Opinion ID: 522965
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Student Free Speech Rights

Text: 30 The Renton School District's refusal to allow a student religious group to meet on campus does not violate the free speech clause of the First Amendment. 31 Lindbergh High School is not a First Amendment limited public forum. In Hazelwood School Dist. v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260, 108 S.Ct. 562, 568, 98 L.Ed.2d 592 (1988), the Supreme Court held: 32 school facilities may be deemed to be public forums only if school authorities have by policy or by practice opened those facilities for indiscriminate use by the general public, ... or by some segment of the public, such as student organizations.... The government does not create a public forum by inaction or by permitting limited discourse, but only by intentionally opening a nontraditional forum for public discourse. Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc., 473 U.S. 788, 802 [105 S.Ct. 3439, 3449, 87 L.Ed.2d 567] (1985). 33 The Renton School District has not by either policy or practice opened its classrooms for indiscriminate use. District Policy 6470 explicitly states that [t]he Renton School District does not offer a limited open forum. The district's policy is to allow use of its facilities by student groups only after those groups are approved according to narrowly circumscribed guidelines. The district's practice does not vary from its policy. Student groups are allowed to meet in high school classrooms only after express district approval. The school district has not intentionally opened its classrooms for public discourse by students and student groups. 34 Because the district has not created a public forum, it may limit student expression in any reasonable way. Id. (citing Perry Educ. Ass'n v. Perry Local Educators' Ass'n, 460 U.S. 37, 47, 103 S.Ct. 948, 956, 74 L.Ed.2d 794 (1983)). Policy 6470 is not unreasonable on its face. It does not discriminate on an impermissible basis, nor is it irrational. Nor do we find that the district has been disingenuous in its application of the policy. Clubs which are an extension of the courses and programs of the district are permitted to meet. Clubs, such as the religious group in this case, which have nothing to do with the school district's educational mission are not granted district approval. 35 The district's exclusion of religious groups from its cocurricular program is not only reasonable, but also constitutionally required. The district must exclude organized religious speech because use of public school facilities for religious purposes violates the Establishment Clause. [W]hen the explicit Establishment Clause proscription against prayer in the public schools is considered, the protections of political and religious speech are inapposite. Collins, 644 F.2d at 763 (quoting Brandon, 635 F.2d at 980). 36 The holding in Widmar v. Vincent is not to the contrary. Widmar held that the free speech clause prohibits exclusion of a religious group from a public forum on a university campus. The differences between high schools and universities distinguish this case from Widmar. Even were we to accept the dubious proposition that the holding in Widmar applies to public high schools, Widmar would not apply here. The classrooms at Lindbergh High School, unlike the facilities considered in Widmar, are not a public forum for student expression. 37 Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Community School Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 89 S.Ct. 733, 21 L.Ed.2d 731 (1969) is also inapplicable. The Hazelwood Court explained: 38 The question whether the First Amendment requires a school to tolerate particular student speech--the question that we addressed in Tinker--is different from the question whether the First Amendment requires a school affirmatively to promote particular student speech. 39 Hazelwood, 108 S.Ct. at 569. Lindbergh has not prohibited students from discussing religion at school. Rather, the school district has refused to grant a group the use of its classrooms and other resources. Tinker is also inapplicable because the Establishment Clause concerns present in this case were not present in Tinker.