In a decision from late July that I missed, a district judge in Texas ruled against a local school in its decision to black out religious messages in some Christmas cards being sold as part of a fundraiser. Its an interesting case: school officials were concerned about running afoul of the separation of church and state and took action to avoid the appearance of religious endorsement, but did they go too far by removing references to Christ in cards sold?
Judge Lee Rosenthal found that in fact the Constitution not only doesn't mandate such action, it *forbids* them from taking it.
But, really the reason for this post is not the content of that ruling so much as a passage right at the beginning of it, pointing to the frustration felt by many school officials, and – it would seem – judges.
This case again requires analysis of the delicate balance that public school administrators must strike between protecting the First Amendment right to free speech and avoiding endorsing religion in violation of the Establishment Clause. The many cases and the large body of literature on this set of issues demonstrate the lack of adequate guidance to enable teachers and principals to determine whether the decisions they make comply with constitutional standards. As this case demonstrates, decisions in such seemingly innocuous and benign activities as elementary school parties and fundraisers for elementary school art classes too often lead to protracted litigation.
Of course, the "seemingly benign" instances are exactly the ones where we need courts to unpack the complication that lies beneath, and to hear the concerns of students and parents that might otherwise go unheard.
