Introduction
Navigating the intersection of public education and the First Amendment can present complexities. Schools must simultaneously uphold freedom of speech and avoid promoting a particular religion, a balance mandated by law. The following discussion centers on a hypothetical scenario involving a student’s assignment: a written essay and a pictorial representation centered on Jesus, their chosen hero. In upholding the First Amendment, public schools must balance students’ freedom of expression in their work, including religious content, with the responsibility to avoid endorsing or promoting any particular religion.
Freedom of Religious Expression in the Case
The issue at hand involves the interpretation of the First Amendment in the context of a school assignment. The student’s submission, an essay about Jesus and a pictorial depiction of the Last Supper, raises questions about the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause. The former prohibits the government from making any law ‘respecting an establishment of religion’ (Barclay et al., 2019). Conversely, the Free Exercise Clause restricts the government from interfering with a person’s practice of their religion; therefore, these tenets of the First Amendment extend to public schools since they operate under government jurisdiction (Blackman, 2021).
The Supreme Court case Engel v. Vitale (1962) proved pivotal in shaping the interpretation of the Establishment Clause within the educational setting. In this case, the Court held that school-led prayer, even when non-denominational and voluntary, violated the Establishment Clause (United States Courts, n.d.a). Engel v. Vitale established a precedent that public schools cannot favor or promote any particular religion; thus, no legal issues seem to exist regarding the grading of the student’s essay.
The student freely chose Jesus as their hero, rather than the school imposing a religious figure upon them; however, it is crucial to ensure that the evaluation of the student’s work is based on the quality of their argument, rather than the religious content. The Supreme Court case Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969) provides relevant guidance on this matter. This case concluded that students do not lose their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate (United States Courts, n.d.b). Therefore, students retain the right to express religious viewpoints in their assignments, provided they do not disrupt the educational process.
More considerations arise regarding the display of the student’s work. The display of this student’s work can potentially be seen as the school promoting a particular religious viewpoint, depending on the context. The Supreme Court case Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) introduced the Lemon Test, a three-part test that assesses potential violations of the Establishment Clause (Broida, 2018). The first part of the Lemon Test requires a government action to have a secular purpose. The second part stipulates that the primary effect of the action should neither advance nor inhibit religion. Lastly, the third part states that the action should not result in an ‘excessive government entanglement’ with religion.
Conclusion
In conclusion, applying the Lemon Test, displaying the student’s work would likely pass the first part, as the purpose is to showcase student efforts, not promote religion; however, the second and third parts present potential issues. If other students, parents, or staff perceive the display as advancing Christianity, it can be problematic. The same holds if the school becomes excessively entangled in defending the display’s secular intent. Therefore, the display of the student’s work should strike a careful balance between respecting the student’s freedom of expression and avoiding the perception of endorsing a particular religion by the school.
References
Barclay, S. H., Earley, B., & Boone, A. (2019). Original meaning and the Establishment Clause: A corpus linguistics analysis. Arizona Law Review, 61(505), 1-27.
Blackman, J. (2021). The ‘essential’ Free Exercise Clause. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 44(637), 1-18.
Broida, J. (2018). Church, state and the Lemon test: The shortcomings of the Supreme Court when deciding Establishment Clause cases.
United States Courts. (n.d.a). Facts and case summary – Engel v. Vitale.
United States Courts. (n.d.b). Facts and case summary – Tinker v. Des Moines.