School Can Ban Bible Reading Mom
Prohibiting a mother of a kindergartener from reading from the Bible as part of his “All About Me” week did not violate her constitutional rights, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals found.
The mother who wanted to read verses 1-4 and 14 of Psalm 118 from the King James Bible to the class in a public school because she said it was her son’s favorite book. When she told the teacher of her intent, he checked with the principal who told her it was “against the law . . . of separation of church and state.” She then read from another book.
The mother filed suit alleging the school’s action was against her right of free speech and violated both the Establishment Clause and the Equal Protection Clause. The District Court had granted summary judgment for the school district.
The school had a program where each kindergartener would be featured for a week. During the week, the student made a poster about him, was allowed to bring a special snack and shared a special toy. Parents were invited to the school to “share a talent, short game, small craft, or story” with the class during the child’s designated week.
The appellate court found that restrictions on speech during a school’s organized, curricular activities are within the school’s legitimate area of control. “Likewise, when parents participate in an elementary school’s curricular activities, the school may impose the same requirement—that they refrain from promoting specific messages in class.”
“It may be reasonably argued that a mother’s reading of the Bible to a kindergarten class, especially sublime verses from the Book of Psalms, should be permitted,” the majority wrote. “In this sense and for many, the conduct is benign and the message inspiring. But a reading from the Bible or other religious text is more than a message and unquestionably conveys a strong sense of spiritual and moral authority. In this case, the audience is involuntary and very young. Parents of public school kindergarten students may reasonably expect their children will not become captive audiences to an adult’s reading of religious texts.”
The appellate court found that a tension exists “in a public school where attendance is compulsory and moral and social values are being developed along with basic learning skills. In seeking to address that tension, elementary school administrators and teachers should be given latitude within a range of reasonableness related to preserving the school’s educational goals.” In the case before it, the court found the school’s actions were not unreasonable.
In a dissenting opinion, one justice found the case involved viewpoint discrimination. The justice found “the challenged speech was responsible to the assignment but approached it from a religious perspective because religion is most important to the Busch family.” Thus, the school went too far in limiting participation in “All About Me” week to nonreligious perspectives.
“The majority’s desire to protect young children from potentially influential speech in the classroom is understandable. But that goal, however admirable, does not allow the government to offer a student and his parents the opportunity to express something about themselves, except what is most important to them.”
Donna Kay Busch et al v. Marple Newtown School District, et al.,Third Cir. No. 07-2967, issued June 1, 2009.