The Five Freedoms Project

You Be The Judge

Test your knowledge of the Five Freedoms and see how you match up to the courts...and fellow citizens.

October 1–15, 2008

Student Prayer at School-Sponsored Events

For years, students were chosen by classmates to give pre-game prayers at the high school’s football games. Some students sued, arguing that the prayers constituted an endorsement of religion, and violated the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. The district countered that the pre-game invocations were a long-standing tradition in Texas communities. District officials also argued that since the prayer came from a student, the Establishment Clause did not apply. If anything, it was an example of the school honoring the students’ rights to freely exercise their religion.

May students lead mass prayers at football games?

Vote Now!

  • 35%
    A. NO
    Only school administrators, members of the faculty or religious leaders invited by the school may lead prayers at official school-sponsored events, such as football games.
  • 34%
    B. NO
    The delivery of a prayer over the school's public address system, even if by a speaker representing the student body, cannot properly be characterized as 'private' speech.
  • 31%
    C. YES
    Because students are allowed to choose the speaker, the school cannot be seen as offering any sort of endorsement for the ideas expressed.

  • Incorrect

    The First Amendment is a limitation on what government (or, in this case, public school officials) may or may not do. If teachers or principals had been giving the prayer, the ritual would clearly have been unconstitutional.

  • Correct!

    In Santa Fe v. Doe (2000), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the control the school maintained over the content of the student speech registered government preference for religion. The Court also found that the way the school determined whether a message would be given and who would give it only exacerbated the problem, since voting for the speaker ensured not only sectarian conflict, but also that only majoritarian religious voices would ever be heard.

  • Incorrect

    This was the opinion of the three-justice minority. As Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote: “The Court distorts existing precedent… But even more disturbing than its holding is the tone of the Court's opinion; it bristles with hostility to all things religious in public life.”

Remember — US Supreme Court decisions outline "the law of the land." Lower court decisions do not. Sometimes, this means different lower courts will issue contradicting opinion.

WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THE COURT'S DECISION?

3 responses to Student Prayer at School-Sponsored Events

Add your own response.

Nick Fletcher says:

October 17th, 2008 at 5:55pm
Indeed, I agree as well. Instead of blindly assuming that everyone at the game prays to the same god, they could have easily avoided this by simply saying "If you would like to participate in a pre-game prayer of the Christian faith, please find your way to section two. This prayer will begin at 6:30 and it will be lead by our very own Sally-May*. If you would like to organize a pre-game, student-lead prayer in your own faith, simply fill out the form on TexasHighSchool.com* and it will be announced at the next game, thank you, and go team!" *all names and likenesses used in this post are meant to be fictional. Any relation to actual people, places or things is purely coincidental. Now, all daydreaming aside, I wish more attention were given to the future. Obviously I don't have all the information about this case and any subsequent related events, this is just what comes to mind when I read the story. Here's what I mean. Assuming positive intentions, I believe that the original aim of the minority party was not to purposefully sabotage and destroy a long-standing Texas tradition. They simply felt that their rights were being limited by the practice of pre-game mass prayer, and they wanted that limitation to be lifted. Now that the limitation has indeed been lifted, I'm curious to know if this generated any forward movement. Has the school community seized this opportunity to come together and figure out a compromise that allows ALL groups to participate, including the continuation of any longstanding traditions? I agree with Sam, the court made the right call. They stopped the injustice, which is great, but that's not the end of the conversation. Hopefully these students have earned some respect and can now continue to work with the school administration to fully resolve this issue. Can't we all just get along? Alright, I hope that made sense to everyone, and of course I welcome all discussion, especially if you disagree.

Sean Clark says:

October 2nd, 2008 at 2:23pm
That's crazy! Just kidding, Sam! Yeah - this one is a no brainer for me. The tyranny of the majority portions are especially concerning, and this is definitely not private speech.

Sam Chaltain says:

October 1st, 2008 at 1:27pm
I think the Court got this one right. Students must be granted the right to freely exercise their religion (or non-religion). But there is a distinction between doing so by, say, gathering before school at the flag pole -- where everyone is a willing participant -- and doing so over the public address system at a public event -- where everyone is there for a different purpose. What do others think?