276
CHAPTER 9: Legal Aspects of Education emphasis on reasonableness indicates that the Court “is placing considerable confidence in school officials,” trusting those officials to maintain a proper balance between student rights and the school’s needs.61
9-4 Religion and the Schools The framers of our Constitution were acutely aware of religious persecution and sought to prevent the United States from experiencing the serious and often bloody conflicts that had occurred in Europe. As noted at the beginning of this chapter, the First Amendment, adopted in 1791, prohibits the establishment of a nationally sanctioned religion (the establishment clause) and government interference with individuals’ rights to hold and freely practice their religious beliefs (the free exercise clause). Judge Alphonso Taft succinctly stated the position of government toward religion more than one hundred years ago: “The government is neutral, and while protecting all, it prefers none, and it disparages none.”62
9-4a Prayer, Bible Reading, and Religious Blessings and Displays Before 1962, students in New Hyde Park were required to recite daily this nondenominational prayer composed by the New York State Board of Regents: “Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon thee, and we beg thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers, and our Country.” Although exemption was possible upon written parental request, the US Supreme Court in Engle v. Vitale (1962) ruled the state-written prayer unconstitutional. According to the Court, “Neither the fact that the prayer may be denominationally neutral nor the fact that its observance on the part of students is voluntary can serve to free it from the limitations of the Establishment Clause.”63 The decision created a storm of protest that has barely subsided to this day. A year later, the Court again prohibited religious exercises in public schools. This time, the issue involved oral reading of Bible verses and recitation of the Lord’s Prayer. These were clearly religious ceremonies and “intended by the State to be so,” even when student participation was voluntary. In 2000, the Court excluded student-led prayer at a football game because the game and therefore the prayer were officially sponsored by the school. On the other hand, the courts have ruled that students can lead or participate in prayers at commencement ceremonies, as long as decisions to do so are
Lowell C. Rose, “Reasonableness—The Court’s New Standard for Cases Involving Student Rights,” Phi Delta Kappan (April 1988), pp. 589–592. See also Richard S. Vacca, “The Roberts Court,” CEPI Education Law Newsletter (December 2008), available at www.cepi.vcu.edu /publications/newsletters; and Thomas A. Jacobs, “Will the Supreme Court Consider Cyberbullying?” May 7, 2014, posting by Legal Solutions Blog, available at http://blog .legalsolutions.thomsonreuters.com/government/will-supreme-court-consider -cyberbullying. 62 Quoted by Justice Tom Clark in School District of Abington Township v. Schempp, 374 US 203 (1963). See also Richard S. Vacca, “Free Exercise of Religion in Public Schools,” CEPI Education Law Newsletter (November 2006), available at www.cepi.vcu.edu/publications /newsletters; Thomas C. Berg, “The Story of the School Prayer Decisions,” 2011 posting by the Social Science Research Network, available at www.ssrn.com; and Justin Murphy, “Schempp Still Stands Against Forced School Prayer,” USA Today (April 7, 2014), available at www.usatoday.com. 63 Engle v. Vitale, 370 US 421 (1962). See also “Guidelines on Constitutionally Protected Prayer,” 2003 paper available at www.ed.gov; Perry A. Zirkel, “Friday Night Rites,” Phi Delta Kappan (October 2008), pp. 146–147; and “Time to Pray at School!” 2014 posting by Adam Laats, available at http://iloveyoubutyouregoingtohell.org/?s=time+to+pray+at+school. 61
Copyright 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
