Good News Regarding School Choice
Good News v. Milford is very good news indeed for advocates of school vouchers and faith-based organizations (FBOs). The Supreme Court's 6-3 decision upholding the right of a Christian youth group to meet in public schools after class hours is a significant signal of the Court's willingness to treat religious organizations and viewpoints on an evenhanded basis.
In 1992, Milford Central School in New York State enacted a community use policy outlining purposes for which its building could be used after school. Under the policy, district residents could use the school for "instruction in any branch of education, learning, or the arts." The school was also to be made available for "social, civic, and recreational meetings and entertainment events, and other uses pertaining to the welfare of the community, provided that such uses shall be nonexclusive and shall be opened to the general public." Several district residents who sponsored the local Good News Club-a private, voluntary Christian organization for children ages six to twelve-submitted a request to the interim superintendent of the district, seeking to hold the Club's weekly after-school meetings in the school cafeteria. They were excluded, however, because their proposed use-to have "a fun time of singing songs, hearing a Bible lesson, and memorizing Scripture"-was "the equivalent of religious worship." The school authorities claimed that such a meeting was prohibited by the rules that forbid the school from being used "by any individual or organization for religious purposes."(1)
The Court, per Justice Clarence Thomas, found Milford to have created a limited public forum-in essence, a standing invitation to use public property for the designated purposes. When the state establishes a limited public forum, the state is not required to and does not allow persons to engage in every type of speech. However, said the Court, the state's power to restrict speech is not without limits. Such restriction must not discriminate against speech on the basis of viewpoint, and the restriction must be "reasonable in light of the purpose served by the forum."(2)
Relying upon two earlier but more narrowly written opinions, the Court found the school district to have discriminated against the proposed religious speech in Good News. In Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches (1993), the Justices held that a school district violated the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment when it excluded a private group from presenting films at the school based solely on the films' discussions of family values from a religious perspective.
In the majority opinion, Justice White wrote “Educators did not offend the First Amendment by exercising editorial control over the content of student speech so long as their actions were” The court also noted that the paper was a sponsored newspaper by the school which was not intended to be seen by the public, but rather for journalism students to write articles based off of the requirements for journalism 2 class, and all subjects must be appropriate for the school and all its
The case also states “A prohibition against expression of opinion, without any evidence that the rule is necessary to avoid substantial interference with school discipline or the rights of others, is not permissible under the First and Fourteenth Amendments” (Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District). Because the students didn 't necessarily disrupt the education process, their First Amendment freedom of speech should not have been violated by the school officials.
The district court found the disruptive-conduct rule unconstitutionally vague and broad, and that withdrawal of the student's name from the graduation speaker's list violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because the rule did not mention such removal as a likely sanction. The court made the case that nothing in the Constitution forbids the states from insisting that certain forms of expression are unfitting and subject to sanctions. (Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 1969) The court affirmed that students do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate."(Tinker) If the student had given the same speech off the school premises, he would not have been penalized because government officials found his language inappropriate.
Justice Jackson's disagreement on the ruling of the Terminiello case is supported by many historical examples which demonstrate that freedom of speech is not an absolute right under the law. Although Terminiello had a right to exercise his right under the First Amendment, had the majority carefully considered this principle it should have rejected his claim. In this case, the majority's treatment of Terminiello's case skirted the real issue and did not benefit from true constitutional interpretation.
Tedford, Thomas L., and Dale A. Herbeck. Freedom of Speech in the United States. State College, PA: Strata Publishing, Inc., 2009. Tinker V. Des Moines Independent Community School District. Web. 28 Oct. 2013. .
It was a 1986 case involving a seniors, Matthew Fraser, campaign speech at school that used “sexually suggestive comments and gestures” which created an uproar in the audience (Lusted, Marcia Amidon, and Gerald T. Thain 126). Fraser was suspended for several days and was not allowed to speak at commencement therefore he made the decision to sue the school district since he felt his First Amendment was violated (Lusted, Marcia Amidon, and Gerald T. Thain 126). He was voted against seven to two because he used vulgar language which is not allowed in schools (Lusted, Marcia Amidon, and Gerald T. Thain 126). Because Fraser was not peaceful or non-vulgar like the Tinker case, he was not able to win the case against the Bethel School
Mrs. Moreno and the other plaintiffs in this case believes religious education should be the responsibility of parents and religious communities, and not the public schools to which she sends her children (ACLU, 2007). Additionally, Mrs. Moreno and the other plaintiffs’ feels the use of their tax dollars to promote and endorse religion in the public school system is unconstitutional (ACLU, 2007).
tell the court how the girls were lying. This is in an attempt to save
School Choice: Followed the ruling on compulsory education. Parents have a right to choose whether their children go to a private, parochial or public school, or they may choose to home-school. Parents must accept any responsibility for their choice.
20 May 2014. This article shows a majority of the cases that are relevant to the topic and research questions; it clearly shows the articles that are involved with public schools and how and what they did. It helps answer that research question because it shows that some of the schools are capable of bypassing the system, but sometimes get overturned. Paulson, Ken. A.
Herbeck, Tedford (2007). Boston College: Freedom of Speech in the United States (fifth edition) Cohen vs. California 403 U.S. 15 Retrieved on March 2, 2008 from http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/cohen.html
In 1971 in Mobile County Alabama the School Board created a state statute that set aside time at the beginning of each day for silent ’meditation’ (statute 6-1-20), and in 1981 they added another statute 16-1-20.1 which set aside a minute for ‘silent prayer’ as well. In addition to these, in 1982 the Mobile County School Board enacted statute 16-1-20.2, which specified a prayer that teachers could lead ‘willing’ students in “From henceforth, any teacher or professor in any public educational institution within the State of Alabama, recognizing that the Lord God is one, at the beginning of any homeroom or any class, may pray, may lead willing students in prayer, or may lead the willing students in the following prayer to God… “ (Jaffree By and Through Jaffree v. James). Ishmael Jaffree was the father of three students, Jamael Aakki Jaffree, Makeba Green, and Chioke Saleem Jaffree, who attended a school in Mobile County Alabama. Jaffree complained that his children had been pressured into participating in religious activities by their teachers and their peers, and that he had requested that these activities stopped. When the school did nothing about Jaffree’s complaints he filed an official complaint with the Mobile County School Board through the United States District Courts. The original complaint never mentioned the three state statutes that involved school prayer. However, on June 4, 1982 Jaffree changed his complaint. He now wanted to challenge the constitutionality of statutes 16-1-20, 16-1-20.1 and 16-1-20.2, and motioned for a preliminary injunction. The argument against these state laws was that they were an infringement of the Establishment Clause within the First Amendment of the Constitution, which states that Congr...
...o school. The dissenting opinion simply argued that freedom of speech is not to be used as a disturbance. Therefore, those students’ right to expression or speech was not violated because it interfered with the classroom’s learning. There is a time and place for everything, and freedom of speech should not be used everywhere.
Throughout the twentieth century, the United States Supreme Court has protected students’ rights to practice their religious beliefs, so long as they are not “disruptive, discriminatory, or coercive to peers who may not share those same beliefs” (Education Weekly, 2003, para. 3). In 1943, the Supreme Court ruling in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette stated that students could not be “forced to salute the flag or say the pledge of allegiance if it violates the individual’s conscience” (First Amendment Cyber Tribune, 2002). The 1963 decision in Engel v. Vitale made school prayer unconstitutional, and similarly found school prayer at graduation ceremonies in its 1992 Lee v. Weisman decision (First Amendment Cyber Tribune, 2002). Student-led prayer at public school football games was found unconstitutional in 2000 with the Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe (First Amendment C...
Kozlowski, James C. “First Amendment Dilemma: Civic Event Fund Discriminated Against Prayer Day.” Parks & Recreation, Sept. 2000: 1. ( www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m1145/9_35/66035659/print.jhtml )