Viewpoint discrimination violates the First Amendment of the United
States Constitution.
In March 2007, Central
Alabama
Community College
removed two signs displaying religious messages from the backfield of
the school’s baseball field despite selling the sign space for a
sponsor fee of $1,000 each.
Central Alabama Community College President Linda McGuirt and Dr.
Amelia Pearson, Provost and Dean of Instruction, may need to spend some
time in the library educating themselves and others on the importance of
religious freedom and its place as a bedrock of our national liberties
guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The
Establishment Clause means neutrality not hostility.
The school cited state policy
mandating that "the use of facilities shall be compatible with the
philosophy, functions and objectives of the institution." Citing responsibilities as guardians of
state funds and as administrators of the college, Dr. Pearson
is reported to justify the decision to remove two signs displaying
religious messages stating that “We don't have the money to defend
such a case if someone threatened a lawsuit. You're going to lose that
battle in court. We wouldn't be very good guardians of state funds if we
were to take a stand here." However,
it’s that response to wanna be censors and guardians of political
correctness, that may cost the school.
In Good
News Club v. Milford Central School,
decided June 11, 2001, the United States Supreme Court reaffirmed that
schools may not discriminate against speech based on viewpoint,
including religious viewpoints. In that case, a religious club sought to
use an
New York
public elementary school facility after school to provide religious
instruction and fun activities for children. It is illegal to use
religious viewpoint as a basis for denying a student club access to the
schools facilities available to other groups. The Court stated
"Speech discussing otherwise permissible subjects cannot be
excluded from a limited public forum on the ground that the subject is
discussed from religious viewpoint." The Establishment Clause of
the Constitution does not give government a license to oppose religion.
The Court stated "For the ‘guarantee of neutrality is respected,
not offended, when the government, following neutral criteria and even
handed policies, extends benefits to recipients whose ideologies and
viewpoints, including religious ones, are broad and diverse." The
Court found significant the fact that the club sought to use the school
facilities after school hours and that children were not required to
attend. The Court rejected the notion that the school could justify its
exclusion of the club because small children might perceive endorsement.
The Court stated "Even if we were to inquire into the minds of
schoolchildren in this case, we cannot say the danger that children
would misperceive the endorsement of religion is any greater than the
danger that they would perceive a hostility toward the religious
viewpoint if the Club were excluded from the public forum." It
continued, "Any bystander could conceivably be aware of the
school’s use policy and its exclusion of the Good News Club , and
could suffer as much from viewpoint discrimination as elementary school
children could suffer from perceived endorsement." The endorsement
inquiry is not about the perceptions of particular individuals or saving
isolated nonadherents from discomfort. It is for this reason that the
reasonable observer in the endorsement inquiry must be deemed aware of
the history and context of the community and forum in which the
religious speech takes place.
The U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that schools like CACC are
not permitted to discriminate against student clubs or sponsors of signs
simply because of their religious activities or viewpoints. The Supreme
Court made that clear in Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the
University of Virginia, 115 S.Ct. 2510, 2516 (1995) where it ruled
the University was required to pay the publication expenses of a student
Christian newspaper in accordance with its general policy of funding
student newspapers.
The Supreme Court in Lamb’s Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free
School District, 408 U.S. 384 (1993) held that a school which allows
after-hours access to its facilities to a wide variety of public
organizations cannot deny that same access to religious groups.
CACC could easily find themselves on the losing side of a First
Amendment law suit for censoring of the speech based upon its viewpoint.
The school’s action is a denial of the right of free speech and
risks fostering a pervasive bias or hostility to religion, which could
undermine the very neutrality the Establishment Clause requires. If
there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that
no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in
politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion.
Thomas H. Roberts, Civil Rights Attorney
Freedom Works Foundation
Richmond
,
Virginia
www.robertslaw.org
But see Lehman v. City of Shaker
Heights See also - Loch;
Rockford; Mosley; Tinker; Aubrey v. Cinc... |