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
|
4KB
|
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>
<p>The court weighs the constitutionality of student religious
groups
</p>
<p> "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.
</p>
<p> 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.
</p>
<p> 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.
</p>
<p> 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.
</p>
<p> 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."
</p>
<p> 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?
</p>
<p>By Alain L. Sanders. Reported by Jerome Cramer/Washington and
Andrea Sachs/New York.
</p>
</body>
</article>
</text>