Avoiding an Establishment or Viewpoint Discrimination?

In May of 2022, a young woman named Elizabth Turner threatened legal action against her school, Hillsdale High School, of which she was the valedictorian, on the grounds that they were attempting to unreasonably abridge her right to freely exercise her religious beliefs. When Turner, a devout Christian, submitted her valedictorian speech to the school principal, Amy Goldsmith, for approval, it was denied on the grounds that it made such extensive reference to Turner’s faith that it was inappropriate for a secular public school graduation address. The speech was undeniably religious in nature, with Turner making many overt references to her faith in Christ and desire to live in accordance with her Christian upbringing, mentioning that her hope and future was found in Christ. However, at no point during the speech did Turner encourage others to become Christian or imply that her beliefs were in any way superior to those of her peers. Through further exchanges, Ms. Turner explained that she was unwilling to remove the references to Christ and her faith, which Goldsmith had set as a condition of accepting the address, reasoning that the content of her speech was constitutionally protected, and forcing her to make such alterations would be illegal. Ms. Goldsmith disagreed, countering that Turner was acting as an agent of the school, which was constitutionally obligated to be religiously neutral, especially in such a public address. 

Unable to reach an agreement, Turner sought legal counsel from the First Liberty Institute, a freedom-of-religion advocacy group, who, in turn, reached back out to Goldsmith in an open letter. The Institute reasoned that a valedictorian speech was private, rather than government-speech, so it could not, by very nature, count as an act of religious establishment. They further argued that, since concern of violating the establishment clause could not reasonably be sustained, prohibiting Turner from including such references to her spirituality in the speech would be preferencing non-religion over religion, which is prohibited in accordance with the Good News Club v. Milford decision. Goldsmith ultimately relented and Turner was allowed to read her original, unaltered speech during Hillsdale's commencement in June of 2022.

Given the decisive conclusion brought about by the swift action of First Liberty Institute, it is highly unlikely that the events of this case will ever be taken to open court or established as legal precedent. Despite this, the case does present some interesting and unique questions, notably, whether or not First Liberty Institute correctly assumed that Turner would be operating as a private-speaker while delivering her valedictory address, rather than a government-speaker. As it is commonly understood, a valedictorian’s purpose is to provide an inspiring farewell to his or her graduating class, and is not expected to provide any educational instruction that would typically be provided by the school. Similarly, a valedictorian is assumed to be speaking from their own experiences and attempting to provide a unique or novel interpretation of the significance of graduating from high school, rather than outlining the school’s stance on this question. The official school commentary on the graduation is traditionally also given during the commencement exercises, but by an administrator, so a distinction between the school’s opinions and the opinions of the speaker are clearly made for all in attendance to recognize. Through consideration of the distinct function of a valedictorian, it becomes clear to me that Turner’s speech falls under the umbrella of private-speech, and is significantly distinguished from the opinion of the public scholastic institution.

Since Turner’s independence from the school is established, the next question that we must consider is whether or not the school can still reject their valedictorian’s address on the grounds that it does not align with the format they desire such a speech to follow. In this case, I am convinced that doing so would count as viewpoint discrimination against Turner based on her religious convictions, which is very explicitly constitutionally prohibited. Since the references to God, Christ, and “His Kingdom,” were singled out by Goldsmith as the objectionable elements of the original proposed address, the school was distinctly targeting Turner’s religious convictions, rather than any broadly-applied content issue. In addition to violating Turner’s right to free exercise, I am exceptionally leery of the school’s apparent preference towards speech that does not include religious references, which is, itself, a violation of the establishment clause. The government is tasked with remaining neutral in issues of religion. This means neutrality between religions and between religion and non-religion, and I do not believe they remained neutral in Turner's case. Thankfully, the situation was quickly rectified.