In the court case, Morgan vs. Swanson, a student, Jonathon had a winter-break Christmas party in his third-grade classroom. During this Christmas party, students were allowed to have a gift exchange. As part of Jonathon’s contribution, he wanted to hand out candy cane ink pens that held a religious message. The religious message that was encapsulated with his gift was about the “Legend of the Candy Cane.” The message explained the “J” shape for Jesus and turned upside down was the shepherd's staff. The message explained the colors of the candy cane that represented the purity of Jesus and his blood that was shed for the sins of the world. The flavor of the candy cane was mentioned in Jonathon’s message as peppermint that was used in the Old Testament of the Bible for purification and sacrifice. Basically, the overall message of Jonathon’s candy cane gifts were, “So, every time you see a candy cane, remember the message of the candy maker: Jesus is the Christ!”
Additionally, As evangelical Christians, the Morgans state that their faith “strongly emphasizes the personal nature of personal evangelism and dissemination of religious viewpoint material.”
After Jonathon’s parent’s heard from other parents that school officials would not allow Jonathon to distribute his gift, the parents set up a meeting with the principal. Principal Swanson confirmed the other parents' suspicions that Jonathon would not be able to distribute his gift in class, but he could leave it in the library table as an alternate spot, or offer non-religious items in the classroom.The school district verified the principal's decision by emailing the parents stating PISD’s policies which prohibited distribution of “any written material, tapes, or other media, over which the school does not exercise control and that is intended for distribution to students” without prior approval from the school. Therefore, students were not able to hand out their gifts in bags. With that being said, the district denied that only religious gifts were being forbidden. However, students in Jonathon’s class still handed out goodie bags. Based on this, the Morgans stated that Jonathon was the only student forbidden from distributing his gift due to the religious aspect of his gift.
Although the basis for this case could be argued in terms of Free Speech, is there a notable religious aspect that has to also be considered. That being said, did Principle Swanson violate Jonathon’s Free Exercise of Religion by refusing to distribute his gift because of the religious aspect to it?
In terms of free exercise, I believe that the principle did violate his free exercise because the gift was specifically eliminated because of the religious aspect. Looking at Lamb’s Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District, a similar aspect of a religious affiliated activity was called into question because a religious group wanted to show a movie that was religious oriented. It was held at a public facility during non-school hours. The Supreme Court sided with Lamb’s Chapel because the school could not deny the forum based on a religious viewpoint. From this, I applied this concept to Jonathon’s case because he merely had a gift that came from his religious viewpoint. Since Jonathon was trying to give his religious gift also during non-school hours, or in his case winter-break, there would be a less compelling argument in the school’s need to interfere in worrying of violating the Establishment clause.
There is a lack of viewpoint neutrality within Jonathon’s case. All of the other students were allowed to bring in gift bags, except Jonathon’s gift because of the religious aspect. Therefore, the principle single-handedly discriminated against his religious viewpoint. This could also be considered constitutional discrimination, of free speech and under free speech is religous free speech. In another case, Tinker v. Des Moines, a student wore black armbands at school in order to protest the Vietnam War. The principal at this school heard about the armbands and if the students wore them, they were to be suspended. The students’ parents sued the school for violating their right to free speech. The Supreme Court defended the students saying that neither students nor teachers “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” The only exception would be speech that could potentially disrupt the learning environment. Applying this case to Morgan vs. Swanson, I believe that Jonathon’s freedom of religious expression through his means of giving gifts of religious orientation at school was violated when the principal denied him the right to do so. Also, Jonathon’s religious views do not magically disappear when he arrives at school, and the Supreme Court says that his expressions and beliefs should not have to. If a part of Jonathon’s religion “strongly emphasizes the personal nature of personal evangelism,” then his evangelical gift should have been allowed. I also believe that there would be no potential harm in letting Jonathon bring his gift because there could be no potential disruption of the learning environment because Jonathon’s Christmas party takes place outside of school hours and on winter break.
Do you agree that Principal Swanson violated Jonathon’s Free Exercise, and if so, to what extent? Was Swanson clearly discriminating on the basis of Jonathon’s religon in not allowing him to distribute the religous message that his gift was based upon?
13 comments:
Yes, I do believe Principal Swanson violated Jonathon’s Free Exercise rights by not allowing him to distribute his gifts. Although his gifts do have a religious element to them, it is very clear that the school wouldn’t be endorsing religion just allowing it, if they allowed him to hand out the gifts. The school wouldn't be spending any money on the gifts, just allowing Jonathon to hand them out. Additionally, even though the school stated that they needed to approve all gifts being handed out in goodie bags before they were actually handed out, it is clear that didn’t happen. Therefore it’s clear that Swanson was discriminating based on the religious message in Jonathon’s gift.
Great post! I believe that Principal Swanson violated Jonathon's Free Exercise rights, similarly too Julia. Jonathon was passing out gifts, which students of other religious beliefs do not have to accept. Jonathon was doing a kind gesture by giving the children gifts, and if the students do not like the gift they can get rid of them (hopefully not in Jonathon's face). I do not see this any differently than Jehovah's witnesses spreading the word of their savior. There is no governmental intervention in either instance, as the school did not pay for Jonathon's gifts.
This was a really interesting post! I think Principal Swanson did not violate Jonathon's Free Exercise rights because when it comes to children the First Amendment becomes gray. Moreover, if he handed out these gifts and a student asked what the message meant the teacher might have to get involved and therefore involving school teachers. As well, I think the alternative to having the gift in the library was justified.
Nice post! You did a great job overviewing the case, as well as providing your analysis and including relevant analytical categories. I agree that this is definitely a restriction of free exercise. I do not think there is any issue of the school being perceived as establishing religion through the religious sentiment included in one child's gift bag. This case reminds me of Luke's blog post involving Elizabeth Turner and Hillsdale High School. Turner was named valedictorian and thus gave a speech at graduation, but her speech was initially rejected by administration due to its religious nature. However, neither Turner nor Jonathon are employed by the school in any capacity, so it is not as though they are using the school's platform or authority in order to push their own religious views. Rather, both were within their free exercise rights despite pushback from the schools.
Great post! I also believe that this is a violation of Johnathan's free exercise. I think the fact that it is an open forum should allow him to express his religion. Any other child could have done the same thing as well. I also do not think this boy expressing the origin of the candy cane is any different then the class celebrating Christmas in general. This is also not a neutral policy because no other child had their gift be censored except him. Overall, I think that not allowing Johnathan to pass out his gifts is a violation of his free exercise.
Nice job outlining the case and relating to other relevant cases! I think this case is very representative of a time where non-religion gets privileged over religion (through the distribution of only non-religious goodie bags), where those who are religious are just asking to be treated ‘equal’ (i.e. the distribution of both religious and non-religious goodie bags). I agree with your conclusion that the Principal violated his Free Exercise by choosing to solely not allow Jonathan to distribute his goodie bag and discriminating against his religious viewpoint. Furthermore, it does not constitute an establishment of religion because the school is not supporting or endorsing the message on the candy canes, but is merely accommodating religion by allowing him to pass it out. I wonder if there was more variety amongst the distributed goodie bags with regards to messages of different religions if this would have been an issue.
Great post! I definitely agree that Johnathan was just exercising his freedoms. The candy canes are not sponsored by the school specifically and so I think this allows Johnathan to practice his freedom of religion. Not allowing them due to the message seems like viewpoint discrimination and is in violation of his free exercise. I do think there is something to be said about children being influenced, but, based on strictly the facts of the case, I would say not allowing Johnathan to pass out the candy canes would be a violation of his First Amendment rights.
I wonder if this would have still happened if Johnathan had not outwardly explained how the shape of the candy cane connects to certain religious aspects? Further, I do not believe Principle Swanson violated Jonathon's Free Exercise rights. I think if the gifts were simply just handed out that would be one thing, but since Johnathan explicitly mentioned its connection to Christianity, this is where the line between church and state starts to get crossed. I think this call for the complete removal of religiosity within the classroom is harsh, but indeed necessary.
Great post! I agree that Principal Swanson violated Jonathon’s Free Exercise rights by not allowing him to distribute his gifts simply because he chose to explain the religious connotation of the candy cane. I understand this case dealt with the Free Exercise clause, however, I am curious how the court would have decided if the focus was on the Establishment Clause. In other words, were Principal Swanson’s actions out of a compelling state interest to avoid the sponsorship of religious messages in public schools?
This was a really interesting post! I agree that Principal Swanson’s actions violated Jonathon’s ability to freely exercise his religion. It is important to note that Jonathon’s gift was the only one that was denied by the school because it was religious. Even though this took place on school property, the party took place over winter break making it non-school hours. Based off of the similar circumstances in Lamb’s Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District, and the decision made in that case, I believe that the same should apply here ultimately making this a violation of Jonathon’s free exercise.
This was a great post! I believe you did a great job defending Jonathon and his freedom to free exercise but I think this should be more of an issue of establishment. A teacher is a person of power would this gesture not be him trying to establish a religious belief if anything at all? Just something to think about.
This is a very interesting case at the intersection of the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses. However, I do not believe that Jonathan's free exercise rights were violated. While the party was happening during a break, it is hard to compare it to any of the prior cases, including Lamb's Chapel. First, Lamb's chapel involved a religious group seeking to show a video to people intending to attend an event hosted by said religious group. This is a crucial difference when compared to Jonathan's party. The students were there to celebrate with their fellow classmates, not to be taught or exposed to religion. Also, there is a larger burden against religion in regards to children. They are more susceptible to religious ideas that may go against their family's wishes or personal religious views. Jonathan's right to free exercise was not violated because he was using a more strongly protected forum to provide religious content to his fellow classmates without them or their families having prior knowledge of the religious nature of his gift.
I somewhat believe that Jonathan's rights were violated under the Free Exercise Clause. In the case that this action wasn't during school hours, and he was just projecting his beliefs, it can be seen that not allowing him to do so is viewpoint discrimination. On the other hand, I do see and partially agree with the fact that Jonathan's actions were portrayals of his parents' beliefs and were influentially coercive to the other children in his class.
Post a Comment