Top Ten Public School State/Church Violations

 Top Ten Public School State/Church Violations View the PDF here.

The public school is at once the symbol of our democracy and the most pervasive means for promoting our common destiny. In no activity of the State is it more vital to keep out divisive forces than in its schools, to avoid confusing, not to say fusing, what the Constitution sought to keep strictly apart.
ā€“McCollum v. Board of Education
333 U.S. 203, 231 (1948).

The Freedom From Religion Foundation receivesĀ and acts upon hundreds of violations of theĀ constitutional separation between state andĀ church each year. More than half of theseĀ violations, unfortunately, occur in our nationā€™sĀ public schools, violating the rights of our youngestĀ and most vulnerable population. This brochureĀ explains the state of the law, and why it firmly barsĀ divisive religious instruction and rituals in ourĀ public schools.

Schools exist to educate, not to indoctrinate. AsĀ government bodies charged with educating childrenĀ of all citizens, regardless of religion or irreligion,Ā public schools may not show favoritism toward norĀ coerce belief or participation in religion. When aĀ school sponsors religion, it signals to ā€œnonadherentsĀ ā€˜that they are outsiders, not full members of theĀ political community and [sends an] accompanyingĀ message to adherents that they are insiders, favoredĀ members of the political community.ā€™ā€ Santa Fe,Ā quoting Lynch. School-sponsored religion not onlyĀ violates the law, but excludes the rapidly-growingĀ percentage of nonreligious citizens, including almostĀ a third of adults and up to half of Generation ZĀ (those born after 1996).1

TOP TEN STATE/CHURCH SCHOOL VIOLATIONS TO BEWARE

1. PRAYER AT SCHOOL EVENTS

School events, including graduations, may not includeĀ prayer. For more than 60 years, the U.S. Supreme CourtĀ has consistently struck down prayer in public schools,Ā beginning in 1962. Engel. By 1963, devotional bibleĀ reading and recitation of the Lordā€™s Prayer in publicĀ schools were ruled unconstitutional. Schempp.

ā€œWe repeat and again reaffirm that neither a StateĀ nor the Federal Government can constitutionallyĀ force a person ā€˜to profess a belief or disbelief inĀ any religion.ā€™ Neither can constitutionally pass lawsĀ or impose requirements which aid all religions asĀ against nonbelievers, and neither can aid thoseĀ religions based on a belief in the existence of God asĀ against those religions founded on different beliefs.ā€Ā Schempp, quoting Torcaso.

The Supreme Court successively clarified andĀ strengthened its rulings against school sponsoredĀ religious ritual and indoctrination. In 1992, theĀ court ruled prayers at public school graduationsĀ impermissible: ā€œthe State cannot require one of itsĀ citizens to forfeit his or her rights and benefits as theĀ price of resisting conformance to state-sponsoredĀ religious practice.ā€ Lee. In 2000, the court ruled thatĀ even when student-led, prayer at school events isĀ unconstitutional. Santa Fe.

The Courtā€™s 2022 decision in Kennedy v. BremertonĀ School District did not alter the law regarding theseĀ coercive prayer practices, nor did it overrule theseĀ previous decisions. In fact the Court explicitlyĀ distinguished the circumstances in Kennedy from priorĀ cases involving prayer at school-sponsored events.

2. SCHOOL BOARD PRAYER

Scheduling or conducting prayer as part of itsĀ meetings is beyond the scope of a public schoolĀ board and violates the Establishment Clause.2

A public school board is an essential part of theĀ public school system.3Ā The issues discussed andĀ decisions made at board meetings are wholly schoolrelated, affecting the daily lives of district studentsĀ and parents. These prayers should be analyzed likeĀ other school prayer cases, because the ā€œprayersĀ typically take place before groups of schoolchildrenĀ whose attendance is not truly voluntary and whoseĀ relationship to school district officials, includingĀ the Board, is not one of full parity.ā€4Ā By prayingĀ at meetings, public school boards violate theĀ constitutional requirement of religious neutrality inĀ public schools.

3. SCHOOL BIBLE DISTRIBUTIONS

The distribution of bibles to students on publicĀ school property is prohibited. Allowing bibleĀ distributions in public schools or on public schoolĀ property is an ā€œaffront not only [to] non-religiousĀ people but [to] all those whose faiths, or lack ofĀ faith, does not encompass the New Testament.ā€Ā Berger. Unfortunately, Gideons International viewsĀ schools as ripe missionary territory, specificallyĀ targeting fifth-graders. The aggressive tactic of theĀ Gideons to visit classrooms to personally distributeĀ bibles to small children and complicity by publicĀ school principals or staff flagrantly violate parentalĀ rights and the law.

4. DENIAL OF ATHEIST STUDENT CLUBS

Schools may not ban atheist/secular clubs if otherĀ non-curricular clubs are allowed. Under the EqualĀ Access Act, if public secondary schools permit noncurricular clubs, they cannot discriminate againstĀ student clubs based on their religious, political,Ā philosophical or other beliefs. All clubs mustĀ receive the same rights and privileges. If a teacherĀ is unwilling to serve as advisor for a secular club, aĀ school administrator should be assigned.

Further, any non-curricular clubs must be run byĀ students, not adults, including teachers or otherĀ outsiders, such as youth ministers. School staffĀ may only supervise club meetings; participation isĀ forbidden. Mergens.

5. CHURCHES MEETING IN SCHOOLS

Churches must abide by school rental policies, payĀ fees, and only use property during rental hours.Ā Granting a fee waiver or discount to a church isĀ illegal preferential treatment, forcing taxpayers toĀ subsidize religion. Rental rates should minimallyĀ cover extra costs, including AC, heat, janitorialĀ overtime and clean-up, etc. The church may not useĀ school property during non-rental hours ā€” includingĀ to store equipment, park a trailer, or displayĀ messages or advertising.

6. DISPLAYING RELIGIOUS MESSAGES

Religious displays are not permitted in publicĀ schools. Courts have continually held that schoolĀ districts may not display religious messages orĀ iconography in public schools, including crosses, theĀ Ten Commandments, bible verses, bibles, religiousĀ figures, portraits of Jesus, etc., even if privatelyĀ funded. These may not be displayed on public schoolĀ grounds, public school hallways, offices, classroomsĀ or anywhere in view of students. Stone.

7. YOUTH PASTOR ACCESS TO STUDENTS

Schools may not give religious groups unique accessĀ to school property to befriend, proselytize or giveĀ presentations to students. Schools may not allowĀ pastors, religious youth clubs, ministers or churchesĀ onto school grounds during the school day (e.g., theĀ lunch room) to ā€œvisitā€ with students. It is commonĀ sense not to permit outside adults access to prey onĀ students, whatever their agenda.

8. RELIGIOUS ASSEMBLIES

Ministries often claim expertise in social issues suchĀ as suicide prevention or drug addiction in order toĀ infiltrate public schools and lead assemblies, whichĀ either directly promote religious messages or moreĀ often, invite students to after-school or eveningĀ evangelizing events. Public schools must exerciseĀ due diligence. Often a quick scan of the websiteĀ reveals a religious agenda. Genuine experts, such asĀ local police and county mental health experts, offerĀ schools free, secular programs.

9. COACH/STAFF PRAYER WITH STUDENTS

School staff, including coaches, may not organize,Ā endorse, promote or participate in prayers withĀ students. While the 2022 Kennedy decision affirmedĀ that school officials may pray privately when theyĀ are not acting in their official capacity as districtĀ representatives, teachers and coaches may not leadĀ prayers or deputize students to lead prayer. Even aĀ public school coachā€™s silent participation in studentĀ prayer circles has been ruled unconstitutional.5Ā Schools and athletic teams may not appoint orĀ employ a chaplain or other spiritual leader.

10. COMPELLING PLEDGES OF ALLEGIANCE

Students have a constitutional right not toĀ participate in the Pledge of Allegiance. Nor canĀ students be required to stand or be penalizedĀ in any way for exercising this right. Even beforeĀ ā€œunder Godā€ was belatedly added to the originalĀ secular pledge in 1954, the U.S. Supreme Court hadĀ eloquently affirmed this right:

ā€œIf there is any fixed star in our constitutionalĀ constellation, it is that no official, high or petty,Ā can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics,Ā nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion orĀ force citizens to confess by word or act their faithĀ therein.ā€ Barnette.

‘VOLUNTARINESS’ IS NO EXCUSE

Public schools that host religious events oftenĀ excuse them by calling them ā€œvoluntary.ā€ StudentsĀ are a captive audience who, as the Supreme CourtĀ has stated repeatedly, cannot be required to forfeitĀ rights or benefits as the price of resisting statesponsored religious practices. Lee.

IT PAYS TO COMPLAIN

If you are aware of these or similar violations in your public schools, report violations to:

https://ffrf.org/legal/report

Major decisions cited

  • Berger v. Rensselaer Cent. Sch. Corp., 982 F.2d 1160 (7th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 2344 (1993)
  • Bd. of Educ. of the Westside Cmty. Sch. v. Mergens, 496 U.S. 226 (1990)
  • Borden v. Sch. Dist. of the Twp. of East Brunswick, 523 F.3d 153 (3rd Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 129 S.Ct. 1524 (2009)
  • Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962)
  • Kennedy v. Bremerton Sch. Dist., 142 S. Ct. 2407 (2022)
  • Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992)
  • Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668 (1984)
  • McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203 (1948)
  • Santa Fe Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000)
  • School District of Abington Township v. Schempp, 374. U.S. 203 (1963)
  • Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980)
  • Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961)
  • West Virginia State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)

Footnotes to other citations:

1 Daniel A. Cox, citing Survey Center on American Life (moreĀ than 34 percentthan 34 percent), March 24, 2022

Ryan P. Burge, Eastern Illinois University, citing CooperativeĀ Election Study, April 2023 (shows 48 percent)

2 FFRF v. Chino Valley Unified Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 896 F.3dĀ 1132Ā (9th Cir.), en banc denied, 910 F.3d 1297 (9th Cir. 2018)

3 Coles v. Cleveland Bd. of Educ., 171 F.3d 369 (6th Cir. 1999)Ā ColesĀ v. Cleveland Bd. of Educ., 171 F.3d 369 (6th Cir. 1999)

4Ā Chino Valley at 1142 (internal citations omitted)

5 Borden v. Sch. Dist. of the Twp. of East Brunswick, 523 F.3dĀ 153 (3d Cir. 2008)

View online brochure and PDF here.

Ā© 2023 Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc.

Freedom From Religion Foundation