TIME: Almanac 1995

home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search

/ TIME: Almanac 1995 / TIME Almanac 1995.iso / time / 011590 / 0115110.000 < prev next >

Wrap

Text File | 1994-03-25 | 3.8 KB | 88 lines

<text id=90TT0127> <title> Jan. 15, 1990: Prayers In The Schoolhouse? </title> <history> TIME--The Weekly Newsmagazine--1990 Jan. 15, 1990 Antarctica </history> <article> <source>Time Magazine</source> <hdr> LAW, Page 51 Prayers in the Schoolhouse? </hdr> <body> The court weighs the constitutionality of student religious groups "Given all the problems teenagers have, the group made me feel good." That is how Bridget Mergens explains her attempt five years ago to found a Christian prayer club at Omaha's Westside High School. This week the U.S. Supreme Court will consider whether Westside officials violated the club members' right of free speech by denying them permission to meet after hours on school grounds. Conservatives are hailing the case as their best chance in years to put religion back in the schoolhouse. Westside authorities turned down Mergens because they felt that giving the club access to school facilities would violate their policy against "advocacy groups" and might amount to an improper endorsement of the club's religion. But Mergens and her fellow club members countered in a suit that the refusal violated the 1984 federal Equal Access Act. That measure forbids public secondary schools to discriminate against any student group on the basis of its "religious, political [or] philosophical" views, if--and this is an important if--those same schools permit other "noncurriculum-related student groups" to meet on their premises during off-hours. The statute fails to define what is meant by noncurriculum related. Mergens maintains that such groups as Westside's chess and scuba-diving clubs fall into that category, thereby entitling her group to equal recognition. The high school disagrees, insisting that the clubs are in fact curricular extensions. The Supreme Court will now sort out the precise meaning of the act and consider whether it passes constitutional muster. Critics claim that by condoning religious activity in the interest of free speech the statute impermissibly establishes religion and prayer in public schools. Most experts believe the statute does not cross constitutional boundaries. Says Dean Kelley of the National Council of Churches: "The big difference is who is doing the praying. When a school sponsors the prayer, it is an establishment of religion. But when students want to organize a religion club in extracurricular time, the school should get out of the way." Many parents and educators believe the distinction is not so evident. "In many cases, student religious groups want the sanction of the school and a captive audience to preach to," argues Marc Stern, one of Westside's lawyers. The Supreme Court has already upheld the principle of equal access at public colleges, and most court watchers believe the high bench will extend it to public high schools. Critics fear that equal access could make it easy for majority prayer groups to dominate the public school environment and create an uncomfortable atmosphere for religious minority students. "The theory is that secondary school students are more impressionable," explains American University law professor Herman Schwartz. Douglas Veith, one of Mergens' attorneys, disagrees. "You can't solve a free-speech issue by suppressing prayer," he says. "Students of all faiths and beliefs should be encouraged." All of which raises a new question: How tolerant will equal access be in practice when unpopular religious or political groups seek recognition as after-school clubs? By Alain L. Sanders. Reported by Jerome Cramer/Washington and Andrea Sachs/New York. </body> </article> </text>