The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
SCOTUS, graduation, and the Bible
taoist drunk
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
In the "Is abortion biblical?" thread, a sort-of hypothetical emerged about students' religious speech at graduation ceremonies, which I'll adapt for the purposes of this thread.
Hypothetical: At the end of her speech at graduation, the valedictorian says “And now to quote from the greatest book ever written…” and let’s say for the sake of this situation she finishes with a Bible verse that’s basically inoffensive, let’s say something about the Golden Rule or something, or something from Proverbs like “Lazy hands make a man poor, but diligent hands bring wealth.” Or something. Something that basically everyone can agree on, but is definitely a Bible verse.
Relevant case law:
Lee v. Weisman, in which the Court held that a public school may not invite a clergy member to give a benediction at graduation, in part because of the coercive nature of graduation—while it is technically optional, it’s a huge milestone in a person’s life and therefore there’s substantial pressure encouraging attendance. Then, once you’re at graduation, there’s further coercion in that it is a solemn ceremony so there is an expectation of silence. Quote from the decision:
Second relevant case: Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, which held that students may not lead prayer in schools. The facts of the case: an elected student council chaplain (!) said a prayer, presumably petitioning divine blessing, over the school’s PA system on days of home varsity football games (i know). The suit was brought by Mormon and Catholic parents. While the case was pending, the school modified their policy to only permit nonsectarian, non-proselytizing prayer. The Court still said that it was a violation of the Establishment Clause for several reasons: (1) the PA system thing means it’s unavoidable (2) While football games [like graduations] are technically optional, they really aren’t for members of the team, members of the cheerleading squad, or band members.
The Court further held that the case failed the purpose and effect prongs of the Lemon test (Does the government’s action have a secular purpose? Does the government’s action have a secular effect? Does the government’s action promote excessive entanglement with religion?). There is no secular reason whatsoever to have kids praying over football games, basically. The Court also found it offensive that there was an elected student chaplain at all, because it put students in the unacceptable position of being forced to engage in religious debate in school.
Third relevant case: Abington School District v. Schempp, which held that school officials reading Bible verses without comment is a violation of the Establishment Clause.
Back to the hypothetical. Does it violate the establishment clause if the valedictorian quotes the Bible at the end of her speech?
The argument that it would be a violation, I guess, would be to combine Schempp and Santa Fe and say that if school officials can’t read the Bible without comment and students can’t lead prayer, then students can’t read Bible verses without comment either. Then add that to the ruling that school graduations are an inherently coercive environment, as found in Lee, and you’ve got: student may not read a Bible verse at graduation.
BUT
The valedictorian is speaking on behalf of the student body, not the school, and everyone who has ever seen a movie ever knows that the valedictorian, even after having her speech approved by the administration (if the administration even has a policy of pre-approval), can go off the rails once she’s at the podium. Furthermore the purpose of a valedictorian’s speech is to celebrate the cohort’s journey through high school and their prospects for a bright future, not to give a religious benediction or petition, so it passes the purpose prong of the Lemon test. Does it have a religious effect? ehhhhhh. Does it foster excessive entanglement? Ehhhhhh. The student’s not a representative for any religious denomination, and while the school is honoring the valedictorian as an exceptional student, they’re not necessarily endorsing her every word. Furthermore she was selected for being an exceptional student, not elected as a religious representative. Nor is this a case of routinized prayer like in Santa Fe or Schempp.
In fact, there might be a stronger Free Exercise claim than Establishment Clause claim. If the school were to try to stop the valedictorian from reading a bible verse, she could point out that they invited her to give a speech, not a benediction, and in her speech she made passing mention of a holy book. Obviously the free exercise and establishment clauses are always in tension with each other and neither will be perfectly attained as long as the other exists, and depending on who you talk to or read there are plenty of rhapsodies out there about this beautiful dance but that’s not the point. Is this a violation? Would it be a free exercise violation if the school tried to stop the valedictorian from mentioning the Bible? What about if the Bible verse quoted was more specifically Christian, like “go forth and do Christ’s work” or something? What do you think?
Hypothetical: At the end of her speech at graduation, the valedictorian says “And now to quote from the greatest book ever written…” and let’s say for the sake of this situation she finishes with a Bible verse that’s basically inoffensive, let’s say something about the Golden Rule or something, or something from Proverbs like “Lazy hands make a man poor, but diligent hands bring wealth.” Or something. Something that basically everyone can agree on, but is definitely a Bible verse.
Relevant case law:
Lee v. Weisman, in which the Court held that a public school may not invite a clergy member to give a benediction at graduation, in part because of the coercive nature of graduation—while it is technically optional, it’s a huge milestone in a person’s life and therefore there’s substantial pressure encouraging attendance. Then, once you’re at graduation, there’s further coercion in that it is a solemn ceremony so there is an expectation of silence. Quote from the decision:
(the Rabbi, here, was the clergyperson that the school invited to give the benediction)A reasonable dissenter of high school age could believe that standing or remaining silent signified her own participation in, or approval of, the group exercise, rather than her respect for it. And the State may not place the student dissenter in the dilemma of participating or protesting. Since adolescents are often susceptible to peer pressure, especially in matters of social convention, the State may no more use social pressure to enforce orthodoxy than it may use direct means. The embarrassment and intrusion of the religious exercise cannot be refuted by arguing that the prayers are of a de minimis character, since that is an affront to the Rabbi and those for whom the prayers have meaning, and since any intrusion was both real and a violation of the objectors’ rights.
Second relevant case: Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, which held that students may not lead prayer in schools. The facts of the case: an elected student council chaplain (!) said a prayer, presumably petitioning divine blessing, over the school’s PA system on days of home varsity football games (i know). The suit was brought by Mormon and Catholic parents. While the case was pending, the school modified their policy to only permit nonsectarian, non-proselytizing prayer. The Court still said that it was a violation of the Establishment Clause for several reasons: (1) the PA system thing means it’s unavoidable (2) While football games [like graduations] are technically optional, they really aren’t for members of the team, members of the cheerleading squad, or band members.
The Court further held that the case failed the purpose and effect prongs of the Lemon test (Does the government’s action have a secular purpose? Does the government’s action have a secular effect? Does the government’s action promote excessive entanglement with religion?). There is no secular reason whatsoever to have kids praying over football games, basically. The Court also found it offensive that there was an elected student chaplain at all, because it put students in the unacceptable position of being forced to engage in religious debate in school.
Third relevant case: Abington School District v. Schempp, which held that school officials reading Bible verses without comment is a violation of the Establishment Clause.
Back to the hypothetical. Does it violate the establishment clause if the valedictorian quotes the Bible at the end of her speech?
The argument that it would be a violation, I guess, would be to combine Schempp and Santa Fe and say that if school officials can’t read the Bible without comment and students can’t lead prayer, then students can’t read Bible verses without comment either. Then add that to the ruling that school graduations are an inherently coercive environment, as found in Lee, and you’ve got: student may not read a Bible verse at graduation.
BUT
The valedictorian is speaking on behalf of the student body, not the school, and everyone who has ever seen a movie ever knows that the valedictorian, even after having her speech approved by the administration (if the administration even has a policy of pre-approval), can go off the rails once she’s at the podium. Furthermore the purpose of a valedictorian’s speech is to celebrate the cohort’s journey through high school and their prospects for a bright future, not to give a religious benediction or petition, so it passes the purpose prong of the Lemon test. Does it have a religious effect? ehhhhhh. Does it foster excessive entanglement? Ehhhhhh. The student’s not a representative for any religious denomination, and while the school is honoring the valedictorian as an exceptional student, they’re not necessarily endorsing her every word. Furthermore she was selected for being an exceptional student, not elected as a religious representative. Nor is this a case of routinized prayer like in Santa Fe or Schempp.
In fact, there might be a stronger Free Exercise claim than Establishment Clause claim. If the school were to try to stop the valedictorian from reading a bible verse, she could point out that they invited her to give a speech, not a benediction, and in her speech she made passing mention of a holy book. Obviously the free exercise and establishment clauses are always in tension with each other and neither will be perfectly attained as long as the other exists, and depending on who you talk to or read there are plenty of rhapsodies out there about this beautiful dance but that’s not the point. Is this a violation? Would it be a free exercise violation if the school tried to stop the valedictorian from mentioning the Bible? What about if the Bible verse quoted was more specifically Christian, like “go forth and do Christ’s work” or something? What do you think?
taoist drunk on
0
Posts
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2010/06/school_pulls_approval_process.php
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2010/03/bad_court_ruling_on_graduation.php
Guess I probably relied on these a bit much. Apparently the courts are a little less open to religious content in school speeches.
I don't know about that. If the school reviews her speech beforehand and oks it, then they are giving some level of official endorsement for it. Not in the sense of "this is an official school statement that we stand by", but at least in the sense of "this is a statement that the school approves of". The school would veto a speech that, say, drops the N-bomb and the F-bomb and made racist and sexist comments, because they find such statements objectionable and do not want them associated with their school. Allowing a speech with a Bible quote sends the opposite message, that they do not find it objectionable and are ok with it being associated with their school.
This is of course for the case where the Bible quote is part of the reviewed draft of the speech, not the case where she ad-libbed it on the spot.
So a school can tell the students "no mentioning God during a speech" or whatever. But if a student decides to break that rule, it means precisely dick as far as the Constitution is concerned. Sure, the school can punish him. (Though what sort of meaningful punishment they can apply to a straight-A student who has just graduated is sort of beyond me.) But that's about the extent of it.
That said, I think a student should be able to quote the Bible during his speech if he wants to, because who the fuck cares? Honestly, I'd rather hear a Bible verse or two than the inevitable quoting of that goddamn Grateful Dead song or a treatise on how the dictionary defines whatever-the-fuck.
1) What if the valedictorian quoted a not-so-nice line from the bible, say Joshua 10:39-40?
2) What if it's a quote not from the Bible but the holy book of a religious minority, say a Buddhist or a Hindu quote?
3) What if it's an actively atheist statement? Say the valedictorian ended her speech with: Should an anti-religious statement be treated the same as a religious statement?
The crux of the issue as I see it is whether the valedictorian is speaking as an individual student, or speaking as a representative of the school. If it's the former, then it would be unconstitutional to restrict her speech... if it's the latter, it would be unconstitutional not to.
And I'm not sure, honestly. I personally see a valedictorian speech as being representative of that student's opinions, but I'm not sure if my view is accurate.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Oh cool I didn't know that there already was a case like this.
In Grayned v. Rockford, the Court did rule that public schools have certain leeway to restrict free speech, but that isn't a perfect match because that was about antinoise ordinances rather than religious content in speech, and content restrictions have historically been treated with strict scrutiny. The school would have better luck than someone trying to restrict speech in a park or on the sidewalk, but they'd still have to prove that there was a "compelling interest" in limiting graduation speeches to non-religious or at least sect-neutral content and prove that the policy was narrowly tailored to meet that interest.
Hate speech and obscenity are not protected by the First Amendment, therefore the school has the right (and some might say the responsibility) to shield their students from those types of speech.
The school has neither the right nor the responsibility to shield their students from the First Amendment protected expression of other students.
So to answer your question, "Where do we draw the line?" Those lines have already been drawn (and will continue to be drawn over time), in this case we just have to figure out how to apply them.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Why do you guys have to be such extremists? There's no prize for being the most religious (or the most atheist, come to that). I'm pretty sure it doesn't impress any deity, and I'm nearly as sure it doesn't impress the girls. The motivation involved baffles me.
PS As kids, we used to sing rude versions of the hymns in assembly and fire elastic bands at each other during prayer: that was our Dissent. It seemed to suffice to preserve my agnosticism.
Vale-dick-torian?
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
1) that's what I was getting at at the end of the post; if you're allowed to quote one section can you quote every section? I think it would be in poor taste, but I also don't think the school could reasonably be responsible if a student went off the rails at the end of their speech and said that. If the school reviewed the speech ahead of time, though, and that quote was included, I honestly am not sure whether that could be stricken under a constitutional policy.
2) There is absolutely no question in my mind that any school policy privileging one religion over another would immediately be stricken down as a violation of the Establishment Clause.
3) I don't think that's an anti-religious statement? It's not really antagonistic. Again, it would be in poor taste to end your graduation speech "And God is bullshit, all your prophets were just crazy people, and prayer means nothing," but I'm not sure if a school policy that allows for that (because the actions of one 18 year old kid can't be constitutional or unconstitutional; we're talking about the policies and actions of an arm of the state just generally in this thread] would be found unconstitutional. I think probably not; this wasn't from the majority opinion but rather Justice O'Connor's concurring opinion in Lynch v. Donnelly: So you can't privilege religion over irreligion, and you can't privilege irreligion over religion. Of course, there's a lot to debate about what constitutes "privilege."
Half the people in England aren't religious, though. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_Kingdom#Secularism.2C_tolerance_and_anti-religious_discrimination (scroll down a bit) I think it's unlikely that if you nuked the First Amendment, it would turn out OK in America.
Re: bolded: Kind of. There has been at least one ruling (which is the most recent on the books as far as i know) saying that schools have the authority to restrict the free speech of protesters on and around campus where the local government wouldn't be able to keep the same protesters out of a park or off a sidewalk. So there's precedent for a school having elevated authority to restrict speech. I think it would be harder for them to make a case for restricting content over execution though, because the courts are pretty strict about content regulation.
Good point.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
If the school authorizes religious references in a valedictorian's speech, that's the school's responsibility. If the valedictorian includes references without getting authorization, then that's still the school's responsibility, since they chose the valedictorian as their agent. If they don't trust the valedictorian to act as a responsible agent, they shouldn't allow that person to give a speech.
I'd think that schools actually would have quite a bit of power to punish valedictorians who violate rules. "Valedictorian" looks awesome on a transcript, but I'd imagine that "Valedictorian - revoked" looks significantly less so.
I suspect that it's probably a lot less ok than you think, but the reason this doesn't fly in America is because England used to do some retarded shit with regards to religion and we didn't want to have any of it going on here.
We have our own set of retarded religious shit to deal with thank you very much.
Are the methods for selecting the valedictorian and the fact that the valedictorian gives a speech at graduation mandated by anything other than tradition, though?
As long as policy treats all religious or non-religious topics equally even school approval isn't really a hindrance. The only problem I'd see is if the content of the speech was normally censored in a way beyond what would be necessary to maintain an environment that was non-disruptive to the learning process (Tinker), especially pertaining to potentially controversial/religious speech, and this was allowed in anyway.
Yes they are. Or more accurately hate speech is protected and the obscenity exception might as well not exist.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Americans actually care about the philosophical basis of our government. I honestly don't understand why Europeans, and the English specifically, don't (generalizing of course).
The US has a system of laws built around a formally ratified Constitution, and a subservient hierarchy of federal law, State Constitution and state and local laws. The interpretations of these laws are set forth by a set of judicial precedents descending from English common law and those of higher courts, most prominently the US Supreme Court who interprets the letter and principals of the Constitution. As it as determined that government has no place in involved in matters of religious belief or interfering with free expression - which is a pretty sacred concept to many if not most Americans - we don't want public schools entangled in religion.
You have a fucking Queen who still legally appoints your government. Of course you don't have a coherent framework preventing the separation of Church and State.... your Head of State is the head of the Church of England! The entire thing is an unsupportable mess of gradually evolved feudalism twisted and warped in the (noble and good) effort to make it more egalitarian.
The effectiveness or advisability of the policies of either government is subject to debate. But as an American I don't understand how a Western democracy could allow itself to remain on foundations diametrically opposed to its current stated goals. I mean, it kind of works, so maybe it doesn't matter. But there isn't one principal or basis for the whole thing.
/sidebar rant about how I can't understand why someone wouldn't care about the core justifications for political power over
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
He pretty much has the sum of it.
There's a world of difference between the valedictorian quoting the bible and a school official in his duty as a school official quoting it.
One is a representative of the government, the other is a representative of himself and his class, neither of which are beholden to the restrictions placed on the government in such matters.
Is it in poor taste? Maybe, that's for individuals to decide, but its certainly not in violation of religious separation laws.
No it is actually OK. It really is.
And the "yeah well, some people behaved like dicks 250 years ago so we need to keep on behaving like dicks today" argument doesn't really fly. We were under mortal threat of invasion from France back then, but we've managed to stop sinking their ships since then. We got over it.
Likewise I can't help suspecting that maybe things might be a bit nicer if some people didn't lose their shit everyone someone says grace in a school canteen or whatever, and also if some other people minded their own business when it comes to dealing with how others manage their souls (or lack thereof).
If a pupil has been made valedictorian (not a thing we have here but which I infer to mean that they're an outstanding pupil in their year?) and gets to give a speech and they give a speech which happens to contain something with which you disagree with, how about politely letting then give their speech and say what they want to say, and then disagreeing with the parts you don't like on your own time, afterwards? If Vicky the Valedictorian wants to thank Jesus or Buddha or whoever for inspiring her to get straight As, then shut your pie hole and let her say her piece. My personal opinion of Vicky is that she's a moonbat who should give herself a little more credit for her hard work, but that's my business and no-one elses. Letting her speak costs me nothing but a couple of minutes.
Maybe because it means that we dont drag schoolchildren into highly publicised court cases about whether they've suffered ~terrible trauma~ from overhearing a prayer or the word "God".
The entire thing is an unsupportable mess of gradually evolved feudalism twisted and warped in the (noble and good) effort to make it more egalitarian.
Yes! Exactly! And it works! Because you can be any religion you like, or none at all, and not only is it legally no-one's business but yours, it's also culturally no-one's business but yours. You know what religion is like here? It's like masturbating or taking a dump. People know you do it, they don't condemn you for it, but they don't expect or want you to talk about it, and they don't really want to think about it. It's none of their business. People who openly talk about it are embarrassing. (That's way worse than being an atheist here)
You know what having an established church means? It means that no-one has to care about being religious. Come on now, there's nothing like letting the government run something to take the spiritual passion out of it.
Are you saying this as someone who isn't a member of a religious minority in a country with a state-established religion?
Wars with France are not what I was talking about. I'm talking about shit like outlawing any religions other than the one established by the state, not allowing Jews to live in the country at all, that sort of thing. Religious persecution was a very real thing when America was founded and the people who founded it had every reason to believe that it would continue to be a problem if they didn't do something to stop it. Turns out, they were right.
I'm an atheist. When I have kids I'm going to raise them to figure out their beliefs for themselves, and it will almost certainly result in them being atheists as well. When they go to school I don't want to have to worry about them being beaten up by the other kids for not joining in prayer.
I basically agree with the view you're putting forward here, that tolerance is the way to go. However, I think that there is a point to be made, however, that if the school 'approves' the speech, and the speech contains religious quotations in a manner intended to be religious speech, there's a problem.
I find it offensive that you've so grossly simplified such huge legal decisions as Engel V Vitale. The reason those cases happen is because if we do NOT ban school endorsed prayer, if we do not make it impossible for school children to ID atheists or other religious minorities, then there WILL without a doubt, be violence, potentially a lot of it, and if the people are old enough possibly even death or irreparable physical damage.
People still die in the south for not participating in religious norms. You'll never be able to protect or stop such things, all you can do is prevent the bigots from IDing atheists and the best way to do that is to make sure that no one in their official capacity is able to coerce others into religious ceremonies. That starts with the government.
That doesn't work in America, the religious right would love nothing more than to start the American Inquisition and put all of us non-believers and heathens right on the rack. The fact is that in America if you are not religious or religious enough and unfortunate enough to live in the wrong area you can suffer severely at the hands of others. There is no avoiding this, it'd be nice if we could be high-minded and tolerant, but that doesn't work when a large majority of the country would love nothing more than to torture you until you die or convert.
Everyone with a certain GPA or higher (3.8 or 3.9 I think) was allowed to submit a valedictorian speech if they wanted. School picked the best speech, and that person was valedictorian. It also meant that the speeches were always good. No inside bullshit, they were always about the class as a whole, and of the three I heard, actually interesting.
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
I don't think I've ever heard a good valedictorian speech.
I am reasonably sure such a thing does not exist.
Umm.
It's usually pretty easy to ID the atheists.
They're the ones who go around talking about how they're atheists.
Young people tend to wear their belief systems on their sleeves. See also: young Republicans. See also: young goth folks.