Free Exercise and Equal Treatment in the Hopewell Valley FCA Dispute

\

How far should a public school go to make sure it is not promoting religion? That question is at the center of Fellowship of Christian Athletes v. Board of Education of the Hopewell Valley Regional School District. The case involves the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, or FCA, a Christian student organization. FCA argues that the school district restricted outside adult participation in its student group while allowing similar involvement in some secular student organizations. From FCA’s point of view, this means the district treated the religious club differently because of its religious character. The district, however, can argue that it was trying to avoid the appearance that the school itself was supporting or promoting Christianity. This creates a clear tension between the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause. Public schools cannot establish or promote religion, but they also cannot discriminate against students simply because their activities are religious. The main question is whether giving FCA the same opportunities as other student groups amounts to government endorsement of religion or simply equal treatment. 

FCA’s strongest argument is that the district is not acting neutrally. If adult mentors, volunteers, or guest speakers are allowed in secular organizations but completely prohibited in religious organizations, then religion is being treated differently. The Constitution does not require public schools to give religious groups special treatment, but it also should not allow schools to place extra restrictions on them just because religion is involved. A useful Supreme Court case for thinking about this issue is Board of Education of Westside Community Schools v. Mergens. In Mergens, a public high school allowed several noncurricular clubs but refused to recognize a Christian Bible club. The Supreme Court concluded that the Equal Access Act required the school to give the Christian club the same access as other student groups. An important part of the case is that allowing a religious student organization to meet does not automatically mean that the school endorses its beliefs. That idea seems very relevant here. If students choose to participate in FCA on their own, allowing an adult mentor to attend does not necessarily mean the school supports Christianity. Schools regularly allow clubs to have different viewpoints without officially agreeing with everything those clubs believe.

At the same time, I think the school district has a reasonable concern. This case involves middle and high school students, not adults at a university. Younger students may be more likely to believe that an adult participating in a school activity has the school’s approval. The district also has an interest in making sure that student clubs actually remain student-led instead of becoming controlled by outside organizations. A recent NJ Spotlight article by Seth Siditsky described the dispute as a question of whether the district unlawfully singled out religious clubs or was properly. That concern should not simply be ignored. However, I do not think it justifies a rule that singles out religious clubs. If the real concern is outside adults having too much influence over students, then the district could create one rule that applies to every student organization. For example, all clubs could be required to remain student-led, and outside adults could be limited to advisory roles. The school could also make clear that allowing a club to meet or inviting an outside mentor does not mean that the school agrees with the club’s message.

This is why I think neutrality is the most important part of the case. If the district had a rule saying that no outside adults could participate in any student club, that would be much easier to defend. The rule would apply equally to religious and nonreligious organizations. But if secular clubs are allowed adult mentors while religious clubs are not, then the district may be neutral only on paper and not in practice. The school should be able to set reasonable limits on all student groups, but the rules should not change depending on whether the activity is religious.

This case matters beyond one Christian club in New Jersey because public schools constantly have to balance avoiding government endorsement of religion with protecting students’ private religious expression. Those two goals do not have to conflict. In my view, the best approach is for schools to create clear rules and apply them equally to religious and nonreligious groups. Equal treatment of a religious organization should not automatically be seen as an establishment of religion. Sometimes, it is simply neutrality.

For that reason, I think FCA should prevail if it can prove that secular clubs are allowed similar adult involvement while religious clubs are not. The school has a legitimate interest in avoiding the appearance of endorsing religion, especially because minors are involved. But equal treatment of religious students is not the same as government endorsement of religion. If the same kind of outside involvement is acceptable for other student organizations, then it is hard to justify banning it only for FCA.