Ms. BAILEY. No, sir.

Senator HATCH. Or if you have the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, you are not permitted to meet at schoool, even though the students voluntarily want to do so and even though the facilities are open, is that right?

Ms. BAILEY. Yes, sir, that is correct.

Senator HATCH. Well, what proportion of the student body took part in the various religious activities conducted in your school prior to this Lubbock decision? Could you tell us that?

Ms. BAILEY. OK. In the Morning Watch Program, there were 35 out of 1,200.

Senator HATCH. Which program was that?

Ms. BAILEY. Morning Watch; it was a devotional before school. Senator HATCH. Run by students?

Ms. BAILEY. Yes, sir.

Senator HATCH. With student officers?

Ms. BAILEY. Yes, sir.

Senator HATCH. Purely voluntary?

Ms. BAILEY. Yes; like I said, it is sometimes hard for us to get up early and to go. Some people would come and not come back because they would decide that that was not what they wanted, so I felt that it was completely voluntary.

It was 35 students out of 1,200, which indicates to me that there was not a lot of peer pressure to attend. In our junior high school, there were 65 out of 700 who participated in the Fellowship of Christian Athletes.

Senator HATCH. Was there any sense that those students who did not participate were shunned or discriminated against by students who did participate?

Ms. BAILEY. I do not think so. The students who participated were in such a minority that I do not think there was any at all. Senator HATCH. Well, I just want to personally thank you, Bonnie, for being with us today. I think your testimony has been very, very important. I think all too often, people fail to look at the side of those who want to do good things and who want to do them voluntarily and who do not want to discriminate in the area of religious observance and school prayer.

I think you have brought out some very important points today. I just want to compliment you and I want to wish you the best as you enter college in 3 months. I am sure you have a terrific future. Ms. BAILEY. Thank you for inviting me.

Senator HATCH. Thank you. It is great to have you with us. [The prepared statement of Bonnie Bailey follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BONNIE BAILEY

Honorable members of the committee, I am pleased to be here.

I appreciate your valuable time and your attention. I am Bonnie Bailey, a 17 year old senior at Monterey High School in Lubbock, Texas, which is a school of the Lubbock Independent School District. My parents are Ronald and Betty Bailey.

I feel that I can speak with some authority on the views of my students peers. This past year I was elected Governor of the State of Texas by 600 students who participated in the Youth in Government program, sponsored by the Y.M.C.A. I also serve on the Student Council of my school.

Until last year, the Lubbock School District permitted voluntary meetings of students on school property to discuss religious, moral or ethical matters before or after regular school hours. This policy was held unconstitutional last year in a case called Lubbock Civil Liberties Union against Lubbock Independent School District, of which you are all probably aware. longer allowed to meet on school property for these purposes. The court decision has had a bad impact on us students in Lubbock. On behalf of my fellow students, I want to share what the impact has been.

Students are no

We have been taught that the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech to all citizens in this country, including students. However, apparently religious speech is not protected speech for us students. Americans are allowed to picket, demonstrate, protest, use four letter words, and take God's name in vain, and the courts seem to uphold their actions and their words as being protected by the Constitution even though they are highly offensive to some people who see or hear them. I have been told that students are guaranteed these freedoms of speech so long as they are not disruptive. However, we students are not allowed to speak of religious matters on school property in Lubbock or, I suppose, anywhere else. I do not understand this inconsistency.

Through my sophomore year in high school I participated in an activity at school called "Morning Watch". This was a voluntary program in which about 35 students out of 1200 met together in a

school room before school began.

Sometimes we had speakers.

Some

times students spoke. It was a few minutes of inspiration before the school day began. It was totally voluntary, and in fact, students had to make a special effort to get to school a half an hour early in order to attend the meeting. No one was forced or coerced into attending. A teacher served as an advisor. However, students ran this meeting. It was not my impression that the Lubbock schools favored our religious views over others. The school board and administration took this time of sharing and meeting together away from us. They took something very valuable from us when they refused to let the Morning Watch meeting continue this year.

I also participated in the Fellowship of Christian Athletes in ninth grade. Again, this was a group of about 65 students out of 700 meeting on a voluntary basis after school with a religious emphasis. Although two coaches served as advisors, we students elected officers and ran the meetings. Because of the new policy

in Lubbock, we can no longer use the school building for meetings of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes.

My sister was a member of Y-Teens, an organization sponsored by the Y.W.C.A. and open to all girls regardless of their religious beliefs. This group was allowed to meet after school hours in the school building. However, it can no longer do this. I belong to Tri-Hi-Y, which is sponsored by the Y.M.C.A., and our group cannot meet at school at any time.

The impression of many students is that the school administration or the school board or the courts, or all of them, are hostile toward religion. Many Lubbock students were not aware that the school district defended in court its policy which would have allowed us to meet. When told that we could not meet for religious discussions, we assumed that the decision was willingly made by the school, not knowing that they were forced by the courts to discriminate against us.

It seems to us that the government is not neutral but that it is against religion. Many students look up to and respect the school board members, teachers, principals and judges. But on this

Fifth, the unintended but inevitable result of current

judicial interpretations of the Establishment Clause is not state neutrality but a complete exclusion of religion which is, in The governmental

effect, state discouragement of religion.

"neutrality" mandated by the Supreme Court on matters of religion has proven in fact to be unachievable.

Finally, the amendment is needed because it would allow decisions of essentially local concern to be made by states and localities rather than the federal judiciary.

For over 170

years, school prayer issues were resolved at the state and local levels by the residents of the affected communities. Their choices regarding school prayer reflected the desires and beliefs of the parents and children who were directly and substantially affected.

III.

The proposed constitutional

amendment is essentially intended to restore the status quo with respect to the law governing prayer in public schools that existed before Engel v. Vitale and Abington School District v. Schempp were decided, i.e., when prayers such as the Regents' prayer and readings from the Bible without comment were not thought to be unconstitutional. However, the proposed amendment affirms the fundamental right of every person to reject any religious belief, as he or she deems fit, and not participate in the expression of any religious belief.

By establishing that "Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to prohibit individual or group prayer," the proposed amendment would make clear that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment could no longer be construed to prohibit the government's facilitation of individual or group prayer in public schools. The amendment also would foreclose reliance upon the "implied coercion" theory advanced by the courts, which presumes

a coercive that any group prayer by consenting students has effect upon the objecting students in violation of their right to free exercise of religion, and that therefore no prayer is constitutionally permissible. However, as discussed below, the proposed amendment expressly protects the right of objecting students not to participate in prayer. This provision is sufficient to protect the rights of those who do not wish to participate without denying to all others who desire to pray an opportunity to do so.

to

The intent of the proposed amendment is to leave the decisions regarding prayer the state or local school authorities and to the individuals themselves, who may choose whether they wish to participate. The proposed amendment would not require school authorities to allow or participate in prayer, but would permit them to do so if desired. Group prayers could be led by teachers or students. Alternatively, if the school authorities decided not to take part in a group prayer, they would be free to accommodate the students' interest in individual or group prayer by permitting, for example, prayer meetings outside of class hours or student-initiated prayer at appropriate, nondisruptive times, such as a brief prayer at the start of class or grace before meals. School authorities could, of course, develop reasonable regulations governing the periods of prayer, in order to maintain proper school discipline.

on

-

If the school authorities choose to participate in a group prayer, the selection of the particular prayer subject of course to the right of those not wishing to participate not to do would be left to the judgment of local communities, based a consideration of such factors as the desires of parents, students and teachers and other community interests consistent with applicable state law. Thus, the proposed amendment would restore the practice maintained throughout most of this nation's history, in which the determination of the appropriate