Opinion: Court leaves room for confusion

The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that a public elementary school that chooses to open its facilities for use by community groups for educational purposes must also make meeting space available to a proselytizing religious organization. While this 6-to-3 ruling authored by Justice Clarence Thomas is constitutionally sound, there remains a nagging discomfort with the decision.

The case involved the Good News Club, a Christian evangelical group for children ages 6-12. The weekly after-school meetings include Bible study, memorization of scripture, prayer and singing.

In 1996, sponsors of the Good News Club applied to the Milford Central School in upstate New York to hold their meetings at the school. The club wanted a more convenient venue after the school stopped busing children to a local church for its meetings. The interim superintendent at the time refused the request on the grounds that the group's intended use was evangelical. The school's facilities were available for any type of education program, but not for holding the equivalent of church services.

The club sued on free speech grounds that raised a legitimate issue. By barring the club's own Christian view of morals education but allowing groups such as the Boy Scouts to utilize school facilities for imparting their own moral values, Milford was practicing viewpoint discrimination.

The court agreed. "What matters for purposes of the Free Speech Clause," wrote Justice Thomas, "is that we can see no logical difference in kind between the invocation of Christianity by the Club and the invocation of teamwork, loyalty, or patriotism by other associations to provide a foundation for their lessons." The court said preaching religion is a form of morals education, and therefore the Good News Club should be allowed to access school facilities on the same terms as other educational clubs.

The troubling part of the opinion is the way in which the court dismisses the potential for the school's students, some of whom are still in kindergarten, to be confused as to whether the school is endorsing these religious practices. The club meets immediately after school ends and is the only community group to do so. It also holds meetings when school-sponsored extracurricular and athletic activities are conducted.

The court should have acknowledged the church-state separation problems inherent in holding Bible study at school at the same time as other school-sponsored activities are going on and advised schools to take special precautions to avoid confusion. As Justice David Souter wrote in his dissent, "The timing and format of the Good News's gatherings . . . (may) suggest the imprimatur of officialdom in the minds of the young children."

Under the Establishment Clause, public schools may not be seen as endorsing religious practices. At the same time, religious organizations cannot be barred from utilizing public facilities, such as schoolrooms, when other types of civic and educational organizations are invited to do so. The Constitution requires government neutrality, but that isn't always the easiest line to draw.

The susceptibility of children to adult suggestion has always been a sufficient justification to keep religious messages from appearing to have the backing of schools. The court majority didn't sufficiently acknowledge this special need.

Back to Opinion

Contact the Times | Privacy Policy
Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright

From the Times
Opinion page