High School Cheerleaders in Trouble for Bible Verse Banners

[Alex]

It didn't help that the article had the "no Christian stuff" part of the statement half an article away from the "no non-Christian stuff" part.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Alex

If the school were a private organization then that would be completely true.

But if the government (in the form of the public school) is going to bar speech based purely on the content of it (which is what is happening if they're told they can't write scripture but can write other things) then they need to have a reason beyond simple civility.

I go back and forth on this point. For example, what about an office of a government agency and its employees? At a private business, a manager definitely has the right to stop an employee from saying, "Jesus is our savior!" every time someone passes their cubical. If that's done at a government office (let's leave the public out of it, I'm talking about a cube-farm of government employees), is that government infringement of speech? Is that employee's manager an agent of the state censoring her? Or is the manager just someone trying to run an efficient operation? Are government offices barred from enforcing the types of workplace rules that are taken for granted within a private workplace, but would not be kosher for a cop to enforce on a public street, simply because it's a pubic institution?

A school is not an office, but it's close. As long as we're not talking about legal consequences, I don't have a problem with them enforcing certain restrictions on speech and behavior with the goal of creating a workable environment. And for the most part, considering that teachers are not routinely arrested on charges of false imprisonment for making students sit in a room for an hour, we all agree on that.

Yes, this is an edge case, and as I said earlier I don't consider it a major offense. But while the cheerleaders aren't being paid by the school and the message wasn't being produced by the school, the context is a football game that is being paid for by the school, and they are wearing uniforms representing their school. So I do think that sticks one little pinky toe over the line of being a representative of the school.

[Strangler Lewis]

Originally Posted by SacTown Chronic

I took part in a prayer circle before a basketball game that I was coaching last MLK Day because our hosts were a private Christian school. I participated in the prayer because it does me no harm or inconvenience to do so. And I knew when we scheduled the exhibition game against a Christian school that there would be prayer. It's kinda part of the deal with those schools. Also, our hosts were kind enough to invite anyone who did not want to participate to step outside, no judgements attached. Cool people like that, I'll go along to get along. Why not?

Take the same situation at a public school, and I would have walked my team off the court until the nonsense was over. A very silent, very public protest, if you will.

Making the Jews and atheists stand outside with the smokers doesn't sound all that cool to me. What about respectful silent non-participation?

[Alex]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

So I do think that sticks one little pinky toe over the line of being a representative of the school.

I suspect the Supreme Court would agree with you and not me.

[Strangler Lewis]

If the private or the public employer censors disruptive shouts of "Jesus Saves!" but not "Forty F*ckin' Niners!," it can expect to be sued for religious discrimination under state and federal civil rights laws.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Strangler Lewis

If the private or the public employer censors disruptive shouts of "Jesus Saves!" but not "Forty F*ckin' Niners!," he can expect to be sued for religious discrimination under state and federal civil rights laws.

Fair enough, it's not a perfect analogy. However my point still stands that just because a school is a public institution, that doesn't mean they are required to allow you the same latitude you have as if you are in a park or on the street.

[SacTown Chronic]

I assume that the option of respectful silent non-participation is a given. And one that I have chosen from time to time. But why would I pass up the chance to stand in a circle and hold hands with grown men and twelve year-old boys? Why, man, why?

[JWBear]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

I go back and forth on this point. For example, what about an office of a government agency and its employees? At a private business, a manager definitely has the right to stop an employee from saying, "Jesus is our savior!" every time someone passes their cubical. If that's done at a government office (let's leave the public out of it, I'm talking about a cube-farm of government employees), is that government infringement of speech? Is that employee's manager an agent of the state censoring her? Or is the manager just someone trying to run an efficient operation? Are government offices barred from enforcing the types of workplace rules that are taken for granted within a private workplace, but would not be kosher for a cop to enforce on a public street, simply because it's a pubic institution?

A school is not an office, but it's close. As long as we're not talking about legal consequences, I don't have a problem with them enforcing certain restrictions on speech and behavior with the goal of creating a workable environment. And for the most part, considering that teachers are not routinely arrested on charges of false imprisonment for making students sit in a room for an hour, we all agree on that.

Yes, this is an edge case, and as I said earlier I don't consider it a major offense. But while the cheerleaders aren't being paid by the school and the message wasn't being produced by the school, the context is a football game that is being paid for by the school, and they are wearing uniforms representing their school. So I do think that sticks one little pinky toe over the line of being a representative of the school.

As someone who has worked in a government office for almost 19 years, I can answer that. It's an area that Management would have to handle very delicately. The employee has a right to express his or her religious beliefs as long as it does not, cause a disruption or become offensive, or be considered proselytization. My take on this particular scenario is that, even without the presence of the public, the employee would be asked to stop as it could easily be construed as proselytization; especially so if the person was in a position of authority. Also, if it made a coworker uncomfortable and could lead a hostile work environment or that coworker to feels that they were being discriminated against, then it would need to be dealt with as a potential EEO issue.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Which is no different than how it would be handled in a private company...and entirely different than it would be handled on a public street.

[lashbear]

Jazzman: OK you got me there I'd still like to see a team run through a banner saying "God is a myth" and see what reaction they get.