The facts of this case are as follows: North Hill Elementary School in Des Moines, Washington have been reprimanding a second grade girl because of her consistent mentions of Jesus and the christian faith to her classmates during recess. The girl was sent to the principal's office or confronted by school staff on multiple occasions since the beginning of the year. School staff members also once searched the girl's backpack for religious literature the school opposes before she was allowed to enter the school. Other classmates had raised concerns because the young girl was saying that they “will go to hell because they do not listen to her, along with her concern about the fate of her own soul if she cannot help them” This caused the other students to cry and become noticeably upset. The student “was observed chasing another student to share scripture with them, standing on a picnic table shouting to students ‘Be saved or you are going to hell!” and getting into a disagreement with another student over her proselytizing.” The school received a complaint from a parent whose child had received a “religious pamphlet” from the student. This led to the search of the young girl's backpack on one occasion. The mother of the little girl saw the school faculty search her daughter's bag after dropping her off for school and immediately spoke to the principal. The mother was told that her child was not allowed to hand out certain religious material to students and that it was upsetting other parents. It is also important to note that Highline School District has a Freedom of Expression policy that restricts students from passing out information that could interrupt school activities "in an assembly or classroom setting" – not outside on the playground.
The issues this case raises have two parts. One issue is whether or not the school is violating the young girl's First Amendment right of Free Exercise by searching and reprimanding her for sharing her religious belief. The second issue is whether or not by allowing the girl to share her religious belief on school grounds they are setting up an establishment of religion.
I would argue the school is not violating the young girl's First Amendment Right of Free Exercise, and by allowing her to proselytize and hand out pamphlets along with threats would be establishing one religion over another in a public school setting. This is because of the effects of young children as we have seen in many supreme court cases that when it comes to young children and religion the court has to worry about coercion and peer pressure. In the case Minersville School District v. Gobitis young children were expelled for refusing to say the pledge because it goes against their religion. However, in this case the young girl is actively trying to pressure other students to adopt her faith which crosses the line from free exercise into coercion. Moreover, she is telling young children that they will go to hell if they do not adopt her faith and is handing out pamphlets which would create an establishment for the school. This also brings up the Supreme Court issue of Stone v Graham, where the public school could not allow for the ten commandments in each classroom because it would create an establishment of religion. I think this case is similar in some ways because it argues that there is no secular purpose in the Ten Commandments, as well as a religious pamphlet and by allowing for a pamphlet to be passed around favors one religion over all others. I bring up the issue of children again, because the young girl saying her classmates will go to hell if they do not share her belief brings to light the issue of peer pressure. Although the district has a law that says students are free to talk about what they want on the playground, it does not allow for coercion. Using the case Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, where the court ruled students cannot pray or lead prayer at public school football games because it violates the Establishment Clause. This case demonstrates similar characteristics. Although it seems unwise for the school to search the girl's bag, they are within their constitutional rights to search her bag as she is a minor and the school has a compelling state interest to not promote a religion. The school is not saying she cannot talk about Jesus with her classmates but she cannot hand out religious pamphlets and coerce other students.
8 comments:
Great post Chase! The one argument I disagree with in particular is the peer pressure/coercion argument. I think the school is responsible for a hired teacher or faculty member in the position to coerce students into believing in one religion over another, but should a case really be decided to protect one student from “coercing” another? If she is not interrupting school activities in a classroom setting or assembly, then I think the school does violate her First Amendment right to free exercise as well as free speech. Furthermore, I am also not sure if a school allowing a student to discuss their religion, whether it is in an “appropriate” way or not, can be considered a violation of the Establishment Clause.
Interesting post! I agree that this is a violation of establishment by this girl discussing her religion. If she was having an open discussion with her classmates I think it is okay, however, she was handing out pamphlets and threatening them to follow her religion. Children often do not understand how to form their own beliefs and may only listen to what parents and friends say at a young age, as they are very impressionable. For a classmate to go around and coerce other children into believing what she says is dangerous and can disrupt the peace of a classroom setting. There is a compelling interest in the school to punish this girl for spreading religious ideas to her classmates.
Great post! I agree with you and believe that the actions taken by the school were warranted and were not a violation of the young girl’s free exercise of religion. I believe the school had compelling interest to step in and take the actions they took because the girl was handing out religious pamphlets and telling other kids they would go to hell if they didn’t follow her religion. Since this case deals with young kids, I think the school took the right actions; as we know kids are very impressionable and having someone tell them that they need to follow a certain religion or they will be punished can create a lot of problems and can bring religion into a public school where the two should be separate.
Really interesting post! This is definitely a very complicated case, and as we have seen with other cases the involvement of children tends to complicate the matter further. A question that I would raise is that if this same thing occurred at a college would it still be permissible to search a students backpack for religious material and not allow them to speak freely in common spaces to friends and classmates about religion? It's a very interesting debate and the age and maturity of people tends to play a factor in a lot of decisions. The school itself is not promoting religion by allowing this because there is no set standard across the school that endorses or inhibits certain religions like in the other cases. I think this would be an example of allowance versus endorsement. They aren't promoting a specific religion rather allowing a student to express her religious views outside of the classroom or school assemblies. If this student were to interrupt class instruction then I would understand the need to censor her beliefs in order to promote secular instruction. I think that because children are so impressionable it's understandable to try and create a safe and neutral environment for them to learn but I disagree that allowing this behavior is a violation of the establishment clause.
Great post and fascinating topic! This is definitely a controversial subject because rather than school officials bringing up religious topics, it is a second-grade student! I agree that there is a compelling state interest in the students' well-being and mental health (threatening eternal damnation to 8-year-olds would undeniably create chaos in a school setting), but the second-grader also has rights regarding her religious expression and right against unreasonable search and seizure. Because it is a student sharing religious information with her peers, this case reminds me of Luke's blog post from October 4th, in which he described how high school valedictorian Elizabeth Turner was initially told to rewrite her speech in order to avoid religious references. This was later changed and Turner was allowed to give her speech as initially written, and I agree with that decision. However, one crucial distinction is the age of the children involved. Because these are young elementary students and not high schoolers, I believe the correct decision was made here.
Great Post. This is a super interesting case. Why I do believe all students should have a right to free speech, I also think there should be restrictions when the speech is happening in an elementary public school. Therefore, I agree with your opinion regarding the case. I believe that the school had a compelling state interest in making sure the school remains secular. The student is not being discriminated against because the school has a neutral rule where they would not allow any student to do this. However with all of this being said, I do agree with Mollys point that the Constitution does not protect peer pressure. While peer pressure is wrong it is not constitutionally protected, and cant be used to validate the argument in this scenario.
Great post, Chase! I completely agree with your argument here. The school cannot allow the child to publicly decree support for her religion under the guise of religious freedom if it creates a situation that infringes upon the Establishment Clause. It is clear from examining past Supreme Court cases that the court has always placed an emphasis on avoiding peer pressure to conform to a religious belief in an academic environment, and it is highly evident that is what is occurring in this situation.
This case also reminds me of the Cantwell v. Connecticut Supreme Court Case we read about where the Cantwell's rights were protected and restrictions placed on their sharing of religious messages were not legitimate. This case reminds me of the issue at hand because the school district prohibits students from passing out religious messages in the classroom setting, but does not specify they can’t on the playground. While I do agree that the issue of coercion for children in elementary school is valid, I think the school barring her from speaking about her religious beliefs with children on the playground does infringe on the ability for her free exercise of speech about her religion. However, this does not infringe on her ability to exercise her religion through practice. It is not discussed that she actively exercises her religion, but instead it seems she is trying to coerce her peers. However, I also see from how allowing her to do this inside of the classroom does imply the school to allow her to establish her religious belief within the classroom. This issue definitely has many sides to it, but I believe she should be allowed to speak on her religion, but not force her peers to practice what she is telling them to.
Post a Comment