Source: http://thewordout.net/pages/page.asp?page_id=68291
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 06:58:29+00:00

Document:
3) the policy also allowed students to elect the student who would give the invocation or message at each football game during the school year, id. at 297-98.
The Court concluded that the school district “failed to divorce itself from the religious content in the invocations.” Id. at 305. The Court also found the majoritarian selection process problematic and held that the prayers offered at football games bore the imprint of the State. Id.
The Guidelines acknowledge that student expression is protected by the First Amendment, and the ability of schools to restrict or regulate student speech varies depending upon the circumstances. Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503 (1969); Bethel Sch. Dist. v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986), Hazelwood Sch. Dist. v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988); Morse v. Frederick, 127 S. Ct. 2618 (2007). In Tinker—the seminal case on student expression—the Court declared that students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” 393 U.S. at 506. Fearing disruption, a public school prohibited students from wearing black armbands to express their anti-Vietnam War sentiments. Id. at 504-05. The Court held that the school’s policy violated students’ Free Speech rights. Id. at 513-14. Tinker established that, in most situations, a school must show that the student’s conduct “materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others” before it may censor student expression due to its content. Id. at 513. Under Tinker, students’ free speech rights are the strongest with regard to forms of personal expression such as armbands, t-shirts, buttons, and necklaces.
With regard to speeches provided by valedictorians and salutatorians at graduations, the key question is whether such expression would be viewed as bearing the imprimatur of the school and, if so, whether Hazelwood requires regulations of such expression to be viewpoint neutral.1 In the absence of a controlling opinion on these issues in a particular jurisdiction, graduation speeches by valedictorians and salutatorians should be reasonably understood as the student’s own expression rather than speech controlled or sponsored by the school. A reasonable person in attendance at a graduation ceremony understands that valedictorians and salutatorians are selected due to academic criteria and their remarks typically reflect their own views.
Valedictorians and salutatorians should be able to share how their faith has impacted their lives without fear of censorship by school officials.
In some jurisdictions. The graduating class or other groups of students may not typically collectively decide whether to have prayer at graduation. However, federal court opinions governing six states (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas) provide that, in limited circumstances, if students elect a fellow student to speak on the basis of neutral criteria, the student may include religious expression as part of his or her presentation. On the other hand, opinions affecting Alaska, Arizona, California, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Washington, and West Virginia limit the ability of schools to allow student-led prayer at graduation. In any event, it is clear that school officials and teachers must not be involved in any way in determining whether to have a prayer or selecting the prayer itself or the person presenting it.
In Chandler v. Siegelman, 230 F.3d 1313 (11th Cir. 2000), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (governing Alabama, Florida, and Georgia) invalidated a portion of an injunction which barred students from praying at any school function while upholding a portion which enjoined the school district from aiding or inducing school sanctioned religious activity.
The court distinguished Santa Fe from its earlier decision in Chandler by stating: “Santa Fe condemns school sponsorship of student prayer. Chandler condemns school censorship of student prayer.” Id. at 1315. The Eleventh Circuit stated, “So long as the prayer is genuinely student-initiated, and not the product of any school policy which actively or surreptitiously encourages it, the speech is private and it is protected.” Id. at 1317. “[I]f nothing in the Constitution . . . prohibits any public school student from voluntarily praying at any time before, during, or after the school day, then it does not prohibit prayer aloud or in front of others, as in the case of an audience assembled for some other purpose.” Id. at 1316-17.
The Eleventh Circuit found two distinguishing features in the school board policy when compared to the policy in Santa Fe. First, this policy expressly prohibited school officials from having any input into the content of the message, while the Santa Fe policy gave school officials some editorial control over the content of the student speech. Second, while the Santa Fe policy referred to an “invocation or message,” the policy in Adler referred only to a student “message.” Id. at 1336. Even though the policy was entitled “Graduation Prayers,” the fact that the policy did not use the term “invocation” convinced the Adler court that the policy did not evince the same “preference” for religious speech that was fatal to the Santa Fe policy. Id. at 1338. The court explained, “the total absence of state involvement in deciding whether there will be a graduation message, who will speak, or what the speaker may say combined with the student speaker’s complete autonomy over the content of the message [means] that the message delivered, be it secular or sectarian or both, is not state-sponsored.” Id. at 1342.
When the Supreme Court decided Lee, it also vacated and remanded a Fifth Circuit decision, Jones v. Clear Creek Indep. Sch. Dist., 930 F.2d 416 (5th Cir. 1991), which had upheld studentinitiated graduation prayer. After considering the implications of Lee, the Fifth Circuit again upheld the graduation prayer policy. 977 F.2d 963 (5th Cir. 1992). The Clear Creek Independent School District had passed a Resolution “permitting public high school seniors to choose student volunteers to deliver nonsectarian, nonproselytizing invocations at their graduation ceremonies.” Id. at 964. The Fifth Circuit upheld the Resolution in light of Lee, holding that the Resolution had the secular purpose of solemnizing an important occasion. Id. at 966. Moreover, [t]he Resolution can only advance religion by increasing religious conviction among graduation attendees, which means attracting new believers or increasing the faith of the faithful. Its requirement that any invocation be nonsectarian and nonproselytizing minimizes any such advancement of religion. . . . [T]he nonsectarian nature of a prayer remains relevant to the extent to which a prayer advances religion. . . . The Resolution may or may not have any religious effect. The students may or may not employ the name of any deity; heads may or may not be bowed; indeed, an invocation may or may not appear on the program. If the students choose a nonproselytizing, nonsectarian prayer, the effect may well marshall attendees’ extant religiosity for the secular purpose of solemnization; but no one would likely expect the advancement of religion by the initiation or increase of religious faith through these prayers. The Resolution’s primary effect is secular. Id. at 967.
In addition, the court stated: Unlike the policy at issue in Lee, [the school’s policy here] does not mandate a prayer. The Resolution does not even mandate an invocation; it merely permits one if the seniors so choose. Moreover, the students present Clear Creek with their proposed invocation under the Resolution, while in Lee the school explained its idea for an invocation to a member of an organized religion and directed him to deliver it. . . . Concerning endorsement, the instant case more closely parallels Mergens because a graduating high school senior who participates in the decision as to whether her graduation will include an invocation by a fellow student volunteer will understand that any religious references are the result of student, not government, choice. Id. at 968-69.
The Supreme Court’s decisions in Lee and Santa Fe left open several issues regarding religious expression at graduation events that lower courts have addressed in a variety of ways. Principals and school boards will look to lower court opinions in their jurisdictions (if any) that deal with these issues for guidance. Please feel free to share this informational letter with school officials, students, and parents. Please note that this letter is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or representation.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.