Graduation Prayers in Public Schools
Introduction to the Issues
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
To what extent, if any, may the government allow prayers at the graduation ceremonies of public schools? The answer is simple, although difficult to apply in practice: if the government has any say or controlling function over the words being said, then prayer and evangelism may not be a part of those words.
This was the standard used in the case of Cole v. Oroville Union High School, which the Supreme Court refused to hear. The Ninth Circuit Court decision made it clear that the extreme evangelizing to which the two students wanted to subject the graduates was impermissible. Because of their roles as school speakers and because of the fact that school administrators had a policy of reviewing speeches ahead of time, the court acknowledged that the speeches could reasonably be seen as having a government stamp of approval and endorsement.
Although efforts are made in cases like these to ensure that the prayers offered are as "nondenominational" as possible, even these prayers carry with them serious problems. Assuming for a moment that truly nondenominational prayers can be devised, there remains the fact that people who take their religion seriously can and sometimes are offended at the vague platitudes and empty words which are being passed off as "communion" with God.
They have every right to object to the state taking their form of communication with their deity and watering it down in an effort to make it acceptable to the masses. It would be similar to the state attempting to cut all of the "unpleasant" parts out of the Bible before distributing it to students.
This division between public and private speech was first articulated in the question of graduation/commencement prayers in the case of Lee v. Weisman. This was an easier case to decide because it involved not students speakers, but a Rabbi invited by the school administration to offer an official, nondenominational prayer to the students.
By acting to select the person to offer the prayer and by approving of the nature of the prayers before hand, an officer of the state was acting to determine the content of the prayer - something declared unconstitutional with Engel v. Vitale . Even when the prayer is nondenominational, the state is not permitted to impose it upon citizens or students.
There is a further problem inherent in prayers given both by invited adults and, frequently, by students: the perception of coercion. In any given audience, there are bound to be people who do not wish to participate in the prayers in any fashion. This becomes difficult when the standard practice is for everyone to stand and bow their heads in silence during such prayers: there exists a great deal of social pressure to conform.
Dissenters don't want to participate, but feel as though they must. Even if they stand just to show respect for the service and for others, it is impossible to tell the difference between that and standing because you believe in it and wish to participate. This, too, creates conflict for those who disagree with the prayer.
It may be true that they have the right to stay seated, but this does not change the fact that the state is not allowed to create a social setting where people are under any sort of pressure to feel like they have to participate in a religious ritual. Social orthodoxy is just as prohibited as direct force for getting people to accept specific religious observances.
It is also true that students do not have to actually attend graduation exercises and that by staying away, they can avoid their personal conflicts completely while also allowing the majority to have its religious prayers. This, however, is unacceptable - high school graduation is a once-in-a-lifetime experience for people, something students have been aiming for over the course of years. It is a state function which exits for all citizens, not just those who are members of a religious majority. Because of that, a religious majority cannot be allowed to hijack the ceremonies for their own sectarian agenda, forcing all others to feel excluded and unwelcome.
All of this is clear when the prayers are delivered either by a school official or by an outside religious authority invited to the ceremonies by school officials. Matters can become a bit more ambiguous when a student is delivering the prayer, and it is here where court decisions can differ.
In the most recent case from last week, the Supreme Court let stand the Ninth Circuit Court's ruling that, under the circumstances, the student speeches could be seen as having government approval - for that reason, they were impermissible.
But under other circumstances, other courts have come to different conclusions. For example, in the case of Jones v. Clear Creek, the Fifth Circuit Court would appear to have come to a decision which is in conflict with Lee v. Weisman. In Jones, the court ruled that a policy allowing high school seniors to vote on whether or not to have prayers at graduation. In contrast to the Cole decision of the Ninth Circuit Court, this decision ruled that it was okay for the school administration to approve which prayers could be said and which could not.
In contrast to this, the Third Circuit Court came to the opposite conclusion in a similar situation with the case of ACLU v. Black Horse Regional Board of Education even explicitly rejecting the arguments used by the Fifth Circuit Court in their Jones decision. The important lessons from Lee v. Weisman were reinforced: that the government is involved in every aspect of what happens at graduation ceremonies and cannot pretend that it is not officially sanctioning prayer, and furthermore that students should not be compelled to conform to a particular form of religious worship in order to attend their own graduation.
On a national level, the question of prayers being given by anyone other than a student has been decided and found unconstitutional; but the status of student-led prayers at graduation ceremonies has not yet been determined.
The closest recent case was Santa Fe v. Doe, where the Supreme Court struck down a policy allowing students to vote to have prayers at a football game. This case incorporates reasoning similar to that used by the Third Circuit Court in its Black Horse ruling. So, while the current Court tends to favor allowing various forms of government support of religion, it is possible that at some future date it would invalidate student-voted prayers at graduation for the reasons stated above.
-->