Tuesday, October 4, 2022

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.

5 comments:

  1. Luke, interesting article. I agree with the schools’s decision to allow Goldsmith to say her original speech including the religious viewpoint in it because of the First Liberty Institute’s argument that a valedictorian speech is a private matter since Goldsmith is not a government official. However, I do see the school’s worry about breaking the establishment clause; Due to the reason for and nature of the event, being it for a public high school, and having the event be openly endorsed by the school, would the public believe the school is endorsing her religion? It may make some of the attendees of the event wonder.

    Additionally, although I ultimately agree with the decision to allow Goldsmith to say her original speech. I would disagree with the Institution’s argument that the decision of the Good News Club v. Milford Central School district could be used as precedent. Although both of these situations are occurring after school hours, in the Good News Club scenario, it was very clear that the school had no association with or endorsement of the club. Whereas in this situation, a graduation is clearly endorsed and associated with the public school. I believe the public high school involved in the situation at hand has a stronger argument than the Good News Club’s school did in whether or not they would be breaking the establishment clause.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Luke, this was a great post to read. I don't fully agree with the school's decision on the grounds that there is clearly no division between church and state here. It appears that Hillsdale High School is a public school, not a private one, therefore funded by taxpayer dollars. I think her speech may have been a bit inappropriate seeing as how you said it yourself, a valedictorian’s purpose is to provide an inspiring farewell to their graduating class and is not expected to provide any educational instruction, especially at a public school event. This might insinuate that the school, by allowing her speech, is favoring one particular religion. On the other hand, I can see why the school would worry about the establishment clause, but also what about those graduating students who don't share the same beliefs?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Great Post. I think you have very valuable comments. I would have to agree with the decision to let Turner read her speech. As mentioned in the post her speech did not have any indication that she was trying to encourage others to be christian or imply that her beliefs were superior. Instead she talked about her religion as an anecdote for how she got through her high school years, which is exactly what the speech is meant to convey. The speech is supposed to be an individuals experience, lessons, and take aways from high school. By not letting her say the speech the school is violating Turners First Amendment rights. In addition not letting her give her speech is viewpoint discrimination. There is a possibility that people in the audience could maybe feel uncomfortable by her speech, however there are no constitutional rights that protect uncomfortableness, but rather there are protected rights regarding speech and therefore I agree the right decision was to let Turner read the speech. I understand that there is confusion here because it is a secular school, and I agree there needs to be a division of church and state. However, in this instance the question of viewpoint discrimination and free speech is more prominent.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Great post and nice job outlining the facts of the case! The same concerns arose for me as well, especially with regards to the ability of the school to remain neutral in the face of both religious and non-religious speech. Moreover, there seems to be no extensive limits placed upon secular language within these speeches. Therefore, in efforts to remain neutral, I think it was necessary for the school to allow her to say her speech. I also agree that it would constitute viewpoint discrimination if she was prohibited from conducting her speech, as her intent is to incorporate religion into her our experience throughout school rather than promulgating her beliefs onto others or forcing them to engage in religious activities. By prohibiting her from saying her speech, I believe it can lead to a slippery slope with regards to the regulation of religious speech on school grounds in general.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I interpreted this case as being an issue of first amendment rights, rather than the establishment clause, as it is regarding a private individual, and not a public entity. This case made me think of Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, however, I feel that the key difference in these cases is the issue of a student of a public school exercising their religious freedoms in a public school, rather than an employee of said public school. I agree with the school's decision in this case as the student is a private individual while at school, while an employee is not. And in addition to this, the student does not have the same ability to influence or pressure others into conforming to beliefs as an authority figure. In the speech, it was clear that one individual was sharing their unique experience and was not establishing any beliefs.

    ReplyDelete