|
||
|
||
|
||
Background Information:
In the 1970s, the School Board of Sioux Falls, South Dakota was concerned about how schools could and should deal with religious holidays in school - in particular, how schools would observe the Christmas holiday season. A committee was set up to study the problem and the ramifications for the separation of church and state of any possible solutions.
In the end, the committee proposed and the District adopted a set of policies which allowed for schools to recognize and observe religious holidays, but only within certain boundaries. Instruction in the historical and cultural roots of religious holidays was permitted, but not in a manner which would indicate endorsement or disagreement with that religion or that holiday. Schools could erect displays with religious symbols (menorahs, nativity scenes, etc.), but only if they are temporary and part of general classroom instruction. Public performances of religious music, religious dramas, and religious poetry were also permitted as part of the educational efforts of the school.
Roger Florey, a parent and atheist, objected to this policy and filed suit against the school district, arguing that his constitutional rights had been violated and claiming that the policy was unconstitutional both on its face and as it was applied - although, prior to the lawsuit, they had not actually bee implemented and so no test had been performed. Florey's principal concern was with the singing of religious carols during Christmas concerts, for example "Silent Night" and "O Come All Ye Faithful".
Although the U.S. District Court agreed that previous Christmas programs "exceeded the boundaries of what is constitutionally permissible under the Establishment Clause," it held that the new policies were legitimate and acceptable. Florey appealed to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Court Decision:
On April 22, 1980, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the U.S. District Court's original decision was correct - the original Christmas programs violated the separation of church and state, but the revised programs under the new policies were constitutional, even with the inclusion of Christian Christmas carols like "Silent Night" and "O Come All Ye Faithful".
In the first place, the Court found that the allegation that the policy was designed to aid religion was insupportable because, in fact, the original committee was created specifically to avoid unconstitutional entanglements between church and state. Thus, the challenge failed to meet the requirement that a religious purpose be behind the government activity, one of the prongs of the Lemon Test.
Furthermore, the Court rejected the claim that the principal or primary effect of these rules would be religious programs which would, themselves, serve to endorse or advance religion. According to the Court:
The First Amendment does not forbid all mention of religion in public schools; it is the advancement or inhibition of religion that is prohibited. ...Hence, the study of religion is not forbidden "when presented objectively as part of a secular program of education." ...We view the term "study" to include more than mere classroom instruction; public performance may be a legitimate part of secular study. This does not mean, of course, that religious ceremonies can be performed in the public schools under the guise of "study." It does mean, however, that when the primary purpose served by a given school activity is secular, that activity is not made unconstitutional by the inclusion of some religious content.
Do such holidays programs, with their religious content, serve to advance any secular education? The Court answered affirmatively:
It is unquestioned that public school students may be taught about the customs and cultural heritage of the United States and other countries. This is the principal effect of the rules. They allow the presentation of material that, although of religious origin, has taken on an independent meaning. The district court expressly found that much of the art, literature and music associated with traditional holidays, particularly Christmas, has "acquired a significance which is no longer confined to the religious sphere of life. It has become integrated into our national culture and heritage."
Furthermore, the rules guarantee that all material used has secular or cultural significance: Only holidays with both religious and secular bases may be observed; music, art, literature and drama may be included in the curriculum only if presented in a prudent and objective manner and only as a part of the cultural and religious heritage of the holiday; and religious symbols may be used only as a teaching aid or resource and only if they are displayed as a part of the cultural and religious heritage of the holiday and are temporary in nature.
Judge McMillian was unconvinced by the above and dissented, arguing that the school board's rejection of an amendment which would specify that schools would only celebrate the secular aspects of holidays suggested the existence of a religious purpose - after all, why reject such an addition if not to clear the way for school officials to conduct religious celebrations? Also, the policies in question are not designed to deal with holidays generally but, rather, to deal specifically with religious holidays - again, suggesting a religious purpose behind their creation.
McMillian also disagreed with the majority's conclusion that the observance of these religious holidays fulfilled a secular purpose - especially in light of the conspicuous fact that the only holidays being celebrated were those of the majority:
First, I do not understand how the observance of religious holidays promotes these secular goals. Moreover, I do not understand how the observance of particular religious holidays (i. e. Christian and Jewish holidays), but not others (i. e., Ramadan, North American Indian holidays, Hindu holidays) encourages student knowledge and appreciation of religious and cultural diversity. For example, the observance of the holidays of religions less familiar to most American public school children than either Christian or Jewish holidays would seem more likely to increase student knowledge and promote religious tolerance. Second, even assuming the observance of religious holidays does advance these secular goals, those secular goals can be achieved in public education without the "observance" of religious holidays. [Supreme Court precedent] forbid[s] the use of religious means to achieve secular ends where nonreligious means will suffice
McMillian further disagreed with the majority's conclusion that the rules would not have the principal or primary effect of advancing religion. As McMillian noted, large school assemblies with major holiday programs necessarily focus on one or two religions while excluding all others - this, in turn, will have the effect of communicating to students that certain religious traditions are more favored by the state than other religious traditions.
McMillian also expressed concern over the fact that the rules would foster an excessive entanglement between church and state. The focus of this concern was language which required school officials to determine what aspects of religious holidays qualified as "religious" and which were simply secular - thus leading them to effectively defining religion. It also puts school officials in the position of censoring religious content lest it overwhelm the ostensibly secular aspects: "it is ironic that the more fairly and objectively the guidelines are enforced, the more the school board will become immersed in serious religious judgments."
Significance:
This decision is only binding within the boundaries of the Eighth Circuit, nevertheless it has been cited often by other courts when it comes to cases involving the use of religious material or religious activities in schools during holidays. As such, it has become something of a model for schools and courts in America.
What this decision means is that public schools are permitted to make extensive use of religious material during religious holidays of the administrators' choosing without violating the separation of church and state. So long as the school can claim to be working for the purpose of educating students about the religious and historical heritage of the holiday - even if it is their own holiday which they know well - there is no constitutional problem.
-->