On February 2, two homeroom teachers at Huntington High School in West Virginia brought their class to an Evangelical Christian revival at the school. The teachers brought their entire class and required that students attended. The principal and assistant principal were present at the assembly. At the event students were told to close their eyes, raise their hands and pray. They were also asked to turn their lives over to Jesus and to find purpose in salvation. The leaders of the prayer also told the students that if they did not follow the Bible they would go to “face eternal damnation”. Finally, students were encouraged to attend a nearby church where they had the opportunity to be baptized. One student who attended the event, who was Jewish, asked to leave and was told that he was required to stay. The group who held the event, Nik Walker Ministries, held a similar event at Huntington East Middle School the day before. Last week, students held a walk out, in which one hundred students took part, protesting that the assembly violated the separation of church and state. Jedd Flowers, a spokesperson for the Cabell County Schools, told the Associated Press that the assembly was supposed to be voluntary, but two teachers made an honest mistake.
A group of about a dozen parents, with the help of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, are suing the Cabell County Board of Education, its superintendent, and Huntington High School principal Daniel Gleason. The suit claims that allowing the event to happen during the school day violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The plaintiffs are seeking for the district to be barred from sponsoring any religious events, having any adult-led religious events during the school day, or participating in any religious events with the students during the school day.
The constitutional issue that is at contention here is if the teachers requiring their students to attend a religious event during the school day violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Further, the Freedom From Religious Foundation argues that the issue is that the school would even hold a religious event on school grounds during the school day. The students also argue that the event is a violation of the separation of church and state.
There are multiple cases that deal with the issue of prayer taking place in public schools and whether requiring students to attend such events is a violation of the Establishment Clause. In Abington Township v. Schempp, the Supreme Court ruled that public schools could not sponsor Bible readings or recitations under the Establishment Clause. McCollum v. Board of Education looked at a program in Illinois in which students had “released time” where they left class and took part in religious events on school grounds. The Supreme Court went further on their ruling in Abington Township v. Schempp, ruling that it was unconstitutional to use school property for religious purposes. Finally, in Engel v. Vitale, the Supreme Court further upheld their previous rulings on prayer in schools ruling that the state can not hold prayer in public schools, even if attendance is not required.
I believe that the result of this case is that Huntington High School violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The parents initially argued that the fact that students were required to attend the prayer was the constitutional issue, but I would go further to say that just holding the prayer at all is a clear violation of the students constitutional rights. Previous rulings have made it clear that public schools are not allowed, under the Constitution, to hold any prayers that take place on public school property. In this case, the public school did not only hold the prayer on school grounds, but teachers requiring their students to attend is a clear attempt to establish a religion through public means. Students were asked to participate in prayer and told if they did not accept Jesus, they would “face eternal damnation”. This is a very transparent effort by the teachers to establish and promote religion. Students were also coerced into attending, which has been determined to be a violation of students’ constitutional rights. There is also a clear violation of the separation of church and state. Holding a religious event on school property creates too much entanglement between church and state and is a clear constitutional violation. Based on all of these facts, as well as rulings in previous Supreme Court cases involving similar situations, I believe that the court should rule this a violation of the Establishment Clause and disallow the school to hold any future religious events such as the assembly that took place.
Sources:
https://www.npr.org/2022/02/18/1081678752/west-virginia-school-christian-assembly-lawsuit
https://ffrf.org/news/news-releases/item/40508-breaking-ffrf-with-students-parents-sues-huntington-w-va-schools-over-christian-revival
https://www.wfxrtv.com/news/regional-news/west-virginia-news/lawsuit-filed-against-cabell-county-schools/
6 comments:
I agree that the teachers were wholly in violation of the student's constitutional rights in forcing and mandating them to attend this religious event. However, if the event was not mandatory and the mandate was solely due to an error on the teacher's part, then those teachers should be reprimanded, not the school or school district. I recall when a friend of mine was dying of cancer in high school, he was a catholic, and the majority of the community was protestant, with some jews and a few muslims. We held prayers at the flagpole outside of the building each morning for him until he passed, it was entirely voluntary, and the local priest even came to lead the prayers, and even though it wasn't mandatory, everyone from all faiths attended for our dying classmate. I see how this case is similar but does have differences, I just feel that the burden should be held on the teachers who coerced the students not the school as a whole.
I agree with your arguments. I believe this is an unconstitutional violation of the Establishment Clause for two main reasons. First, the opening paragraph of this blog post makes it clear that these children were required to attend this religious assembly. Not only were they required to attend, but they were coerced into saying prayers through threats of damnation. It was clear that some students were uncomfortable, yet they were required to stay at the assembly. Secondly, we can draw from the ruling in the famous Shempp v. Abington Township case to understand that sponsored religious activities in schools are unconstitutional. While this prayer was not on school grounds, the children did not have an option to leave. If this prayer was optional, we would be facing a different issue. But the issue at hand is very clear to me. These children were forced to violate their religious convictions.
I likewise believe that Cabell County Board of Education violated the Establishment Clause. Even though the coercion was on behalf of the teacher, the school is responsible for its employees. It ought to be proactive in protecting the rights of its students and ensuring that public employees abide by the laws surrounding religion. Since the religious trip was both sponsored by the school and a mandatory event, I see a clear violation of separation of Church and State. Through this action, the school is promoting Evangelical Christianity. Moreover, the teachers, in mandating prayer, are violating the Free Exercise Clause. I also see a parallel with Kennedy v. Bremerton School District. Although this football couch held completely voluntary prayer, courts still deemed such as a violation of the Establishment Clause. Overall, I agree that this case is a clear infringement upon the First Amendment protection of Free Exercise and the Establishment Clause.
I agree with the prior comments that the Cabell County Board of Education undoubtedly violated the Establishment Clause. One of the deciding factors that deems this unconstitutional, is because the the high school is public not private. Worship, prayer, or any religious integration or establishment acts as the government forcing religion into education. This is because the teachers are paid and employed by the government, therefore the school district allowing such acts of wordship would be directly enacting religion as a regular (and mandatory) part of the students curriculum. When students attend public school, they are signing up to receive a public and secular education, one that is independent of religion. If students were interested in engaging in that type of curriculum they have the option to attend private school. Additionally, students should not be forced to worship something they may not believe, and threatening they will face eternal damnation if they do not follow. These matters solidify the idea that the church and the state are not separate, rather integrated and dependent.
I am not really sure how someone would disagree that this is a violation of the First Amendment, especially since teachers required their students to literally pray and say they would go to hell if they didn't follow Jesus. To take the 'for the children' stance, children are very vulnerable to authority figures words. As someone who was raised Catholic, I know how terrifying these talks about sin, death, heaven, and hell can be. I can only imagine how much more terrifying it would be if what I am hearing goes against my religious views or my parent's religious views.
The fact that the school said this was a voluntary program is irrelevant to the case, in my opinion. Those teachers who required it proved otherwise. Now, if it were actually voluntary, this would be more of a debate. If teachers did not encourage the event and it took place, I feel as though there would not be a violation, so long as they also had opportunities for other religious groups to come in. Paul's comment says he wants the teachers to be held responsible instead of the school, and I disagree. The school knew this event was occurring and should have made it very clear to the teachers it was voluntary. The teachers are a direct reflection of the school, as the school hired them.
This seems like a pretty clear cut case. The president cases provided clearly show that the Supreme Court has ruled that students cannot be forced to take part in any form of prayer or religious instruction in public schools, and the fact that this assembly was required makes it a clear violation of the Establishment Clause. Not only were the students forced to attend the service, which someone could argue could just be an important exposure to religion and a valuable lesson, they were forced to bow their heads and prey, which clearly forces the students to engage in beliefs to which they do not necessarily prescribe.
Post a Comment