High school dissenters have no prayer in Texas

I have been saying prayer in school for most of my life. I had a full prayer service during my days at Congregation Beth Yeshurun Day School, and St. John's School required its students to attend a "non-denominational" chapel service each Wednesday.

SARAH ENGLAND/YH

But my educational environment was, of course, far different than the one of students at the public Santa Fe High School, 40 miles southwest of my hometown of Houston. It has often been said, perhaps best by author H.G. "Buzz" Bissinger in Friday Night Lights or by the makers of the movie Varsity Blues, that football is religion in Texas. Until recently, I had not realized how accurate that statement is.

In a case heard last week by the Supreme Court and closely followed by, among others, Texas Governor George W. Bush, DC '68, parents of Santa Fe students charged that the school district's policy permitting students to lead prayers prior to football games violated the First Amendment by creating what they called a "pervasive religious atmosphere." An appeals court and a federal judge upheld the school's (and the students') right to recite what the court calls "nonsectarian and non-proselytizing" prayers. I still don't know what that means.

The school district defended the policy by reminding critics that students elect the leaders of prayers and that the prayers could simply be invocations or speeches of a secular nature. Others have gone so far as to argue that denying students the right to recite such pre-game messages would violate the rights of free speech protected by the First Amendment, the same amendment that deals with the equally tricky issue of "separation between church and state."

The Supreme Court has seen cases like this before. The cases Engel v. Vitale and School District of Abington Township, Pennsylvania v. Schempp involved similar issues. The court ruled that school boards could not insist on the reading of Bible passages or the Lord's Prayer, even if individual students were excused. The court also ruled that the state or school district cannot require that a prayer be read in schools—even if it is "denominationally neutral." More recently, a Jewish family sued their daughter's school on church-state separation grounds when a rabbi led the graduating class of a Providence, R.I. high school in an invocation. The Jewish family won the lawsuit.

The legal precedent for keeping intact the separation between religious and public educational institutions has been established by the Court. But back come the Santa Fe administrators (and many other townspeople) who pointed out that the school is not specifically advocating or demanding that prayers be recited and that very few students and parents seem upset by the practice.

The latter argument upsets me greatly, for I attended a school where the voice of dissent—even if it came from the Dean of Students—was seldom heard for any reason. If football is Texas's religion, then tradition—and the majority's enforcement of that tradition—has become its law. Many disenchanted Texans, particularly those with contrary political or religious views or practices, are simply intimidated by the mystique of "the way it's always been." No one—especially a vulnerable and insecure adolescent—wants to rock the boat. That notion of silencing dissent is as dangerous to the First Amendment's protection of free speech as banning this school practice.

The school's use of a student body election to select the leader of the pre-game ceremony seems additionally dangerous on these grounds. The entrenched Christian majority that enjoys hearing prayers before football games can simply continue to drive its "pro-prayer" candidates into office and create an inviolable tradition of pre-game prayers.

Nevertheless, this case rests on the question of whether public school students should be permitted to recite prayers prior to football games. In the interests of full disclosure, I should inform the reader that I am a practicing Jew and one who would be made particularly uncomfortable by such an exercise. I should hasten to point out that the two plaintiff families, who have been kept anonymous (perhaps out of concern for their safety), are Mormon and Catholic.

Certainly, there is a place for spirituality in education, both public and private. Students should be taught about the core beliefs of faiths other than their own, and they should even be given opportunities, inside or outside of the classroom, to discuss religious beliefs. They should not, however, involuntarily be made members of a congregation in order to attend their non-parochial school. We must always listen not only to the voice of the majority but to the voice of reason. And that voice says, loudly and clearly, that this practice is unconstitutional.

Larry Schooler is a senior in Berkeley.

Back to Opinion...