In 2022, a school district in West Virginia adopted a policy that effectively required yearly training on religious freedom as part of a lawsuit settlement, which was in response to many students being forced to attend an evangelical preacher's revival assembly during the school day. All of this happened in Cabell County, West Virginia, whose board of education claimed that it was “not the province of a public school to either inhibit, or advance, religious beliefs or practices.” There were in fact four separate families in this town of Huntington, West Virginia that sued the district in 2022, and accused the school system of having a history of disregarding the religious freedom of its students and inculcating Christian religious practices among their students. In this particular lawsuit, there were two Huntington High School teachers who had escorted their entire homeroom classes to a large assembly hosted by evangelical preacher named Nik Walker, who had consistently been leading revivals in the area.
There were a lot of students who reported this, and even a Jewish student who once requested permission to leave the preaching but was denied, and was instead directed to shut his eyes and lift his arms in prayer with his fellow students. This is outlined in the lawsuit so presumably it did indeed happen, as sworn in affidavits. There were even some students who were urged to “dedicate their lives to Jesus for purpose and salvation,” with a warning that any non adherents would face eternal torment. The lawsuit even describes scenarios where not only students, but also their families were prompted to participate in evening services at a nearby church, where baptism was offered. This became such a blatant violation of the students’ religious freedom that they ended up having a walkout at the high school, with hundreds of students protesting and chanting “My faith, my choice,” as well as “Separate the church and state.” The issue that all the students were concerned with, in relation to the constitutional law aspect, is that the schools behavior constituted an “establishment of religion” which is pretty clearly unconstitutional according to the establishment clause of the first amendment.
The school board lawyer in this case was a man named Brian Morrison, and he claimed that the event was promoted in school announcements as a sort of voluntary gathering organized by the FCA which is the fellowship of christian athletes. Morrison also noted that the two teachers who brought their entire homeroom were either confused or just misunderstood. And although the school board already technically had their own policy on religious freedom, Morrison pointed out that it now includes more clear and emphatic language that makes it clear to teachers that it's not their place to impede students' religious freedom. The upshot here is clearly to make it seem impossible to interpret the school board's policy as anything but completely in accordance with the principle of separation of church and state. The new policy mandates the district superintendent and principals to make good-faith efforts to monitor school sponsored activities for the sake of compliance with the new rule. Principals also have to report potential violations of the updated policy to the superintendent within at least a week, by which point the superintendent may opt to have the issue further investigated. A local news outlet 13 News, asked a parent named Herman Mays, whose child was forced to attend the revivals, said he was happy with the settlement, and that he felt it led to meaningful policy changes, enforcement, as well as sufficient training to prevent a recurrence of the events that occurred in the school district.
I agree with the outcome of this legal matter and I think the school's response was very professional and took into account the complaints of both the students and the parents. The more egregious part to me is the teachers allowing preachers to taunt students with the image of hell, threatening that their fates lie in an eternity of conscious torment in fire if not to submit to their authority. Obviously, this case is a good example of the American legal system achieving a settlement that lies in accordance with the religious principles upon which this country was founded from the constitution to the Treaty of Tripoli. However, I think it's worthy of note that these preachers and the teachers that supported their actions, were not only acting against secular democratic principles, but religious ones too. In this country, you reserve the right to believe whatever you want, and a key theme of this class is answering the question “do people have the right to be wrong.” But the reason these preachers were wrong in my view is because they deprived these students by the hundreds, of the chance to take their own leap of faith. Peter denied Jesus three times on the eve of his crucifixion, and Jesus let him do it. Jesus himself had the choice when he was in the desert for forty days. He could have chosen otherwise. He decided, and we decided, whether or not to give our lives to the father though the son, or to live freely as we wish. And they robbed these students of that.
Sources: https://www.wowktv.com/news/west-virginia/cabell-county-wv/west-virginia-school-system-mandates-religious-training-following-revival-assembly-lawsuit/
https://www.cbsnews.com/pittsburgh/news/west-virginia-school-system-mandates-religious-training-following-revival-assembly-lawsuit/
While I was glad to read the revision to the policy, it's original intention was clearly suppressive. Not only do I disagree on a moral basis, I firmly hold this policy to be unconstitutional. The goal of the 1st Amendment, as it pertains to religion, is to promote free exercise. Given numerous precedents established by the Supreme Court, this is clearly a violation of the students' 'free exercise clause' under the 1st Amendment. More specifically, and serving to further demonstrate the unconstitutionality, the school did not act neutral in regard to all religions.
ReplyDeleteTris, this was a very interesting post. I agree with you that the outcome of the case was the right decision. I believe that forcing Huntington High School students to attend the evangelical preacher’s assemblies were not only a violation of the students’ free exercise rights, but also constituted an establishment of religion. This case made me think of the 1962 Engel v. Vitale case that we read. Although this case is slightly different, I believe the actions in question can still be compared. In Engel v. Vitale, the Supreme Court ruled that although the Regents’ prayer was “non-denominational” and students had the opportunity to opt-out, the state of New York still violated the establishment clause. In this case, not only were students forced to remain in the room, but also the ideas being preached were clearly part of the evangelical faith. Therefore, it seems to me that Huntington High School violated the establishment clause. Additionally, the fact that students of different religious faiths were still required to attend the assemblies and even raise their hands in prayer, leads me to believe that the students’ rights to freely exercise their own religions were also violated.
ReplyDeleteGreat post! I think this case, as you mentioned, violates the constitution, and specifically neutrality in many ways. Not only does this case violate the neutrality between religion and secularism, but also Christianity and all other religions. Even if they school tried to argue that the teachers may have been 'confused' or 'misguided', it is still unconstitutional regardless of mistake or intentions. Simply put, as you elaborated on well, it was very clear that the Free Exercise rights of students were greatly impacted. Especially since the setting of this case is in a school, the rights of young children are being dealt with, which is also important to acknowledge.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the conclusion you have written that this was a violation of the First Amendment due to the establishment clause. The claim that Morrison made that the gatherings were “voluntary” seems as though they were hopeful this would stop them from receiving any backlash from the students. It was not true that this was voluntary as exemplified by the Jewish student who asked to leave and their requests were denied. While there are claims the teachers misunderstood the attendance policy of the meetings even if there are claims it was a mistake it is still unconstitutional. I also believe that this can be seen as a violation of the students free exercise clause as well since there were required to raise their hands in prayers. For some students these prayers may go against their religious beliefs and deepest convictions which would be a violation of the free exercise clause.
ReplyDeleteGreat Post Tris!
ReplyDeleteI thought you did a good job presenting the facts of the case and voicing your opinion at the end. I totally agree that the school was in the wrong here. Being a public school they made it mandatory for all students to attend these preachings regardless of their religion. This established a religion which is fround upon in the Constitution. I was surprised by how the school and the community was able to come to a common understanding. The school's new policy to make the district superintendent and principals make good-faith efforts to monitor school sponsored activities is great but this should already be a given. Public school should not have any school sponsored activity promoting a religion.
Tris,
ReplyDeleteYour post is very well-informed and highlights the crucial importance of upholding the Establishment Clause of the Constitution, which ensures the separation of church and state. This situation highlighted in Cabell County, West Virginia, clearly violated a constitutional principle and infringed upon the religious freedom of students.
The response from the school district, particularly the adoption of a policy mandating training on religious freedom and the enforcement measures to prevent future violations, in my opinion, reflects a necessary step towards upholding the religious rights of students in public education.
I particularly appreciate your reference to the biblical narratives of Peter's denial and Jesus's choice in the desert. It illustrates the importance of individual agency in matters of faith. Just as these biblical figures had the autonomy to make their own decisions, so too should every individual have the freedom to choose their spiritual path without undue influence or pressure, regardless of what path they choose.
Overall, I really enjoyed reading your post and following this newsline!
I really liked this post and found it to be very interesting. Tris makes a really cool point at the end that resonated with me about how Jesus decided wether to give his life to God and that these preachers plus teachers robbed these students of that privilege. This is a great example of separation of church and state. I agree that Cabell County directly violated a constitutional principle and violated those freedoms of the students. To do so in the manner they did only makes it worse. I think those teachers should be fired for forcing students the way they did. I feel like the school maybe got off easy as they should have since their founding made good faith efforts to monitor school sponsored activities. Overall cool topic and post.
ReplyDelete