The Saucon Valley School district allows several clubs to use its facilities after hours, including The Good News Club, Girls on the Run Lehigh Valley, and the Boy Scouts. But should it allow the After School Satan Club?
The After School Satan Club, which provides students an alternative to other religious after-school clubs, was initially approved in February of last year to meet every month at Saucon Valley Middle for the remainder of the school year. The club operates in schools across the country and was created and sponsored by the Satanic Temple. The Satanic Temple filed a religious discrimination suit against Saucon Valley School District after district approval to use the school’s facilities was rescinded.
The school rescinded approval, the district claims, because the club violated a school board policy stating that groups must “clearly communicate that the activities are not being sponsored by the school district”. The district superintendent claimed that the font on an “advertisement” denying the club’s affiliation with the school district was too small. The advertisement they refer to was posted on a parent’s Facebook account, not a member affiliated with the Satanic Temple.
The superintendent claimed the policy intended to prevent interference with the educational program of the district. The District claimed the club did, because following the club’s announcement, the school received a threat, and the district closed its facilities for two days to investigate the incident.
The court was faced with the question: Did the District’s invocation of policy 707 to rescind approval of The After School Satan Club constitute viewpoint discrimination, an unconstitutional violation of their free exercise rights?
If this were simply a case of denial based on ‘inadequate’ communication by the After School Satan Club, the decision would be clear. The post in question did not come from a member of the Satanic Temple, it was from a parent, and still included the information that the club was not affiliated with the School District. Furthermore, the district did not equally enforce the policy. The Good News Club, a Christian after-school club, had previously been allowed to send home permission slips in students’ backpacks, and these did not include a disclaimer. The Girls on the Run club frequently distributed promotional materials that included no disclaimer and posted the materials on their official district Facebook page. All of these clubs have been allowed to continue to use school facilities.
In Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District, the Supreme Court decided on a case in which a chapel was prevented from showing religious films in a school after-hours, because of the religious content. The Court unanimously ruled the school’s policy was unconstitutional because every viewpoint on family life was allowed, except that of Lamb’s Chapel. In this case, no other club, secular or not, was subject to policy 707, except the After School Satan club. And, preventing the club from ever utilizing the school’s facilities, rather than allowing them to revise any previous communication, is hostile toward this particular group. This, in my view, constitutes an undue burden on the Appellent’s free exercise.
However, Saucon Valley School District claims the policy intends to prevent disrupting the school’s educational activities. I do not want to understate the real psychological harm intimidation poses to the students and families, and certainly, there is a compelling state interest to protect children as well as prevent disruption of their education. Utilizing this policy to advance that interest is still unconstitutional. The policy regards communication about district sponsorship, not educational disruption. The Satanic Temple and its after-school club do not disturb educational activities. And, no evidence suggests that had communication that the After School Satan Club was not sponsored by the school district that the threat wouldn’t have occurred.
The After School Satan Club can not be constitutionally denied use of Saucon Valley school district’s facilities based on policy 707.
I agree with the author that based on the facts of this case the club should not be declined however, if they are violating a policy in place they should face consequences. If they do not properly advertise that they are not affiliated with the school, that is violating the rules that clubs must follow and it is fair that they should face reproductions. However, it is not fair that other clubs who do the same do not face the same repercussions. I agree that the club should not be baned based on its religion, but it is fair that if it breaks a neutral rule, it can be punished. I do not believe that it should be exempt from the school rules just because it is a religion.
ReplyDeleteHi Sarah,
ReplyDeleteThis is a great post! I agree with your holding that the free exercise rights of the Satanic temple were violated in this case. The fact that Saucon Valley Middle denied the After School Satan Club to continue due to their failure of providing a big enough text on their ad stating that they are not affiliated with the school, is not valid when placed into context with the provisions surrounding the constitutionality of club advertisements and representations at this school. The direct comparison to the Good News Club, and the fact that they did not include a disclaimer and were not followed up by the school for the approval of this statement, comes to show that the school district was not treating these two groups equally. This comes back to the idea of recognizing and protecting the rights of minority religions, and protecting their ideals and teachings although they may not align with the majority of the population.
Hi Sarah,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you on this case. I think that the free exercise rights of the After School Satan Club were violated as long as they were following the policies that are in place. If they are not, I understand that there should be repercussions. On the other hand, I think that there is a compelling state interest in what they are gathering for. I know that this is not the point of why this is being discussed, but I think that is something that should be looked at into detail. This is a disruption in society and in school.
Hi Sarah,
ReplyDeleteGreat post! I agree with your assessment of this class and that the school district infringed on the free exercise rights of the After School Satan Club. Based on the context you provided, it seems like this club was unfairly targeted by the district. To me, the disclaimer policy is an easy way for the district to prevent the club from operating, especially since other religious clubs at the school have not included this disclaimer in their advertising materials. Obviously, we can’t be sure that the district is targeting the Satan club because of its religious beliefs, but the district’s actions do violate club members' right to free exercise regardless of intent. I’m curious to know if the threat the school received was about the club or if it was just a coincidence. If it were about the club, I think there is a compelling interest to stop the club in order to protect the students. On the other hand, the free exercise clause should protect minority religions and the Satan club should not be forced to shut down because some people are uncomfortable with the religion. It is definitely a difficult balance to find, especially when people’s safety could be at risk.