument that children are way more vulnerable to coercion and that should be the defining reason to be hesitant. I think this is approach is somewhat degrading/disrespectful to children, who are still humans who can make decisions. I think the key here is this is a public school, and that should be the focus. Public schools are a representation of the state, and such symbols, Bible verses, prayers, etc are clear endorsements of religious activities, and thus violate the Establishment Clause.
I also agree with the author that this is a clear violation of the establishment clause. These activities clearly preference the christian religion and I can see how I would feel uncomfortable attending these schools. If parents and school authorities really want religion to be this involved with education they should either send their kids to or work at a private religious school where that is acceptable. As Julia correctly points out the key point in this case is that this is a public school which is representative of the state. This clear establishment of religion directly violated the point of the establishment as students are clearly coerced to partake in religious activities.
I agree with what everyone is saying and that this was clearly going against the establishment clause of the first ammendment of our constitution. Because this school was public it is connected to the state, and having any religious teachings, especially ones that favor certain religions, directly going against the seperation of church and state. The parents have a right to be mad, as they chose not to send their children to catholic school, and therefore their children should not be taught religious things.
Post a Comment