Introduction
There is a great deal of controversies and contradictions surrounding the relationship between religion and public schools. On one hand, the public school system is not supposed to interfere with the affairs of the church, and on the other hand, religion is not expected to manifest itself within the state school system. The gist of the church-state interaction is covered by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. There are two clauses that act as guidelines to the church-state relations.
The first clause “gives citizens the right to freely exercise religious convictions and the other one prohibits the government (including taxpayer-funded public schools) from establishing religion; meaning granting favorable treatment” (Alexander, 2011, p. 43). The nature of the laws that govern church-state relations is that they are brief and subject to several interpretations. For instance, it remains to be seen how much students and other staff members can be allowed to ‘express their religion’. Various court cases have been used to address and provide interpretations in matters concerning the church and the state. This paper addresses two court rulings that are related to the church-state interactions in the public school system.
Court Ruling 1: Lee V. Weisman
In a court ruling that was made in 1992, a decision was upheld that “the state might not invite clergy to perform invocation and benediction services at public secondary-school graduation ceremonies” (Lee v. Weisman, 1992). The court case was filed by Weisman who was the parent of a student in a public secondary school. Weisman complained against the actions of the school principal when he invited clergy officials to perform religious benediction during a graduation ceremony. Mr. Weisman’s allegations were upheld by the U.S District Court, the U.S Court of Appeal, and the U.S Supreme Court.
The incident that led to this court ruling involved high school principals from the City of Providence inviting members of the clergy to lead in prayers during graduation ceremonies. The defendant in this court case was Principal Lee who invited a Rabbi during the graduation ceremony of the plaintiff’s daughter. However, the defendant provided the rabbi with a cautionary guideline for conducting non-sectarian prayers. Nevertheless, the judge who was ruling on the case found that it was unconstitutional for high school principals in public secondary schools to “invite clergy to perform benediction services at graduation ceremonies” (Lee v. Weisman, 1992).
The judge pointed out that the principal’s choice of religion and accompanying personality can be attributed to the state. Furthermore, graduation ceremonies were mandatory for the students and they had no option of foregoing the benediction part of the ceremony. The attempts of the defendant to make the prayers nonsectarian were also nullified because they contradicted the ‘establishment clause’ of the U.S Constitution.
Court Ruling 2: Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe (2000)
In this court case, the judge ruled that delivering prayers over the school’s public address system went against the constitution of the United States. The argument of the presiding judge was that this practice qualified as “public speech, authorized by a government policy, taking place on government property at government-sponsored school-related events” (Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, 2000). The case was filed by a Jane Doe in conjunction with other students from the Santa Fe Independent School District. The U.S District Court was the first to rule on the matter and it found that the practice was unacceptable in its current state and recommended for modifications on the routine. The Court of Appeal affirmed the ruling of the District Court and rejected the need to have modifications on the prayers.
The events surrounding the Santa Fe Ind. School District v. Doe involved a student-elected chaplain delivering prayers over a public address system prior to every football game. Various groups within the university were opposed to this practice including Catholics and Mormons and they cited violations in the First Amendment’s establishment clause. During the ruling, “the District Court entered an order modifying the policy to permit only nonsectarian, non-proselytizing prayer…but the Fifth Circuit held that even as modified by the district court, the football prayer was invalid” (Speich, 2001, p. 271).
The ruling by all the three courts was based on the fact that the establishment clause of the First Amendment stipulates that a government organ cannot coerce the support of any one religion or the activities that are associated with it. For instance, the plaintiff in this case used the argument that an observer might interpret the actions of the chaplain as government’s endorsement of a certain religion in a public school. According to observers, “school sponsorship of a religious message is impermissible because it sends ancillary messages to members of the audience who are non-adherents that they are outsiders and not members of a certain community” (Speich, 2001, p. 271).
Analysis of the Court Cases
The main issue in the Lee v. Weisman court case is that graduation ceremonies occur within the school premises and in public settings. Consequently, most public school children and adults are at a vulnerable position of feeling coerced and pressured to recognize certain religious practices. The state recognizes the need for lack of partisan church affiliation within public school settings because this endorsement puts pressure on young minds. Furthermore, it is important to note that in a graduation setting each student is forced to either protest the benediction service or acquiesce it because attendance is not optional. On most occasions, disputes involving the church and the state are assessed using the ‘Lemon’ provisions.
The ‘Lemon’ provisions were first outlined in the Lemon v. Kurtzman court case as a three-step modality of assessing the establishment clause of the First Amendment. The “establishment clause was intended to prevent any governmental endorsement or support of religion” (Sherry, 2012, p. 125). Consequently, teachers are prevented from furthering partisan religious agendas as witnessed in the Lee v. Weisman case. In addition, the establishment clause gives parents like Mr. Weisman an avenue for protecting their children from undue religious influence. The spirit of the Establishment Clause is that most of the original immigrants who moved from Europe to America did so to escape the entanglements of the church and the state. In the case of Lee v. Weisman, performing religious state-sanctioned benedictions within a public community school fails to align with the stipulations of the establishment clause (Teitel, 2006).
In the case of Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, the matter is more difficult because the prayers are planned and delivered by the students without the input of other factions. Consequently, to an observer the alternative of student-led prayers appears to be a viable alternative to the prohibitions of the First Amendment. In this case, the teachers, parents, and the community do not have an input in the organization of the prayers. The illusion accompanying the student-led prayers in Santa Fe is that there is no government involvement in the process of planning or delivering prayers.
However, the judges who were presiding over this case had a different opinion because they found that prayers before a football game amounted to a public speech, that was sanctioned through a public policy, and one that was conducted within government property (Speich, 2001). Consequently, broadcasting prayers in the setting of a publicly sponsored event goes against the provisions of the First Amendment. This case is synonymous with various other dilemmas that involve prayers during public school events. For instance, some communities consider themselves to be autonomously religious hence, they assume that religious prayers are unanimously acceptable within their areas. It is also important to note that prayers are common in some private school events and their prohibition within the public school settings is frustrating to most religious adherents.
Personal Reaction
I agree with the ruling in the Lee v. Weisman case because the practice of high school principals inviting clergy to graduation ceremonies is bound to exclude a significant proportion of the attendants. For instance, it is very rare for clergy from ‘minority’ religions to be invited to perform these nonsectarian benedictions in public schools. This indicates that the act in itself is an endorsement of certain religious followings. Nevertheless, I find the decision in the Santa Fe v. Doe case to be particularly harsh.
The reason for my evaluation is that such a decision creates more instances of conflict within student ranks, school administrations, and state organs. On the other hand, most student actions are often sanctioned by their parents and this creates another centre of conflict. However, the venue of these prayers justifies the court ruling to a great extent. Sports events are formal occasions that warrant non-partisan actions. In my view, this decision is still open for discussion among education stakeholders.
References
Alexander, K. (2011). American public school law. New York: Cengage Learning.
Lee V. Weisman 112 S. Ct. 2649 (1992)
Santa Fe Independent School District V. Doe 120 S. Ct. 2266 (2000)
Sherry, S. (2012). Lee v Weisman: Paradox Redux. The Supreme Court Review, 5(2), 123-153.
Speich, J. (2001). Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe: mapping the future of student-led, student-initiated prayer in public schools. Alb. L. Rev., 65(2), 271.
Teitel, R. (2006). When Separate Is Equal: Why Organized Religious Exercises, Unlike Chess, Do Not Belong in the Public Schools. Nw. UL Rev., 81, 174.