Huntington High School located in Cabell County, West Virginia held an evangelical Christian revival at school. The mini revival took place during ‘COMPASS’, which is a scheduled, “noninstructional” break during the school day. During this time, students are allowed to study, do other work, or listen to guest speakers that are scheduled to visit that day. On February 2nd 2022, Huntington High invited evangelical preacher Nik Walker to speak at the school. Two teachers mistakenly believed the assembly was mandatory and took their entire classes to the event which required about fifteen students to attend who had not signed up. At the event, Nik Walker instructed students to close their eyes and raise their arms in prayer. Additionally, students say they were asked to give their lives over to Jesus to find purpose and salvation, and if they did not follow the Bible they would go to hell. The Cabell County Spokesperson, Jedd Flowers, explained the event was supposed to be voluntary with a sign-up sheet, and it was organized by the school’s chapter of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes and not the school itself.
Aside from the actions of these two teachers who apologized
for taking their students to the event, the sermon ignited a larger question of
does religious services on school property during school hours constitutes a
violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, regardless of the
event being voluntary or not?
When trying to answer this difficult question about the
constitutionality of a religious event on school grounds during school hours,
it is important to look to other cases that may offer a precedent on the
situation. In June of 1992, the Supreme Court decided in Lee v. Weisman
that the inclusion of clergy who offer prayers at official public-school
ceremonies violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Lee v.
Weisman is similar because it was a school event held on school grounds
during school hours. However, Huntington High made this event completely
optional, aside from the two teachers that incorrectly took their classes to the
event. Whereas in Lee v. Weisman, the ceremony was not optional and required
students to act in a manner that established a state religion. Additionally, this
case reminds me of McCollum v. Board of Education which tested the
principle of “released time”. For this case, the court also ruled that the
school program violated the Establishment Clause because the use of
tax-supported property for religious instruction and the close cooperation
between the school authorities and the religious council violated the constitutionally
required separation of church and state.
After reviewing these few cases, I believe the school is in
the wrong for allowing preacher Nik Walker to provide a sermon during COMPASS.
Even though the event was not mandatory, and it was a third party that invited him
to speak, the sermon still took place on school grounds during school hours. I
think that a precedent was set by McCollum v. Board of Education that religious
instruction of any kind is prohibited from taking place on public grounds
during school hours. The message offered by the preacher was clearly to the
effect of advancing religion, and the attendance of various school officials at
the event, including the principal, seems to foster an issue of excessive government
entanglement. If Huntington High School held the sermon after school hours or offered a students a way to the event off campus similar to the program instituted in Zorach v. Clauson, then this would not be an unconstitutional establishment of religion. However, school hours are a mandatory time for students to be present on public property, and therefore, any religious event that takes place during these hours on tax-funded property would be in violation of the First Amendment. The school was doing their best to prevent any establishment issues by making these events optional and sign up based, but in my opinion, religious events that take place during these times should never be allowed. Finally, I think that the mistake of the teachers proves even further why this shouldn't be allowed. Even though the teachers admitted they were in the wrong for mistakenly making this mandatory for their class, it would have never been an issue if the event wasn't allowed in the first place which only furthers the argument that this is unconstitutional.
8 comments:
In this post you do a great job of looking at past cases. However, one aspect I think you forget to analyze is how a reasonable observer would see the situation. Given the fact that two teachers were under the impression that the event was mandatory, I think one can assume that the reasonable observer would at least attribute a connection between the school and the religious teaching. For this reason, as well as the ones you presented, I agree that the inclusion of this practice at the school violates the Establishment Clause.
Religious sermons, voluntary or not on public school property are unconstitutional when sanctioned by the state. The way I see it is, that if the government or officials ask or host a religious leader to come speak, it should only be for cultural/educational purposes to understand history or the cultural aspect and values in a religion or belief set. Sermons and conversion events should not be held in schools where there are children and young impressionable adults, but in other settings on government public property is acceptable where there can be an open forum for discussion and the freedom of expression.
I agree with Molly that you do a really good job at referencing past cases. The court set the precedent for Establishment Clause cases where it is unconstitutional for public schools to hold religious services during school hours. This ruling is definitely in line with the Supreme Court's standard and is a clear establishment of religion. I also agree with Paul that the content of the service is a significant factor in this case. Even if it was by accident, requiring Evangelical sermon's during school hours is coercion promotes specific Christian beliefs.
I agree with the points made in the comments and in the post. As we've seen times over and over, the stakes of the Establishment Clause are always raised in schools and this case is no different. It is simply not enough that the event was optional and sponsored by a third party. Since the assembly was during school time and in the school building, the McCollum decision must be upheld in this case. Coercion and peer pressure are valid interests to observe in this case and this along with the school time/setting make it a convincing break of the Establishment Clause.
This case reminds me of the McCollum v Board of Education case that you mentioned, where a similar situation was considered unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has already determined that tax-supported property cannot be used for religious instruction. Although in this case, there is not a recurring religious instruction taking place during school hours, I also believe this is an establishment. One can argue that guest speakers are allowed, so it is simply being neutral towards religion to allow a preacher. However, in public schools, I believe there needs to be a separation between church and state, especially in a case like this where a mistake by a teacher forced students to attend a prayer session involuntarily. Schools should be allowed to teach about religion, there does not need to be total hostility, but a preacher has no place speaking in a public school, especially not during school hours. This is a tax-supported, government endorsement of religious practice.
I agree with the comments above that this case does create an establishment of religion in the school system. As Katie mentions, this is a tax-supported, government endorsement of religious practice, which is unconstitutional. There is coercion present because these children are young and impressionable. This is a public school, not private, which therefore causes me to conclude that there is a greater interest at separating church and state than there is for this instruction to be permitted in a public school with young children. Reid does a great job referencing past cases and the precedents that they have set, which ultimately also aided my decision.
I have somewhat conflicted feelings about this case. Is Huntington a private or public school? If it is a public school, I think that it would be unconstitutional for a religious speaker to be brought in. However, if it was a private school, different rules apply. Additionally, since the event was voluntary, I do not think that it would be unconstitutional at a private school. Also, I appreciate all of the different cases that you cited, which made it much easier to analyze this case.
While I personally believe there should be restraint and perhaps fewer religious services being hosted in schools as voluntary, but I understand this case to quite possibly be legal for the school to hold onto religious demonstrations. As they are voluntary—save for the mix ups which should have teacher admonishment—the school is simply allowing a form of a limited public forum, being public land and such, in a gymnasium or hall for kids to even sign up for to attend. However, McCollum likely will end the case against the school as it is one of the direct precedents for religious demonstration in public schools, while Lee v Weisman continues that by putting religious prayer and sermon from an optional graduation, similar to the optional attendance at Huntington.
Post a Comment