Creekside Elementary School located in Sammamish, Washington has become a topic of debate recently. Two Creekside Elementary students by the names of L.A.W and J.W. wanted to start an interfaith prayer club. L.A.W. had a difficult experience as a religious student in fifth grade and therefore wanted to start the club so students like her would have a space after school where they were safe and welcomed. It must also be noted that this club was open to everyone no matter their faith background, and had allocated time for prayers and community service.
L.A.W and her mom met twice with the principal of creekside. She highlighted how the club was open to all grades and faiths with the main overacting goal to make students feel included and a good way to help the community. Also signifying that if a sponsor was needed she knew staff and adults who would be able to help. She was promptly told by the principal that funding for school clubs was allocated in October and she missed the deadline but one week earlier a Pride Club was formed in the school. The principal in a follow up meeting and said she could pay to use the school during after hours. Other students club did not have to pay, the principal said "I am sorry, I just can't tell you what you want to hear". She tried one last time later by emailing the principal and was never responded too.
L.A.W. claimed that denying the formation of a religious student group while allowing others violated the Constitution. This to her was religious discrimination on a eleven year old girl who simply wanted to pray, and feel support from other friends while also doing community service.
Creekside Elementary School has stepped over the line in my opinion. The elementary school in my opinion is violating their free exercise of religion and speech. The first amendment strictly protects prayer from censorship. Not allowing L.A.W. the ability to form a group that doesn't even have a set religion and is fully include is as censoring as it gets. Their is no favoring of one religion over another religion. Along with that point their is zero inclination of coercion as well. The club is open to anyone and all prayers and beliefs are allowed. Not only are all prayers accepted but they are also encouraged. There is absolute no harm or foul play whatsoever. I also have issues with the school as they also violate the establishment clause. Very interestingly only short drive away from Bremerton, Washington. This is where the case of Kennedy v. Bremerton School District (2022) occurred where a football coach was fired for kneeling in prayer at the 50 yard line aft
er high school football games. While a little different in nature it is still applicable in way to my case. The Supreme Court ended up ruling 6-3 that the first amendment protects the rights of students and employees to express their faith in public schools. They stated that the establishment clause does not allow the government body to take hostile views of religion.
Treating non-religious clubs differently that the prayer club shows favoritism. Fellowship of Christian Athletes v. San Jose Unified School district (2023) is another highlight. The government may not single out religious groups. Treating a secular activity different than a religious is a direct violation of the free exercise clause. There is also the argument that they are treating the prayer club with hostility and in a very negative way. By straight up ignoring their pleas. There is no policies that are burdening them but the burden the principal if inflicting that doesn't exist. This shows directly how the government is failing to act neutrally when it proceeds in a manner intolerant of religious beliefs or restricts practices because of their religious nature. The suppression and discrimination is intense in my opinion. Also must be noted that offering time outside of school by paying for the school space is unlawful. Religious clubs must be afforded the same rights and respect as any other club at the school.
9 comments:
Hi Harry! Great post! It is interesting to see how the topics we cover in class are still prevalent in today's world. I am personally conflicted as to which argument I would side with. On one hand, I do understand the Establishment Clause concerns in which public funds are being used to sponsor religious meetings. However, the school and its authorities did not cite this reason as a concern and why the club could not be approved. They came to different conclusions, which is why I can understand your point as to how you believe this is viewpoint discrimination. The school has created a limited public forum by allowing all types of school clubs to meet and use school facilities after hours. As prior Court precedents suggest, the school would be in the wrong since it is discriminating and prohibiting religious groups to use the same resources afforded to other groups. This would then violate the Free Exercise rights of these students. I would also like to point out that the group was open to all faiths. It was not just one singular faith meeting in school buildings to pray. In practice the club was neutral with all faiths. However, it can then be said that school officials were discriminating against all faiths and in practice the policy was facially neutral. But in the end I do believe that I agree with your analysis in that this school violated these students' First Amendment rights.
Hi Harry,
This was a very interesting post. I agree with your holding that the students First Amendment rights were violated upon being denied club acceptance. I believe that the general neglect of the principal to recognize the child and parent’s request for this club, as well as the simultaneous acceptance of a secular club are suspicious details that imply the neglect of religious requests and holdings. I find it interesting that this issue can be seen as an Establishment Clause issue as well as a Free Exercise one. I fully understand the conflict that the student is facing based on religious beliefs and holdings being diminished, but the statement that this is an Establishment Clause violation makes me wonder about the logistics of the manner in which the clubs at Creekside Elementary School operate. Ultimately, this was a strong argument and I do agree with your holding.
This is a very interesting case regarding the students at Creekside elementary school and the desire to create a prayer club that would be open to all religions and types of individuals. One aspect I wanted to clarify was if the Pride Club that was established is using funding from the school or if they are paying to use the school facilities like the principal suggested for L.A.W to do with the prayer club. If the Pride Club received their funding from the school then I agree with your argument that this was a violation of L.A.W’s First Amendment rights. If the principal is allowing exceptions for other clubs but not a religious club it is clearly showing hostility towards religion which is not neutral and not constitutional.
Harry, this was an interesting post. I agree with you that Creekside Elementary School violated the free exercise rights of the two students. Although Principal Allison never explicitly said the students were prohibited from starting the club due to its religious nature, her allowance of secular clubs, like the Pride one, to form just a week beforehand, leads me to believe that the school was not acting neutral. In Christian Legal Society v. Martinez (2010), the Supreme Court used a limited public forum analysis to argue that a public educational institution can withhold official recognition of a club, if doing so is both viewpoint-neutral and reasonable for the forum. In this case, the school does not seem to be viewpoint-neutral and I do not believe that they have provided a compelling enough reason as to why the fully-inclusive club should not be allowed to receive the funding. L.A.W and J.W. are not asking for special treatment, they are simply asking for their club to be granted the same resources that other clubs at the school are given.
Hi Harry! This was a really interesting post. Similar to Anthony, I am not sure which side I would chose. While this does seem to be a violation of the child's Free Exercise rights, I also see this as a conflicting interest with the Establishment Clause. It seems the principal provided the family with the option to fund their own club, as no public government funds would then be endorsing a religious activity on government property. This seems to be somewhat neutral, as they would be allowing for the club to happen as long as no government funding goes to a non secular activity. On the other hand, it does seem that the school approached this request with certain hostility towards a religious club, whereas secular clubs they allowed the request to join just one week earlier, which leads me to suggest the school did not want to endorse any religion, regardless of who this forum was open to. Additionally, it seems that there would be no issues of coercion or discrimination, as anyone regardless of their religious background would be free to join at any time. This seems pretty neutral to me. This case certainly is hard to look at as it seems to be a hybrid case involving both Free Exercise issues along with Establishment Clause protections. Therefore, I feel I would need to further read into what Justices said in their opinions in this case and further hear both sides. This was a challenging and interesting case, good job!
Great post Harry! You picked a case that had me drawn in from the title. I agree with your reasoning that Creekside Elementary School violated the student's rights under the first exercise clause. There were concerns with the free exercise and establishment clauses in this case. The students thought it was their right to freely exercise their religion forming this club. This club was open to all students but had no coercion. On the other hand, the principal did not want to establish a religion in a public school. Although the principal might have had an argument, the school approached the club with hostility in the student's eyes stripping their free exercise rights. All in all, I agree with your standing on this case.
Great post Harry. I agree with your take that Creekside had infringed upon the two students' rights to free exercise. The Principal Allison never stated clearly that students could not form the club because of its religious orientation, but the fact that she allowed secular clubs, such as the Pride club, to form a week in advance makes me think the school was not operating impartially. The school definitely seemed bellicose towards the club strictly because it was religious. The club was completely voluntary and not hurting anyone, and allowed membership to all students. I agree with your stance that this ultimately was a violation of their free exercise and that the school was perhaps overly hostile to them.
I agree with you Harry. I don't really see a way in which the precedence would rule that this case should not be in favor of the students. I understand it's important to make sure that these clubs are not indoctrinating students, but if she is choosing to make a club to simply learn about religion and have time for prayer, I don't see how that could be allowed to be trampled on.
Harry, I think this post especially relates to a lot of what we have discussed in class! The situation reminds me to think of Lemon v. Kurtzman and the Lemon Test to determine if a law or government action violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Most relevant to your argument in this case, the test requires that any government action must not advance or inhibit religion.
In the case of Creekside Elementary, it seems that denying L.A.W. the opportunity to start an interfaith prayer club while allowing other clubs constitutes favoritism towards secularism and could potentially fail the Lemon Test. By denying L.A.W. the ability to form a club that promotes inclusivity and community service, the school may very well be inhibiting religion, especially when other clubs are allowed without similar hurdles. Additionally, the Equal Access Act of 1984 guarantees that public schools receiving federal funds must provide equal access to extracurricular clubs, regardless of their religious or secular nature. Denying L.A.W. the opportunity to start an interfaith prayer club could be interpreted as a violation of this act.
All that being said, it is my opinion that you are justified in your analysis of this case. Through the lens of the Establishment Clause, Creekside Elementary seems to be inhibiting religion and thus violating the clause. This can be concluded through multiple avenues, one of which supports that the school is not viewpoint-neutral and treats secular extracurriculars differently than religious extracurriculars. Great post!
Post a Comment