Religious expression limits challenged in Santa Rosa County schools

Jul 28, 2009

PACE (FBW)—The Christian Educators Association International (CEAI), represented by Orlando-based Liberty Counsel, has filed a motion to intervene in a religious liberty case brought by the ACLU against the Santa Rosa County School District. The case stems from allegations made by two Pace High School students that the district and specific school employees were promoting prayer and religion in school.

“Neither students nor teachers shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate,” said Mathew D. Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel and dean of Liberty University School of Law, in the organization’s news release.

“Not only does the ACLU want to strip public school employees of their rights to free speech while working, the ACLU is now arguing that they lose their rights after work and off campus. Public school employees are not required to abandon their faith to feed their families,” Staver said.

Florida Baptist Witness published articles about this controversy April 9 and June 9.

In response to the ACLU lawsuit, the school district agreed to a consent order written by the ACLU and approved by the court in March establishing extensive guidelines for district employees regarding religious expression, prayer and participation in religious events on school property.

The consent order has already been used to prevent students from speaking during the Pace High School graduation and to accuse Pace Principal Frank Lay of being in contempt of the order when he asked an employee to offer a prayer before a luncheon last spring.

In this latest development, Liberty Counsel is representing CEAI on behalf of their members, some of whom are employed in the Santa Rosa School District.

The motion to intervene asserts that the new rules set forth by the consent order violate the First Amendment rights of CEAI members. According to the motion, the consent order contains “some nine pages of specific directives proscribing and prohibiting actions of school employees during work hours and after work hours.”

The LC motion asserts: “The terms of the consent order affect and infringe the constitutional rights of free speech and free exercise of CEAI members, both in their capacities as employees of defendant School Board and as private citizens. Moreover, the consent order purports to require CEAI members to infringe upon the free speech and free exercise rights of students and other third parties.”

There are several examples given in the motion of how the rights of CEAI members can now be infringed on.

One example listed is that “school employees must decline any invitation to lecture, provide an opening prayer or give any religious discourse during a voluntarily organized student religious club meeting or event, even when such events are voluntarily attended, take place after school hours and are held at locations off school property.”

Another example provided in the motion is that “if students, prior to competition, choose to pray voluntarily, school employees must disrespect this act by not closing their eyes, bowing their heads, or even folding their hands, even when those employees are voluntarily present at the event on their own time, and even if the employees’ sincerely held religious beliefs would compel them to not dishonor God in such circumstances.”

The motion attempts to demonstrate the possible far reaching affects of the consent order even upon individuals who are not school employees: “Since school employees are also compelled to prohibit the religious expression of non-student third-parties at school events, school employees are now forced to intervene and obstruct.”

LC cited three examples: “a youth pastor who wishes to pray with one of his church members prior to the member running in a race at a track meet; a distraught student voluntarily attending a football game from praying with, or receiving encouragement or counseling from an adult who also happens to be in voluntary attendance at the same event; and a father praying on the sidelines with his football player son who has just been injured in a game.”

The motion explains that the interests of CEAI members could not be adequately represented by the existing legal representation for the school district. The Motion states, “While the interest of the School Board may concern defending the school board policy within the context of the Establishment Clause and avoiding litigation, the interest of CEAI concerns defending its members’ constitutional rights. These interests are sufficiently dissimilar that the representation by counsel for the School Board is inadequate to represent the interests of CEAI.”

According to the motion to intervene, the Christian Educators Association International was founded in 1953 and has a mission to “serve the educational community by encouraging, equipping and empowering Christian educators serving in public and private schools.”

Tim Wyrosdick, superintendent of Santa Rosa County School District, expressed confidence in the constitutionality of the consent order.

“We intend for our District to be in compliance with all laws, including the constitution, and, at the same time, we intend to continue to protect the personal right of our students and employees,” Wyrosdick told Florida Baptist Witness in a July 13 e-mail.

“Whether or not the intervention will be granted will be a matter determined by the court,” Wyrosdick added.

Staver told the Witness in a July 13 e-mail he expects the court to rule soon on CEAI’s motion to intervene.

“If we cannot intervene and move to set aside this order, then we may have to file suit against the school district,” Staver said.

Staver added the school district’s “lack of good defense” of the free speech rights of teachers, staff and students “has infringed on the rights of our clients and others.”

The full text of the motion to intervene can be read at www.lc.org.

Email this Article Print this page