The high school I attended, Mechanicsburg Area Senior High (MASH), made headlines on Fox News when a Christian student group filed a lawsuit claiming a school policy that prohibited students from distributing Bibles during lunch was unconstitutional.
In November, around the time of Thanksgiving, students from the Christians in Action Club requested permission to sit at a table during lunch, have a poster for fellow students to sign and write something they were thankful for, and to offer Bibles to those approaching the table. MASD principal, David Harris, then informed the students by email that they could set up the table and poster, but could not distribute the Bible during the school day. Not only did Principal Harris deny them the ability to hand Bibles out during the school day, but he also required them to submit a formal request before distributing them on school property outside of the school day. If they were to be granted access, they could distribute religious text on public sidewalks outside of the school 30 minutes before or after class. He made it clear that there was not a ban on Bibles, but there was a ban on offering Bibles to classmates during school hours. The school also banned any student religious speech that claimed the "supremacy" of a particular religion.
Frustrated with the school's policies, the students reached out to Independence Law Center (ILC) in Harrisburg, PA for help. The ILC then contacted the School Board and requested they alter the language of both policies because it inhibited the students' constitutional right to free speech and freely exercise their religion. The School Board ignored the responses and informally revoked the "club status" for the student group. A lawsuit was subsequently filed.
The lawsuit claimed the policy restricted the students rights on two major levels. First, the school district allegedly denied official recognition to the Christians in Action Club while granting recognition to other student clubs. This denial limited the club’s ability to meet on school premises, promote activities, and access resources available to other clubs. Second, the plaintiffs argued that the school engaged in viewpoint discrimination by suppressing religious expression. They claimed that denying them the ability to distribute Bibles and outlawing evangelical religious speech was not based on neutral criteria but rather on the religious nature of the club, treating them differently from secular student organizations.
The school argued, citing the Establishment Clause, that they have an obligation to prohibit religious speech and the distribution of religious material during the "school day". School is a place for education, not religious indoctrination. While the Christians in Action Club were free to meet and distribute Bibles to their members after school hours, it's in the schools best interest to keep evangelizing Christianity out of the lunchroom.
The students and their legal team present a very good argument. The policies enforced by the school board are not neutral because they directly restrict religious speech, while giving secular clubs priority during lunch. While the School Board does have a compelling interest in keeping religious worship and teachings out of school, I don't believe this should be applied to student clubs wanting to distribute Bibles during non-instructional hours. This student club does not receive funding from the state, unlike teachers or educational curriculum that are paid for using government money (in reference to cases like Engel v. Vitale (1962)). Therefore the use of the Establishment Clause in this instance seems invalid.
There are a number of Supreme Court cases that could set a precedent for a decision in favor of the students in this case. First is Rosenberger v. University of Virginia (1995), where the Supreme Court ruled that the University of Virginia violated the First Amendment by denying funding to a Christian student publication while providing funds to secular student groups. The ruling emphasized that the government (or a public school) cannot discriminate against religious speech based on viewpoint in a public forum, which would validate the student's claim that evangelical speech in public schools are protected under the First Amendment. Another applicable Supreme Court Case is Good News Club v. Milford Central School (2001). Here the Court held that a public school engaged in viewpoint discrimination by preventing a religious club from using school facilities after hours while allowing secular groups to meet. The ruling affirmed that religious groups must receive the same access to public school spaces as non-religious groups. Since secular clubs had access to the lunchroom and were allowed to distribute non-religious material, this would indicate the Christians in Action Club were denied equal access.
With a decision in favor of the students, I recognize that there could be a slippery slope effect. If we let students evangelize during the school day (though it may be a non-instructional time), schools could resemble more of a church than a place of education during these hours. However, judging this case at face value, the policies seem to violate the Free Exercise Clause. What do you think?
Sources:
Independence Law Center. (n.d.). Christians in Action case summary. Retrieved from https://independencelaw.org/christiansinaction/
Oyez. (n.d.). Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe. Retrieved from https://www.oyez.org/cases/2000/99-2036
Legal Information Institute. (n.d.). Capitol Square Review and Advisory Board v. Pinette (94-329), 515 U.S. 753 (1995). Retrieved from https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/94-329.ZS.html
Oyez. (n.d.). Engel v. Vitale. Retrieved from https://www.oyez.org/cases/1961/468
Brown, L. (2024, March 15). High school’s Bible ban is unconstitutional, students claim. Fox News. Retrieved from https://www.foxnews.com/us/high-schools-bible-ban-is-unconstitutional-students-claim
Independence Law Center. (2019). Complaint against MASD by Christians In Action Club. Retrieved from https://independencelaw.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/1-COMPLAINT-against-MASD-by-Christians-In-Action-Club.pdf
13 comments:
I agree that the school’s policy likely violates the Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses by singling out religious expression for restriction. Cases like Rosenberger v. University of Virginia and Good News Club v. Milford establish that religious student groups must be treated equally to secular ones. The fact that other student clubs were allowed to distribute materials while Christians in Action was restricted suggests viewpoint discrimination, not neutrality.
Some may argue that allowing the group to distribute bibles during lunch might create unnecessary pressure on students who may not want to engage with the religious material in a setting meant for education, but I find this argument weak. Not only is it not during an instructional period, it is voluntary and they can approach the group if they feel compelled too.
Additionally, prohibiting all religious speech that claims “supremacy” creates a vague and broad restriction on religious expression that could chill free speech.
While I understand concerns about the Establishment Clause, this is a student-led initiative, not school-endorsed proselytization. Denying the club the same privileges as other student groups seems like an overreach that unfairly limits their rights. And while I see the argument for allowing them to do this outside of school, I would want the "rules" to be applied equally to all groups, and if this means allowing them to during lunch (like other groups can), than I find that to be necessary.
Students should absolutely be allowed to distribute Bibles during non-instructional times like lunch. Public schools are not religion-free zones, and students should not lose their First Amendment rights at the schoolhouse gate, barring public disturbance. As long as the distribution is voluntary and not disruptive, it constitutes a form of protected free speech and religious expression. If secular clubs are permitted to share materials and promote their messages during lunch, then religious clubs should also be given the same opportunity.
I agree with your analysis, Sam! If these students had access to a limited or public forum that other secular clubs were able to use and distribute materials at. The students who want to hand out Bibles should have the same access since the school cannot discriminate based on a religious viewpoint. They would not be distributing the Bibles during instructional time, so any student given a Bible would have to take it voluntarily. I do not think this violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
Students should have the right to distribute Bibles during times like lunch and after school. As long as actions are voluntary, then they should be okay. Public schools should not be able to suppress religious expression while other secular clubs are allowed to distribute materials. If schools allow other student groups to promote and advertise their beliefs, then they should extend the same rights to religious organizations.
While students should be allowed to express their religious beliefs, allowing them to distribute religious texts during the school day turns a school into a place of worship. Since the club asked to set a booth up during lunch, I think that it could be misconceived that the school is endorsing the religious club who is attempting to spread a specific message to convert fellow students. Since students are required to go to school and (at least in my high school) sit in the cafeteria, thus forcing them to be exposed to a religious message in a place that is meant to facilitate secular learning. It's also notable that the principle didn't restrict them from handing out bibles, they are still allowed to in a manner that cannot be misconstrued as an endorsement on the part of the high school
I also believe that public schools should not discriminate against the expression of religious groups. If secular clubs have the right to distribute materials then religious groups should too. The Establishment Clause protects both religious and non-religious groups to be treated equally. By not allowing the Christians in Action group to distribute materials they are discriminating against them.
I agree with Matthews's comment. The students club would be meeting during the school day, in addition to meeting during after school hours. Though students do not receive instruction from their teachers during lunchtime, lunchtime still takes place within the hours of the school day and is a requirement for students. Consequently, handing out religious materials and text is highly restricted. In comparing cases such as the Good News Club v. Milford Central School to this case, there is a clear distinction. In that case, religious club meetings, which included religious prayers, songs, and activities, were authorized to occur during after-school hours on public school grounds; with limited open forums. This would prevent students from being compelled/ required to participate in religious activities. In this case, however, the club meetings are said to occur within and after school hours. Under the Establishment Clause, public school buildings are not to be entangled with religious teachings during school hours. During the school day, handing out Bibles would directly violate this provision. As the school argued, they should be able to prohibit religious speech and the distribution of religious material during the "school day". School is a place for education, not religious indoctrination. In exclaiming this, the school makes it clear that the religious club can meet during lunch and express their faith, so long as they don't distribute bibles. Once the school day is over, the club can meet and distribute Bibles. The school is merely trying to regulate what the club is doing during school hours to prevent indoctrination. Once the school day is over, the club is free to do as it pleases.
It is my personal belief that this is not something that can be prevented in any way regardless of whether or not the evangelization is constituted by distribution of bibles during the school day. People whose religion obligates them to evangelize, such as the Jehovah's Witness or Mormons will do so whenever and however they seem necessary so as to achieve the end of salvation for both themselves and others. Legally, this should not be something preventable or prevented, as conversations are bound to occur regardless. Enable religious neutrality by allowing all religious equal footing to evangelize as they please.
I believe that it is unconstitutional for students to hand out Bibles and set up a booth expressing their religious beliefs during school hours. At the same time, I think that the Christians in action group should be recognized as a club and have access to all the same materials that secular groups do. Denying religious groups of the amenities that secular groups have is not neutral at all. So I do feel that the religious group can be limited during school hours they should not be denied as a whole or controlled after school hours.
I agree with Payton. I believe it was unconstitutional for the school to revoke the recognition of the club status of the student group. As mentioned, Good News Club v Milford Central School affirmed that religious groups should receive the same amenities as non religious groups. However, although a religious club should have the same opportunities to function as a club as a secular club, this does not give religious groups the right to distribute religious material during class hours. I find this unconstitutional. The group should be able to function as it will and be able to promote their group to the student body for those who may want to join, but using school hours to promote the message of the bible in what should be a religious free space should be limited. I agree that they should be able to distribute their messages after school hours.
I agree that the school’s policy likely violates the Free Exercise Clause by restricting religious speech while permitting secular speech. The Supreme Court has ruled in cases like Good News Club v. Milford (2001) that religious groups must receive the same access to public forums as secular ones. Since other clubs can distribute materials, denying the Christians in Action Club the same right constitutes viewpoint discrimination. The Establishment Clause shouldn’t justify suppressing student-led religious expression.
Students should have the same rights as other student clubs during non class periods such as lunch. If secular clubs can share their ideas or pass out materials, religious clubs should be allowed to as well. They aren’t forcing anyone to take a Bible, and it’s not during class. Additionally, they are not harming anyone. Stopping them from sharing because it’s religious seems unfair would oppose religious freedom.
Post a Comment