State of Protest

Sometimes I wish my kid would start a pro-transvestite anarchist atheist socialist anti-censorship club at his school. Just so I could watch the religious right-based school board members writhe in their plush seats as I defended my son’s right to establish such a student group in a public school presumably so unbiased that it would allow an antiabortion religious group. Unfortunately, what I really envision is them sitting there with smug looks of self-righteousness reminiscent of the Joe McCarthy witch hunts of the 40’s and 50’s. Honestly, I don’t mind if kids want to set up an antiabortion student club. More power to them. If a school board, on the other hand, insisted on having one, that might be a different story. What’s truly disturbing, though, is that a school board would probably find some sort of justification for prohibiting my son’s hypothetical student group, despite allowing a group that is self-admittedly religiously based. Perhaps the school boards across the nation have an idea of what is right and wrong for their schools based not on the secular governmental positions they hold, but, instead, on their own religious idealism. I think the facts tend to speak for themselves. You decide.

The United States was created and continues to be governed by a document called the U.S. Constitution. Shortly after its adoption, amendments were added to ensure further protection from the government of the citizens of the nation. The first ten amendments are commonly referred to as the Bill of Rights.

The First Amendment states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.¹

There have been a number of court cases involving to what extent this prohibition against establishment and the protection of free exercise applies in a public school setting. Most recently, an Illinois U.S. District Judge, Robert Gettleman, issued a preliminary injunction against The Silent Reflection and Student Prayer Act of Illinois, citing its vagueness and probable unconstitutionality, as a result of a lawsuit brought by concerned parent Rob Sherman.²

The law states, in part:

In each public school classroom the teacher in charge shall observe a brief period of silence with the participation of all the pupils therein assembled at the opening of every school day. This period shall not be conducted as a religious exercise but shall be an opportunity for silent prayer or for silent reflection on the anticipated activities of the day.³

[the initial "shall" was originally "may" until recently amended]⁴

Judge Gettleman stated that the statute’s language would indicate to a child that the child must think about praying.⁵ Although the case is still early on in its likely prolonged history, especially if there are appeals made and the Illinois state Attorney General decides to get involved, it is an example of how the court system takes very seriously the First Amendment, and attempts to side, by default, with the amendment’s distinct separation of church and state.

However, some school administrative bodies have lately not been so adherent to the edicts of the Constitution. Or, at minimum, have not been consistent in application of prohibitions against school activities. For example, in early November, a teenager fought and won a fight to establish an after-school antiabortion club that is specifically and openly based on a religious agenda. The purpose of the club, as stated, is:

To educate people about the biggest holocaust that is going on right here in the United States. To come together and pray to end abortion. To be a voice for my generation and a voice for those who cannot speak for themselves.⁶

But, as a Defense Fund attorney insisted:

There is a discomfort with religious speech in the schools, even when it’s engaged in by students, which should not be the case. Once they open up the facility to clubs, merely . . . allowing a religious club in the mix does not promote religion.⁷

Whether or not by allowing such a club, a school is endorsing or establishing religion, there should at least be some consistency in such decisions by the governmental organizations that closely control the curricula of public school systems. Unfortunately, that appears not to be the case at all. A Florida school board has been the subject of a lawsuit by a student group, titled the “Gay-Straight Alliance” which was a result of the school board insisting that the after-school club change its name, lest it violate a Florida law requiring schools to teach abstinence and “heterosexual marriage.”⁸

What is happening here is that a school board is using an obviously biased, discriminatory, religious-based, and unconstitutional law to justify a decision about the name and activities of an after-school student organization. Could it genuinely be a conflict between the desire of the school board to facilitate student activities and the board’s fear of reprisal by the state for not conforming to its law? Possibly. But compare this situation with the after-school antiabortion club, and that school board’s ease of acceptance, despite the possible unconstitutionality of the establishment of such a group.

If one school board could be so lenient in favor of a religious student organization, why can’t another school board be just as accepting of an organization that is not only not religious, but potentially pro-secular? It’s quite likely that both school boards and the state governments in which they reside are biased toward pro-religious organizations, and will find a way to accept them, while rejecting those that potentially threaten their religious beliefs, at least until a concerned atheist activist parent, like Rob Sherman, brings a lawsuit against the school board, and a rational judge like Judge Gettleman challenges the status quo by actually trying to enforce protections provided by the Constitution and the First Amendment. What this nation needs is more Rob Shermans and more Judge Gettlemans.

-Procrustes

1. U.S. Constitution [↩]
2. Judge bans moment of silence in suburban district, Chicago Tribune, November 14, 2007 [↩]
3. The Silent Reflection and Student Prayer Act [↩]
4. The Silent Reflection and Student Prayer Act [↩]
5. Judge bans moment of silence in suburban district, Chicago Tribune, November 14, 2007 [↩]
6. Teen Wins Fight for Antiabortion Club at School, WashingtonPost.com, November 6, 2007 [↩]
7. Teen Wins Fight for Antiabortion Club at School, WashingtonPost.com, November 6, 2007 [↩]
8. H.S. gay club rejects name change, United Press International, November 15, 2007 [↩]