Authority #1Texas high school cheerleaders barred from using Bible verses on football bannersUpdated on: September 21, 2012 / 10:49 AM / CBS/AP

(CBS/AP) HOUSTON - Cheerleaders from a small southeastern Texas town have been told that they can no longer use Bible verses on their football game banners, leading to outrage in the community.

For three straight weeks, Kountze High School football players town took the field by bolting through large red-and-white banners that hollered the praises of Jesus Christ.

Most people in Kountze viewed the banners as evidence of the students' admirable moral upbringing - Christianity and the Bible always had been fundamental to this town of 2,100.

But someone complained to a foundation that fights for the separation of church and state, and by Tuesday, a day after receiving a letter from the Freedom From Religion Foundation, the superintendent banned the banners, and the town became embroiled in a controversy that has touched other communities nationwide.

On Thursday, a judge granted a request by the nonprofit Liberty Institute law firm to temporarily bar the implementation of the ban. It also set a hearing for early October when the sides will be able to make their arguments. The cheerleaders planned to raise their 20-foot banners at Thursday evening's junior varsity football game.

People in the town 90 miles northeast of Houston talk of little else. Parents and students have plastered pictures of the banners - some of which quote scripture, declaring "I can do all things through Christ that strengthens me" - on their Facebook pages. A Facebook group created after the ban, Support Kountze Kids Faith, had more than 36,000 members by late Thursday. They argue that it was the students' decision to "give the glory to God this year," and they pledge to help the children make sure their opinions and rights are not violated.

Superintendent Kevin Weldon gently explains to every parent who calls that a 2000 U.S. Supreme Court precedent-setting decision requires religion to be kept out of public schools. Some parents support his decision. Others say they will back their children's First Amendment right to hang the banners.

"It is not a personal opinion of mine," Weldon told KVUE-TV. "My personal convictions are that I am a Christian as well. But I'm also a state employee and Kountze ISD representative. And I was advised that that such a practice would be in direct violation of United State Supreme Court decisions."

Weldon himself is torn, but he has to abide by the judge's injunction, and will let the attorneys decide whether to fight the institute. He added to KVUE-TV that while people in the stands and students are allowed to express their religious beliefs, no person officially representing the school as part of a team or school-sponsored event can.

On one side is the Freedom From Religion Foundation, a Madison, Wisconsin-based nonprofit that challenges any religion in public schools.

"I've never heard of this kind of school problem, this kind of a violation at a public school where students would be expected to run through Bible verses to play football," said the foundation's president, Annie Laurie Gaylor. "It's a new and creative way to work religion into our public schools."

On the other side is the Liberty Institute, a Plano, Texas-based nonprofit law firm that says on its website it is dedicated to "restoring religious liberty across America."

"It's an important and fundamental freedom students have to engage in free speech," said Mike Johnson, senior counsel for the institute. "They are not asking anyone to believe in Christianity or accept the faith. They are just well wishes."

Cheerleader Macy Matthews says no school money was used and the signs weren't made on school property.>

"I'm actually thankful for (the controversy)," cheerleader Ashton Jennings said to KVUE-TV. "Because if someone hadn't complained, or if there hadn't been any opposition we wouldn't have this chance to spread God's word in this big of a way."

But Tanner Hunt, attorney for the Kountze Independent School District, believes a Supreme Court decision in 2000 that barred prayer at the start of a high school football game sets the precedent.

Hunt said, "The answer was clear: they must cease and desist."

First published on September 21, 2012

© 2012 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Authority #2The First Amendment in Schools: Resource Guide: Religious Expression in the Public SchoolsThe First Amendment guarantees of religious liberty include the freedom to believe or not to believe, and to observe one’s faith openly without government interference. Freedom of speech encompasses religious as well as secular speech, but the Establishment Clause imposes limitations on government endorsement of religion that has important implications for religious speech and observance in public schools.

Thomas Jefferson described the Establishment Clause as erecting “a wall of separation between church and state.” Government neutrality toward religion is increasingly important with the proliferation of diverse religious beliefs, and schools are among the most important places where this principle is tested.

Public school teachers, principals, administrators, and other personnel may not:

promote a particular religion as being superior to any other, promote religion in general as superior to a secular approach to life, be antagonistic to religion in general or to a particular religious belief in particular be antagonistic to secularism, or do things to advance or inhibit religion.

This does not imply that the public schools may not teach about religion. Indeed, “the Bible may constitutionally be used in an appropriate study of history, civilization, ethics, comparative religion, and the like.” Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39, 42 (1980)(per curiam). Schools may teach about religion, explain the tenets of various faiths, discuss the role of religion in history, literature, science and other endeavors, and the like, as long as it has a secular purpose to promote educational goals, and there is no effort to promote or inhibit any religious belief.

School-Sponsored Prayer: Prayer and Bible-reading have long been excluded from the public schools. Engel v. Vitale (1962) and School Dist. V. Schempp (1963). Even a moment of silence for “meditation or voluntary prayer,” is impermissible if its purpose is to promote prayer. Wallace v. Jaffree (1985).

Student-Led Prayer: In Santa Fe Independent School District v. Jane Doe (2000) the Court held that student-led prayer at school-sponsored football games was unconstitutional, because the circumstances implied official endorsement of religion.

While the case leaves open the possibility that student-initiated prayer is permissible under some circumstances, it is clear that schools must exercise care to avoid the appearance of promoting religion. The difficulty in finding the right balance is clear from the split in opinon in the lower courts. In the same month, a federal appellate panel in Georgia upheld student-initiated “prayer or other personal message” at graduation because the administration had no control over the student’s statement, and a district court in Illinois temporarily banned a student-led prayer at graduation because of “the degree of school involvement.”

Perhaps the most unusual case in the recent past involved a first grader who was not allowed to read a story from The Beginner’s Bible for an assignment in which students were asked to read their favorite stories aloud in class. Equally divided, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals sitting en banc, upheld the teacher’s exercise of judgment, rather than confronting the question of the place of religion in school. (Hood v. Medford Board Of Education, 3rd Cir., 2000).

Religious Holidays: Holiday observations in public schools have been a persistent bone of contention in many communities. Although schools may teach about the religious beliefs underlying religious holidays and may celebrate secular aspects of such holidays, schools may not observe holidays as religious events or promote such observance among their students.

Religious Messages: Schools may not permanently display religious messages like the Ten Commandments. Stone v. Graham (1980). They may, however, display religious symbols in teaching about religion, as long as they are used as teaching aids on a temporary basis as part of an academic program.

Teaching of evolution: In Epperson v. Arkansas (1968) the Supreme Court struck down a state law prohibiting teachers in public schools from teaching “the theory or doctrine that mankind ascended or descended from a lower order of animals,” on the ground that it violated the Establishment Clause of the constitution. The decision was reaffirmed in Edwards v. Aguillard(1987), which required evolution to be taught alongside “creation science.” The Court rejected the state’s alleged secular purpose to protect academic freedom, finding it a “sham.”

Religious Clothing and Symbols: Religious clothing and symbols, if not disruptive, are a protected form of expression. Even schools with dress codes ordinarily make an exception for religious articles.

Released Time: Students may be dismissed from school for off-campus religious instruction, provided that the schools do not encourage or discourage participation or penalize those who do not attend. Zorach v. Clauson (1952).

Use of Public School Facilities by Religious Groups: Under a 1993 Supreme Court ruling, public schools that permit their facilities to be used by community groups are not permitted to discriminate against religious groups. Lamb’s Chapel v. Center Moriches School District (1993). This holding was recently reaffirmed in the context of a religiously-affiliated after-school program that sought to use public school facilities. Good News Club v. Milford Central School(2001).

Religious Exemptions from State Education Law: When public education requirements severely conflict with sincerely-held religious beliefs, the courts have fashioned a remedy to address the conflict. For example, in Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972), Amish families challenged a state requirement that children be enrolled in school until the age of 16. The parents claimed that they would be unable to raise their children in the Amish faith, which repudiates most aspects of modern life, if their children were required to attend school outside the Amish community past the eighth grade. The Supreme Court upheld their right to educate their children at home under the circumstances of this case, but subsequent cases cast some doubt about how far this doctrine can be extended. (Employment Division v. Smith, 1990.)

The Equal Access Act (20 U.S.C. §§4071-74), adopted by Congress in 1984, was intended to prevent discrimination against student extra-curricular activities “on the basis of the religious, political, philosophical, or other content of the speech” at such student-run events. The Act applies to any “public secondary school which receives Federal financial assistance” and which allows “noncurriculum related student groups to meet on school premises during noninstructional time.” In 1990, in Board of Education v. Mergens, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Act, affirming the right of “equal access” to student groups without regard to the “religious, social, philosophical or other content” of their activities.

In practice, the Act has mixed results. In one case, students sued for the right to organize a support group for gays and lesbians. A federal court rejected the school’s claim that any discussion of same-sex relationships and safer-sex would conflict with its policy to teach “abstinence-only until marriage,” and ordered the school to allow the group to meet. However in another case in California, a school district decided to ban all extracurricular clubs from campus rather than allow formation of a club called Christian Athletes.

U.S. Department of Education, Guidelines on Religious Expression in the Public Schools: Guidelines were originally adopted in 1995 and updated since then to provide every school district in America with a statement of principles addressing the extent to which religious expression and activity are permitted in the public school. The guidelines affirm two obligations imposed on school officials: 1) schools may not forbid students acting on their own from expressing their personal religious beliefs; 2) schools may not discriminate against private religious expression by students, but must instead give students the same right to engage in religious activity and discussion as they have to engage in other comparable activity. Schools are strongly encouraged to develop their

own district-wide policy regarding religious expression and to engage parents, teachers, various faith communities and the broader community.

 Authority #3Your Right to Religious Freedom [1]

Getting an education isn't just about books and grades -- we're also learning how to participate fully in the life of this nation. (Because one day we are going to be in charge!)

But in order to really participate, we need to know our rights -- otherwise we may lose them. The highest law in our land is the U.S. Constitution, which has some amendments, known as the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights guarantees that the government can never deprive people in the U.S. of certain fundamental rights including the right to freedom of religion and to free speech and the due process of law. Many federal and state laws give us additional rights, too.

The Bill of Rights applies to young people as well as adults. And what I'm going to do right here is tell you about RELIGIOUS FREEDOM.

WHAT IS RELIGIOUS FREEDOM EXACTLY?

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says that everyone in the United States has the right to practice his or her own religion, or no religion at all. 

Our country's founders -- who were of different religious backgrounds themselves -- knew the best way to protect religious liberty was to keep the government out of religion. So they created the First Amendment -- to guarantee the separation of church and state. This fundamental freedom is a major reason why the U.S. has managed to avoid a lot of the religious conflicts that have torn so many other nations apart. 

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits government from encouraging or promoting ("establishing") religion in any way. That's why we don't have an official religion of

the United States. This means that the government may not give financial support to any religion. That's why many school voucher programs violate the Establishment Clause -- because they give taxpayers' money to schools that promote religion.

The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment gives you the right to worship or not as you choose. The government can't penalize you because of your religious beliefs. 

HOW DO YOU KNOW THE GOVERNMENT IS "ESTABLISHING RELIGION"?

In 1971, the Supreme Court decided Lemon v. Kurtzman which created three tests for determining whether a particular government act or policy unconstitutionally promotes religion. 

The Lemon test says that in order to be constitutional, a policy must:

1. Have a non-religious purpose;   2. Not end up promoting or favoring any set of religious beliefs;

and   3. Not overly involve the government with religion. 

IS IT CONSTITUTIONAL TO TEACH RELIGION IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS?

No. The public schools are run by the government. Therefore, they must obey the First Amendment. This means that while they can teach about the influences of religion in history, literature, and philosophy -- they can't promote religious beliefs or practices as part of the curriculum. Since private and parochial schools aren't run by the government, the First Amendment doesn't apply to them.

Also, students can be excused from some school activities if they conflict with their religious beliefs.

CAN MY TEACHER START THE DAY OR A MEETING WITH PRAYER?

No. Prayers, scriptural readings, and loudspeaker devotionals violate the First Amendment because they promote religion. This is true even if the prayer is "non-denominational" (not of any particular religion.) Moments of silence might be unconstitutional -- it depends on whether or not the real reason they're being held is to encourage prayer. 

CAN MY SCHOOL HAVE PRAYERS AT GRADUATION?

No. In 1992, the Supreme Court decided in Lee v. Weisman that graduation prayers are unconstitutional in public schools. Think about it: graduation prayers would give non-believers or kids of other faiths the feeling that their participation in prayer is required. It doesn't matter who leads the prayer -- a minister, a priest, a rabbi, whoever, or whether the prayer is non-denominational -- some kids would feel left out.

Student-led prayer is unconstitutional too. Just because a student or group of students leads the prayer, the graduation ceremony is still a school-sponsored event, right? 

You can choose to have a private alternative event that includes prayer, like a baccalaureate. It just can't be sponsored by the school. Student, parent or church groups can organize it -- but it still must be held off of school grounds.

WHAT IF WE PUT IT TO A VOTE?

That doesn't change anything. In the United States, each individual has certain fundamental freedoms -- including freedom of religion. These can't be taken away, even by "majority rule."

Think about your friends who have different faiths or no religious beliefs at all. They'd still feel excluded from their own graduation exercises. Or worse, they'd feel like the school thought your religion was better than theirs. Put the shoe on the other foot for a second and think about how that would make you feel!

IS IT EVER OK TO PRAY IN SCHOOL?

Sure. Individual students have the right to pray whenever they want to, as long as they don't disrupt classroom instruction or other educational activities -- or try to force others to pray along with them. If a school official has told you that you can't pray at all during the school day, your right to exercise your religion is being violated. Contact your local ACLU for help.

IS IT OK TO CELEBRATE RELIGIOUS HOLIDAYS IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS?

It depends. Making Christmas stockings, Easter eggs or Hannukah dreidels is probably okay because, over the years, these have become secular customs that people of many different backgrounds enjoy. But a Nativity pageant, which is full of religious meaning, could be considered unconstitutional.

WHAT ABOUT RELIGIOUS CLUBS OR BIBLE DISTRIBUTION?

Student-organized Bible clubs are OK as long as three conditions are met: 

(1) the activity must take place during non-school hours; (2) school officials can't be involved in organizing or running the club, and (3) the school must make its facilities available to all student groups on an equal basis. So your Bible club couldn't be the only group allowed access to the school grounds. Neither could your school let other student groups use the building for meetings and events and deny your Bible club the same opportunity.

The organized distribution of Bibles or any other holy book during the school day is unconstitutional, even if teachers aren't the ones actually handing out the Bibles, and even if they're not used as a part of the school's educational program. That's because the school building or grounds are still being used to spread a religious doctrine at a time when students are required to be there.

That's what religious freedom is all about -- you are free to worship as you choose -- even if that means not at all.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."-- First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

We spend a big part of our life in school, so let's get involved! Join the student government! Attend school meetings! Petition your school administration! Talk about your rights with your friends! We can make a difference!

Produced by the ACLU Department of Public Education. 125 Broad Street, NY NY 10004. For more copies of this or any other Sybil Liberty paper, or to order the ACLU handbook The Rights of Students or other student-related publications, call 800-775-ACLU or visit us on the internet at https://www.aclu.org  [2]. 

© 2018 ACLU

Authority #4

Guidance on Constitutionally Protected Prayer in Public Elementary and

Secondary SchoolsFebruary 7, 2003

Introduction 

Section 9524 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act ("ESEA") of 1965, as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, requires the Secretary to issue guidance on constitutionally protected prayer in public elementary and secondary schools. In addition, Section 9524 requires that, as a condition of receiving ESEA funds, a local educational agency ("LEA") must certify in writing to its State educational agency ("SEA") that it has no policy that prevents, or otherwise

denies participation in, constitutionally protected prayer in public schools as set forth in this guidance.

The purpose of this guidance is to provide SEAs, LEAs, and the public with information on the current state of the law concerning constitutionally protected prayer in the public schools, and thus to clarify the extent to which prayer in public schools is legally protected. This guidance also sets forth the responsibilities of SEAs and LEAs with respect to Section 9524 of the ESEA. As required by the Act, this guidance has been jointly approved by the Office of the General Counsel in the Department of Education and the Office of Legal Counsel in the Department of Justice as reflecting the current state of the law. It will be made available on the Internet through the Department of Education's web site (www.ed.gov). The guidance will be updated on a biennial basis, beginning in September 2004, and provided to SEAs, LEAs, and the public.

Overview of Governing Constitutional Principles 

The relationship between religion and government in the United States is governed by the First Amendment to the Constitution, which both prevents the government from establishing religion and protects privately initiated religious expression and activities from government interference and discrimination. [ 1 ] The First Amendment thus establishes certain limits on the conduct of public school officials as it relates to religious activity, including prayer.

The legal rules that govern the issue of constitutionally protected prayer in the public schools are similar to those that govern religious expression generally. Thus, in discussing the operation of Section 9524 of the ESEA, this guidance sometimes speaks in terms of "religious expression." There are a variety of issues relating to religion in the public schools, however, that this guidance is not intended to address.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the First Amendment requires public school officials to be neutral in their treatment of religion, showing neither favoritism toward nor hostility against religious expression such as prayer. [ 2 ] Accordingly, the First Amendment forbids religious activity that is sponsored by the government but protects religious activity that is initiated by private individuals, and the line between government-sponsored and privately initiated religious expression is vital to a proper understanding of the First Amendment's scope. As the Court has explained in several cases, "there is a crucial difference between government speech endorsing religion, which the Establishment Clause forbids, and private speech endorsing religion, which the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses protect." [ 3 ]

The Supreme Court's decisions over the past forty years set forth principles that distinguish impermissible governmental religious speech from the constitutionally protected private religious speech of students. For example, teachers and other public school officials may not lead their classes in prayer, devotional readings from the Bible, or other religious activities. [ 4 ] Nor may school officials attempt to persuade or compel students to participate in prayer or other religious activities. [ 5 ] Such conduct is "attributable to the State" and thus violates the Establishment Clause. [ 6 ]

Similarly, public school officials may not themselves decide that prayer should be included in school-sponsored events. In Lee v. Weisman [ 7 ], for example, the Supreme Court held that public school officials violated the Constitution in inviting a member of the clergy to deliver a prayer at a graduation ceremony. Nor may school officials grant religious speakers preferential access to public audiences, or otherwise select public speakers on a basis that favors religious speech. In Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe[ 8 ], for example, the Court invalidated a school's football game speaker policy on the ground that it was designed by school officials to result in pregame prayer, thus favoring religious expression over secular expression.

Although the Constitution forbids public school officials from directing or favoring prayer, students do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate," [ 9 ] and the Supreme Court has made clear that "private religious speech, far from being a First Amendment orphan, is as fully protected under the Free Speech Clause as secular private expression." [10 ] Moreover, not all religious speech that takes place in the public schools or at school-sponsored events is governmental speech. [ 11 ]For example, "nothing in the Constitution ... prohibits any public school student from voluntarily praying at any time before, during, or after the school day," [ 12 ] and students may pray with fellow students during the school day on the same terms and conditions that they may engage in other conversation or speech. Likewise, local school authorities possess substantial discretion to impose rules of order and pedagogical restrictions on student activities, [ 13 ] but they may not structure or administer such rules to discriminate against student prayer or religious speech. For instance, where schools permit student expression on the basis of genuinely neutral criteria and students retain primary control over the content of their expression, the speech of students who choose to express themselves through religious means such as prayer is not attributable to the state and therefore may not be restricted because of its religious content. [ 14 ]Student remarks are not attributable to the state simply because they are delivered in a public setting or to a public audience. [ 15 ] As the Supreme Court has explained: "The proposition that schools do not endorse everything they fail to censor is not complicated," [ 16 ]and the Constitution mandates neutrality rather than hostility toward privately initiated religious expression. [ 17 ]

Applying the Governing Principles in Particular Contexts 

Prayer During Non-instructional Time

Students may pray when not engaged in school activities or instruction, subject to the same rules designed to prevent material disruption of the educational program that are applied to other privately initiated expressive activities. Among other things, students may read their Bibles or other scriptures, say grace before meals, and pray or study religious materials with fellow students during recess, the lunch hour, or other non-instructional time to the same extent that they may engage in nonreligious activities. While school authorities may impose rules of order and pedagogical restrictions on student activities, they may not discriminate against student prayer or religious speech in applying such rules and restrictions.

Organized Prayer Groups and Activities

Students may organize prayer groups, religious clubs, and "see you at the pole" gatherings before school to the same extent that students are permitted to organize other non-curricular student activities groups. Such groups must be given the same access to school facilities for assembling as is given to other non-curricular groups, without discrimination because of the religious content of their expression. School authorities possess substantial discretion concerning whether to permit the use of school media for student advertising or announcements regarding non-curricular activities. However, where student groups that meet for nonreligious activities are permitted to advertise or announce their meetings—for example, by advertising in a student newspaper, making announcements on a student activities bulletin board or public address system, or handing out leaflets—school authorities may not discriminate against groups who meet to pray. School authorities may disclaim sponsorship of non-curricular groups and events, provided they administer such disclaimers in a manner that neither favors nor disfavors groups that meet to engage in prayer or religious speech.

Teachers, Administrators, and other School Employees

When acting in their official capacities as representatives of the state, teachers, school administrators, and other school employees are prohibited by the Establishment Clause from encouraging or discouraging prayer, and from actively participating in such activity with students. Teachers may, however, take part in religious activities where the overall context makes clear that they are not participating in their official capacities. Before school or during lunch, for example, teachers may meet with other teachers for prayer or Bible study to the same extent that they may engage in other conversation or nonreligious activities. Similarly, teachers may participate in their personal capacities in privately sponsored baccalaureate ceremonies.

Moments of Silence

If a school has a "minute of silence" or other quiet periods during the school day, students are free to pray silently, or not to pray, during these periods of time. Teachers and other school employees may neither encourage nor discourage students from praying during such time periods.

Accommodation of Prayer During Instructional Time

It has long been established that schools have the discretion to dismiss students to off-premises religious instruction, provided that schools do not encourage or discourage participation in such instruction or penalize students for attending or not attending. Similarly, schools may excuse students from class to remove a significant burden on their religious exercise, where doing so would not impose material burdens on other students. For example, it would be lawful for schools to excuse Muslim students briefly from class to enable them to fulfill their religious obligations to pray during Ramadan.

Where school officials have a practice of excusing students from class on the basis of parents' requests for accommodation of nonreligious needs, religiously motivated requests for excusal may not be accorded less favorable treatment. In addition, in some circumstances, based on federal or state constitutional law or pursuant to state statutes, schools may be required to make accommodations that relieve substantial burdens on students' religious exercise. Schools officials are therefore encouraged to consult with their attorneys regarding such obligations.

Religious Expression and Prayer in Class Assignments

Students may express their beliefs about religion in homework, artwork, and other written and oral assignments free from discrimination based on the religious content of their submissions. Such home and classroom work should be judged by ordinary academic standards of substance and relevance and against other legitimate pedagogical concerns identified by the school. Thus, if a teacher's assignment involves writing a poem, the work of a student who submits a poem in the form of a prayer (for example, a psalm) should be judged on the basis of academic standards (such as literary quality) and neither penalized nor rewarded on account of its religious content.

Student Assemblies and Extracurricular Events

Student speakers at student assemblies and extracurricular activities such as sporting events may not be selected on a basis that either favors or disfavors religious speech. Where student speakers are selected on the basis of genuinely neutral, evenhanded criteria and retain primary control over the content of their expression, that expression is not attributable to the school and therefore may not be restricted because of its religious (or anti-religious) content. By contrast, where school officials determine or substantially control the content of what is expressed, such speech is attributable to the school and may not include prayer or other specifically religious (or anti-religious) content. To avoid any mistaken perception that a school endorses student speech that is not in fact attributable to the school, school officials may make appropriate, neutral disclaimers to clarify that such speech (whether religious or nonreligious) is the speaker's and not the school's.

Prayer at Graduation

School officials may not mandate or organize prayer at graduation or select speakers for such events in a manner that favors religious speech such as prayer. Where students or other private graduation speakers are selected on the basis of genuinely neutral, evenhanded criteria and retain primary control over the content of their expression, however, that expression is not attributable to the school and therefore may not be restricted because of its religious (or anti-religious) content. To avoid any mistaken perception that a school endorses student or other private speech that is not in fact attributable to the school, school officials may make appropriate, neutral disclaimers to clarify that such speech (whether religious or nonreligious) is the speaker's and not the school's.

Baccalaureate Ceremonies

School officials may not mandate or organize religious ceremonies. However, if a school makes its facilities and related services available to other private groups, it must make its facilities and services available on the same terms to organizers of privately sponsored religious baccalaureate ceremonies. In addition, a school may disclaim official endorsement of events sponsored by private groups, provided it does so in a manner that neither favors nor disfavors groups that meet to engage in prayer or religious speech.

Notes: 

[ 1 ] The relevant portions of the First Amendment provide: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech . . . ." U.S. Const. amend. I. The Supreme Court has held that the Fourteenth Amendment makes these provisions applicable to all levels of government—federal, state, and local—and to all types of governmental policies and activities. See Everson v. Board of Educ., 330 U.S. 1 (1947); Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940). [ Return to text ]

[ 2 ] See, e.g., Everson, 330 U.S. at 18 (the First Amendment "requires the state to be a neutral in its relations with groups of religious believers and non-believers; it does not require the state to be their adversary. State power is no more to be used so as to handicap religions than it is to favor them"); Good News Club v. Milford Cent. Sch., 533 U.S. 98 (2001). [ Return to text ]

[ 3 ] Santa Fe Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290, 302 (2000) (quoting Board of Educ. v. Mergens, 496 U.S. 226, 250 (1990) (plurality opinion)); accord Rosenberger v. Rector of Univ. of Virginia, 515 U.S. 819, 841 (1995). [ Return to text ]

[ 4 ] Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962) (invalidating state laws directing the use of prayer in public schools); School Dist. of Abington Twp. v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963) (invalidating state laws and policies requiring public schools to begin the school day with Bible readings and prayer); Mergens, 496 U.S. at 252 (plurality opinion) (explaining that "a school may not itself lead or direct a religious club"). The Supreme Court has also held, however, that the study of the Bible or of religion, when presented objectively as part of a secular program of education (e.g., in history or literature classes), is consistent with the First Amendment. See Schempp, 374 U.S. at 225. [ Return to text ]

[ 5 ] See Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577, 599 (1992); see also Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985). [ Return to text ]

[ 11 ] Santa Fe, 530 U.S. at 302 (explaining that "not every message" that is "authorized by a government policy and take[s] place on government property at government-sponsored school-related events" is "the government's own").

[ 12 ] Santa Fe, 530 U.S. at 313.

[ 13 ] For example, the First Amendment permits public school officials to review student speeches for vulgarity, lewdness, or explicit language. Bethel Sch. Dist. v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675, 683-86 (1986). Without more, however, such review does not make student speech attributable to the state.

[ 14 ] Rosenberger v. Rector of Univ. of Virginia, 515 U.S. 819 (1995); Board of Educ. v. Mergens, 496 U.S. 226 (1990); Good News Club v. Milford Cent. Sch., 533 U.S. 98 (2001); Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free Sch. Dist., 508 U.S. 384 (1993); Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263 (1981); Santa Fe, 530 U.S. at 304 n.15. In addition, in circumstances where students are entitled to pray, public schools may not restrict or censor their prayers on the ground that they might be deemed "too religious" to others. The Establishment Clause prohibits state officials from making judgments about what constitutes an appropriate prayer, and from favoring or disfavoring certain types of prayers—be they "nonsectarian" and "nonproselytizing" or the opposite—over others. See Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, 429-30 (1962) (explaining that "one of the greatest dangers to the freedom of the individual to worship in his own way lay in the Government's placing its official stamp of approval upon one particular kind of prayer or one particular form of religious services," that "neither the power nor the prestige" of state officials may "be used to control, support or influence the kinds of prayer the American people can say," and that the state is "without power to prescribe by law any particular form of prayer"); Weisman, 505 U.S. at 594.

Authority #5Court Rejects Student Plea on Jesus as TopicNovember 28, 1995 |DAVID G. SAVAGE | TIMES STAFF WRITER

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday rejected the claim of a ninth-grade student who said she had a free-speech right to choose the life of Jesus Christ as a topic for a class paper.

The justices, without comment, refused to hear an appeal filed on behalf of a Tennessee girl whose teacher gave her a zero after she persisted in writing about Jesus.

The case of Brittney K. Settle of Dickson, Tenn., has been cited recently by Christian legal activists as an example of how public school officials continue to exclude any mention of religious belief, even when students are given freedom to discuss an array of topics.

Two weeks ago, House Republicans proposed to amend the Constitution to forbid what they say is official bias against religion. Their amendment would make it unconstitutional for any public agency or official to "discriminate against any private person or group on account of religious expression [or] belief."

In June, the Supreme Court said that public officials must be "neutral" toward religion. They may neither favor religion nor discriminate against it.

In a 5-4 ruling, the court said that University of Virginia officials erred when they denied funding to a student magazine simply because it espoused a Christian perspective.

But the facts in the Tennessee schoolgirl's case were not quite as clear, which probably explains why the high court did not intervene.

In March, 1991, teacher Dana Ramsey assigned her ninth-graders to write a research paper, using at least four sources.

The students were told to submit their topic for approval. When Brittney Settle said she wanted to write about Jesus, the teacher said no.

Brittney's father complained to school officials and then sued for damages after his daughter received a grade of zero for her paper.

The teacher offered several reasons for rejecting the paper. She wanted students to dispassionately research a new topic, she said, not to dwell on something on which they already had strong, personal opinions.

"We don't deal with personal religious beliefs. It's just not an appropriate thing to do in public school," the teacher added.

A federal judge ruled in favor of the school, and the U.S. court of appeals in Cincinnati agreed. Teachers have "broad leeway" to control the curriculum and to decide what is appropriate in class, the lower courts said.

Lawyers active in the Christian legal movement urged the high court to hear the case of Settle vs. Dickson County School Board, 95-507, and to rule that public school officials may "not censor or punish individual student expression . . . on the basis of its particular religious viewpoint." They noted that other students were permitted to write about topics such as reincarnation, witchcraft and the occult.

"It's clear the real reason [for rejecting the girl's paper] was its religious content. And this is not an isolated incident," said Gregory S. Baylor, an attorney for the Christian Legal Society of Annandale, Va.

University of Chicago law professor Michael McConnell, who helped draft the proposed constitutional amendment, said he has "little doubt that the case would have come out the other way if a racist teacher had forbidden a paper on Martin Luther King Jr."

In July, President Clinton sounded off in support of religious expression in public school. "The First Amendment does not convert our schools into religion-free zones," he said. "Students should feel free to express their religion and their beliefs in homework [and] during class presentations, as long as it is relevant to the assignment."

But Elliot Mincberg, legal director of People for the American Way, applauded the court's action. "This was supposed to be a research paper, not an opinion paper. If the courts are going to second-guess a teacher's decision in a case like this, it will mean just the kind of meddling in local affairs that conservatives always say they oppose."

Still, the issue of free speech and religious expression will likely gain even more attention in the coming year.

The House has two proposed constitutional religious amendments before it. The version sponsored by Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry J. Hyde (R-Ill.) bans government bias against religion. A second proposal, sponsored by Rep. Ernest Istook Jr. (R-Okla.), goes further, allowing group prayers written by students or by local school boards.

"We're going to have a real debate on this," said a House committee aide, with hearings in December and the possibility of votes early next year.