Mediaboss Marketing

The Supreme Court has consistently banned school-sponsored prayer in public K-12 schools, whether at the start of the school day, during graduation ceremonies or before football games. Under the Equal Access Act, the Supreme Court has affirmed that students may organize prayer and Bible study clubs during non-instructional hours. Even so, school staff and outside adults may not actively participate.

Lower courts have mostly forbidden public school teachers from openly praying in the workplace, even if students are not involved. Yet the Supreme Court has not directly addressed such a case until now.

Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, a case from Washington state, scheduled for oral arguments on April 25, 2022, could usher in more religious activities by teachers and other staff in public schools.

At issue is whether a school board violated the rights of Joseph Kennedy, a football coach it suspended, and whose contract it did not renew, because he ignored its directive to stop kneeling in silent prayer on the field after games. Kennedy claims that the board violated his First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and freedom of religion, along with his rights under the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits employment discrimination.

The Supreme Court faces two key questions: whether prayers public school employees say in front of students are protected by their First Amendments rights; and, if they are, whether educational officials must still prohibit them in order to avoid promoting particular religions and violating the Establishment Clause.

From my perspective as a specialist in education law, the case is noteworthy because the court should resolve sticky questions surrounding whether public school employees can pray when supervising students, or if doing so crosses the line and becomes impermissible government speech.

Kennedy v. Bremerton also reflects the inherent tension between the First Amendments two clauses on religious freedom: The Free Exercise clause protects individuals right to practice their faiths as they wish, while the Establishment Clause forbids the government from establishing a religion.

In other words, a tension exists between public employees right to religious expression within the boundaries of the law and employers needs to avoid violating the Establishment Clause.

In 2008, Kennedy, a self-described Christian, worked as head coach of the junior varsity football team and assistant coach of the varsity team at Bremerton High School. He initially knelt on the 50-yard line after games, regardless of the outcome, offering a brief, quiet prayer of thanks.

While Kennedy first prayed alone, eventually most of the players on his team, and then members of opposing squads, joined in. He later added inspirational speeches, causing some parents and school employees to voice concerns that players would feel compelled to participate.

The school board directed Kennedy to stop praying on the field because officials feared that his actions could put it at risk of violating the First Amendment. The government is prohibited from making laws respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof often understood as meaning public officials cannot promote particular faiths over others.

In September 2015, school board officials notified the coach that he could continue delivering his inspirational speeches after games, but they had to remain secular. Although students could pray, he could not. Even so, a month later Kennedy resumed his prayers. He had publicized his plans to do so, and was joined by players, coaches and parents, while reporters watched.

Bremertons school board offered accommodations to allow the coach to pray more privately, which he rejected. At the end of October, officials placed him on paid leave for violating their directive, and eventually chose not to renew his one-year contract. He filed a suit in August 2016.

The coachs suit raised two major claims namely that the school board violated his rights to freedom of speech and religion. However, the Ninth Circuit twice rejected Kennedys claims, in 2017 and 2021, resulting in his appeal of the second case to the Supreme Court.

The Ninth Circuit denied Kennedys claim that he had the right to private free speech on the field, reasoning that because he was a public employee, reasonable observers could have assumed his prayer had the boards support. In particular, the court found that he acted as a public employee, not a private citizen. The court did explain that educators are free to display their faith on their own time, such as when Kennedy sat in the stands as a fan during a game after he was suspended.

Turning to Kennedys freedom of religion claim, the court was satisfied that the school boards restrictions on his activity met a well-established principle: Public officials have to demonstrate a compelling government interest before they can limit someones fundamental rights, such as freedom of religion, and the restrictions must be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.

Here, the court accepted the boards position that it had a compelling interest to avoid violating the Establishment Clause. In so ruling, the court balanced the tension between the constitutional rights to religion, and from religion the Free Exercise Clause, and the Establishment Clause, respectively.

The Ninth Circuit also rejected the coachs claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race, religion, sex or national origin. Nor did the court accept his claims that the board failed to accommodate him, or that officials retaliated against him in not renewing his contract.

As part of its analysis, the Supreme Court is likely to consider whether the coach risked sending the message he was acting with the school boards approval, as a form of protected speech, or if his prayers were unprotected private speech.

In addition, the court may address whether Kennedy failed to act as a role model, as is expected of educators. Courts consistently agree that school employees who work with students forgo some rights by virtue of their positions. For example, the Seventh Circuit affirmed that a school board in Indiana could dismiss a teacher who violated its policy by not remaining neutral about current events in class.

As in Kennedy, boards can choose not to renew the contracts of employees who violate their policies. But until now, public employees on the job who ignored their employers lawful policies have been unable to claim that they were exercising their rights to freedom of religion or speech as a defense. It remains to be seen whether the court will acknowledge that educators cannot ignore lawful directives at work, in order to avoid unduly influencing their students, or whether the justices will open the door to granting teachers greater freedom of expression.

[Over 150,000 readers rely on The Conversations newsletters to understand the world. Sign up today.]

As is often the case in high-profile disputes, the Supreme Court is expected to rule in late June or early July. While the case is unlikely to end disagreements over public employees prayer as free speech, in my view, the justices will likely walk a fine line in balancing the interests of educators who wish to pray at work and school boards seeking to avoid violating the Constitution.

Excerpt from:
SCOTUS is about to decide whether a public school football coach can pray on the field - The Conversation

In October 1981, our schools closed.

We had failed to pass a millage sufficient to keep them open.

Several reasons prompted this unfortunate event. State funding for education had been diminished to the extent its replacement through local funding was a contentious strain. There were other reasons, some reasonable, some not.

It was a time of adjustment, and, as is common in such times, many things did not go smoothly.

In retrospect, we could have conducted ourselves better. As it was, we made the national news with strong negative community connotations, connotations that were exacerbated unnecessarily.

There was dissension, strife, name-calling, and then the band didnt play.

I remember the parade. Im not sure just which one it was it may well have been the Santa Claus Parade, but there was a good-sized crowd gathered along Chisholm Street when, moving with other entrants in its turn, along came the Alpena High School varsity band.

But it marched to a private cadence; one its director had set, a rhythm the crowd could not discern.

No drums drummed, no horns played, no melody lifted the spirits of the day; twirlers twirls were left unfurled; no batons were tossed to float freely if only for a little while.

Instead, a hushed progression demonstrated its displeasure with adults who had denied them the notes they wished to play. So, they played no notes at all that day.

It was a non-musical contribution of discordance our band performed not the music we needed to help bring us together again; not the music we had taught them, not the music where our pride resided with our pleasure in them.

Their non-selection did not play well, and, for the first time, I didnt hear the music play.

The second time was at President Barack Obamas first inauguration, when he paused to make mention of a specific Supreme Court case, Citizens United. This case allows unlimited independent political campaign spending by corporations and unions, an opinion authored by Justice Samual Alito Jr. He was present with the other Supreme Court justices that day.

Its an unfortunate ruling, in my view, one that deserved President Obamas condemnation for its false equivalence of money with speech that unleashed a wrecking ball on the legitimacy of our politics. A wrecking ball we are living with today.

That was the last time Alito appeared at any State of the Union address. He took his horn and went home, not to be seen again in the congressional halls of we the people.

Think about that, the only time in the oldest, greatest democracy on Earth when all three branches come together under one roof to consider the state of our union this guy stays home, piqued.

And Alito wasnt at President Joe Bidens recent State of the Union address, either nor was Justice Clarence Thomas or Justice Neil Gorsuch.

But, it only gets worse Justice Thomass wife, Ginni, has been let loose.

Consider her recently reported exchange with President Donald Trumps former chief of Staff, Mark Meadows, regarding the 2020 presidential election and their attempts to overthrow its confirmed results.

This is a fight of good versus evil, wrote Meadows. Evil always looks like the victor until the King of Kings triumphs.

Mrs. Thomas replied, You guys fold; the evil just moves fast down and underneath you all.

Its not enough to attempt to overthrow a presidential election; they need to cloak their efforts in a justification of spirituality after all, they have Jesus Christ on their side!

Freedom of religion is central to our American democracy, a freedom enshrined in the First Amendment to our Constitution, a document considered by many to be of divine inspiration and at the core of this nations greatness.

Its a guarantee our forefathers fought long and hard for, guaranteeing to each of us the right to worship, or not, as we chose and that no religion is to be considered superior to another by our government.

Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibit the free exercise thereof.

First Amendment to the United State Constitution

But Ginni Thomas and Mark Meadows believe they represent the sole sources of Gods work, adopting an air of confident absurdity that evil would prevail but for their enlightened actions.

History has taken us down this road before to disastrous effect.

Bundle in with their assertion of religious superiority, a selection of conspiracies, a catchy phrase no one has a good definition for, such as cancel culture, an intolerance or two, maybe even a hate, and we are well down a blasphemous path transforming a deity into a political hack.

All this leads to a place where no one has to show up to follow our Constitutions mandate respecting anothers religion, or the Golden Rule or the performance of enlightened music.

All one has to do is believe in a political party.

Finding there, mired in its politics, a form of grace.

Good grief.

Doug Pughs Vignettes runs weekly on Saturdays. He can be reached at pughda@gmail.com.

Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

View post:
And then the band didn't play | News, Sports, Jobs - Alpena News

A Northern District of New York court has permanently enjoined the statewide requirement that employers include a notice of workers rights and remedies in their employee handbooks regarding the prohibition on discrimination based on reproductive health care choices.

The requirement, which took effect in November 2019, was part of a broader bill amending the New York Labor Law to prohibit employers from accessing information on employees or dependents reproductive health without prior consent, as well as generally prohibiting discrimination and retaliatory action against an employee with respect to compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment because of or on the basis of the employees or dependents reproductive health decision making, including but not limited to, a decision to use or access a particular drug, device or medical service. To that end, employers that maintain an employee handbook were required to include in the handbook a notice of employee rights and remedies under this law.A Northern District of New York court has permanently enjoined the statewide requirement that employers include a notice of workers rights and remedies in their employee handbooks regarding the prohibition on discrimination based on reproductive health care choices.

In CompassCare et al. v. Cuomo, Case 1:19-cv-01409-TJM-DJS, several faith-based employers challenged the law in its entirety on the basis of violations of constitutional protections under the First Amendment. While the majority of the claims were previously dismissed, in its March 29, 2022 decision, the Northern District of New York found that the notice requirement compelled the Plaintiffs to deliver a message contrary to their religious beliefs as they relate to reproductive choices including birth control and abortion. Specifically, the court found that Plaintiffs handbooks . . . represent Plaintiffs statements to their employees about the rules that govern conduct in the workplace, the values of the organizations, and the religious perspective that guides the organizations operations, and, as such, [r]equiring that Plaintiffs also include in those handbooks a statement that the law protects employees who engage in behavior contrary to that promoted by the Plaintiffs would compel them to promote a message about conduct contrary to their religious perspective.

The district court further found that, applying the strict scrutiny standard, the State of New York failed to prove that requiring written notice in employee handbooks is the least restrictive means to achieve the States interest in ensuring workers have notice of their rights under the law. Specifically, the court found that State did not demonstrate why offering the information in a variety of other ways, including by advertising the provision generally, producing posters to be placed in workers view at the job site, and in general statements of workers rights provided by the Department [of Labor] itself would not achieve the same goals, as [d]oing so would not require the Plaintiffs to produce such speech themselves, or to include that speech in handbooks describing workers rights and responsibilities produced under the employers imprimatur.

Based on the above, the court concluded that the laws notice requirement runs afoul of the First Amendments free speech protections, and further that Plaintiffs would suffer irreparable harm from the provision and lack an adequate remedy at law, and therefore the requirement must be permanently enjoined.

While it remains to be seen whether the decision will be appealed, for the moment employers in New York are no longer obligated to include the written notice in their employee handbooks. We will continue to monitor and report on further developments.

[View source.]

Link:
New York District Court Permanently Enjoins Reproductive Health Notice of Rights Requirement for Employee Handbooks - JD Supra

Is it unconstitutional to ban books from a school library? Picodidn't provide an easy answer, but the ACLU and a couple of Missouri students aresuing arguing that the removal of booksfrom theWentzville R-IV district is a violation of their First Amendment rights.

A little more than 40 years ago, a school board in New York banned nine books, including novels and memoirs that addressed topics like racism, drug addiction, and anti-Semitism.

The board alleged that the books were anti-American, anti-Christian, and just plain filthy, and that the bans were part of their duty and obligation to protect the children in the school district from moral danger.

In response, a high school student named Steven Pico joined other students in suing the school board over the book ban. In 1982, the case Board of Education, Island Trees School District v. Pico made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which, for the first time, ruled on the constitutionality of book bans in school libraries.

Essentially, the Supreme Courts judgment was that the school board could not prevail in the case without a full trial at the lower court level, and that under the First Amendment school boards could not remove books from the library based merely on official suppression of ideas.

Since then, Pico has come to stand for the general proposition that the U.S. Constitution protects the right to receive information and ideas, which is especially salient in a school library. As a result, there are some constitutional limits on the power of local school boards to remove books from school libraries, especially when book removals are based on narrow or partisan grounds.

Fast-forward four decades to February of this year when the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit against a Missouri school district on behalf of two unnamed students. Wentzville R-IV district was sued for banning eight books, including memoirs and novels addressing race, gender, and sexual identity.

In a release announcing the lawsuit, Anthony Rothert, legal director at ACLU of Missouri, said, school boards cannot ban books because the books and their characters illustrate viewpoints different of those of the school board; especially when they target books presenting the viewpoints of racial and sexual minorities, as they have done in Wentzville.

The Missouri lawsuit comes amid a rise in book bans in the United States. School boards across the country are attempting to remove a range of titles, often in the wake of fierce complaints and well-organized campaigns from parents and groups using excerpts from books to create a fervor in like-minded community members.

The American Library Associations (ALA) Office of Intellectual Freedom (OIF) received an unprecedented volume of challenges in the fall of 2021, according to OIFs director.

Some of the banned titles have been considered longtime classics such as To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee and Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck. Newer titles addressing issues ranging from race, gender, and sexuality to family, social justice, and feminism have also been pulled from school libraries, including Gender Queer by Maia Kobabe and Stamped: Racism, Antiracism, and You by Jason Reynolds and Ibram X. Kendi.

In any caseand as was true 40 years ago in the Pico controversybook bans present sometimes murky legal questions about free speech and students rights to access information and ideas in public schools.

Wentzville R-IV is a suburban St. Louis public school district that serves more than 17,000 students. The district has policies governing selection, retention, and reconsideration of books for its school libraries. Those policies describe school libraries as a point of access to information and ideas for students as they acquire critical thinking and problem-solving skills.

Additionally, the districts libraries reportedly embrace ALAs Library Bill of Rights, which supports maximum student accessibility to materials that encourage knowledge, growth, and cultural appreciation and development.

In Wentzvilles schools, books can be weeded from libraries when they are damaged beyond repair or no longer useful, or when they are found to be age-inappropriate or to contain unreliable information. The school board may also consider formal written challenges regarding removal of certain titles.

In 2021, a parent member of the St. Charles County Parents Association formally challenged Toni Morrisons novel The Bluest Eye because of explicit descriptions of violence, rape, sex, and incest contained in the book.

Initially, the Wentzville school board voted to retain the book, in part because The Bluest Eye was not an assigned reading or part of the district curriculum. Additionally, the committee reviewing the challenge thought that removing the title would infringe on the rights of parents and students to decide for themselves whether they wanted to read the book.

But later, the board approved removal of The Bluest Eye. Other books that were subject to formal challenges in the district around that same time were also pulled from library shelves in what the ACLU describes as a campaign to suppress viewpoints about race and sexuality.

All in all, the Wentzville school board removed All Boys Arent Blue by George M. Johnson; Fun Home: A Family Tragicomic by Alison Bechdel; Gabi, a Girl in Pieces by Isabel Quintero; and Heavy: An American Memoir by Kiese Laymon.

The board also removed Invisible Girl: A Novel by Lisa Jewell; Lawn Boy by Jonathan Evison; and Modern Romance: An Investigation by Aziz Ansari and Eric Klinenberg.

In its legal complaint, the ACLU contends that the board removed the books because school officials disliked the ideas contained in them, and that they did so with the intent and purpose to prescribe what is generally or traditionally accepted as right or true in matters of opinion.

Essentially, the ACLU says that the district failed to use established and unbiased procedures for book removal and that the banned books were removed on an arbitrary basis and not in a viewpoint neutral manner.

The ACLU further contends that the Wentzville book bans violate student rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The class-action lawsuit asks the court to reinstate the banned books into school library circulation.

Not long after the ACLU filed the lawsuit, the Wentzville school board reversed its decision regarding The Bluest Eye. Rothert welcomed the reversal in a statement issued in late February, but said that the ACLUs case is still active.

The fact remains that six books are still banned. And Wentzvilles policies still make it easy for any community member to force any book from the shelves even when they shamelessly target books by and about communities of color, LGBTQ people, and other marginalized groups, Rothert said.

The Wentzville case begs a question of how the Supreme Courts narrow 5-4 decision in Picoi.e., that there are some constitutional limits on the power of school officials to remove books from school librariesapplies in todays highly charged book banning environment.

When Pico was decided, then-Justice William Brennan wrote the plurality opinion, which was joined either in full or in part by four other justices.

In brief, we hold that local school boards may not remove books from school library shelves simply because they dislike the ideas contained in those books and seek by their removal to prescribe what shall be orthodoxin politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion, Justice Brennan wrote.

Another four justices dissented from that opinion. Some did not believe that the case implicated the First Amendment.

Consequently, aside from the principal opinion, Pico produced six different opinions from the various justices, each of whom presented potentially thorny legal questions underlying book banning in public schools. Those issues ranged from considering the underlying motivation for removing books, to examining the fundamental right to receive information under the law, to questioning whether school boards should be given broad judicial deference to manage school library collections.

The divergent viewpoints from the Supreme Court in the Pico case make it difficult to pinpoint a definitive legal test for determining whether a particular school boards book removal runs afoul of the Constitution. As a result, book banning proponents may continue to push the issue until their state legislators clearly define school board authority to pull books from library shelves. And at this time, more than 13 states are reportedly proposing or considering bills that would make it easier for local school boards to remove books from school libraries.

Although the Wentzville board has thus far reinstated one of the banned books, the ACLU as of March appeared poised to continue pursuing the case in the courts.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects the right to share ideas, including the right of people to receive information and knowledge, Rothert said in a statement, adding, We must protect this right, including educators and students rights to talk and learn about race and gender in schools.

Kelley R. Taylor is a writer, journalist, and lawyer.

The rest is here:
Taking Book Banners to Court: A Look at a Student Lawsuit in Missouri and Impact of the 1982 - School Library Journal

FIRE commends University of Northern Iowa for quickly affirming to resident assistants that the university will respect their First Amendment rights.(Photo courtesy University of Northern Iowa)

by Sabrina Conza

The University of Northern Iowa has made clear to resident assistants that they may speak with the media as private citizens after FIRE raised concerns about UNI requiring pre-approval of RAs communications.

In February, The Northern Iowan student newspaper sent RAs an anonymous survey asking about their experiences on campus, but a UNI official quickly told RAs that university media relations officials must approve all RA-themed media responses to the press. On March 17, FIRE wrote UNI explaining that government employees, including RAs at public institutions, have the right to speak to the media in their individual capacities on matters of public concern.

On March 23, UNI responded to FIRE, affirming that the school strongly values the First Amendment rights of [UNI] students and employees and pledging not to restrict RAs right to speak with the media. And on March 29, UNI told its RAs that they may speak with the media (including on-campus newspapers) in their capacity as a private citizen without seeking prior approval from UNI Housing & Dining.

UNI told FIRE, We continue to value opportunities to assure Resident Assistants as with all UNI students and employees understand the protections afforded under the First Amendment.

As much as FIRE will readily criticize universities unconstitutional policies and practices, we much prefer commending universities when they do the right thing.

FIRE commends UNI for quickly affirming to RAs that the university will respect their First Amendment rights.

We have seen this scenario play out many times before, with mixed results. In just the last couple of years, after FIREs intervention, University of North Carolina, University of Missouri, and University of Virginia changed their policies which limited RAs ability to speak with the media, bringing them into compliance with the First Amendment. Louisiana State University and Frostburg State University, on the other hand, both refused to fully respect RAs First Amendment rights.

Other institutions with restrictive practices of silencing students and employees speech or suppressing the student press should take note as much as FIRE will readily criticize universities unconstitutional policies and practices, we much prefer commending universities when they do the right thing.

If youre a student or faculty member facing censorship or prior review from your university, or a student journalist facing restrictions on communicating with sources, reach out to FIRE. We may be able to help.

FIRE defends the rights of students and faculty members no matter their views at public and private universities and colleges in the United States. If you are a student or a faculty member facing investigation or punishment for your speech, submit your case to FIRE today. If youre a college journalist facing censorship or a media law question, call the Student Press Freedom Initiative 24-hour hotline at 717-734-SPFI (7734).

More here:
VICTORY: After FIRE letter, University of Northern Iowa clarifies resident assistants may speak with media - Foundation for Individual Rights in...