Page images
PDF
EPUB

Court denied that request. So we are back now to try to resolve this matter in the legislative process, to once again establish the rights under the Constitution and under the first amendment of students attending our public high schools.

Again, let me emphasize, I know there is a lot of confusion, but this is not a matter of requiring school prayer; this is not a matter of providing for a time for school prayer under the auspices of school districts or school boards. This is simply a matter of the first amendment rights of those students being guaranteed by the legislation which I have introduced.

In this material that I have submitted for the record, I have included a very excellent statement by Professor Tribe of Harvard Law School who has indicated support for this approach to guarantee the first amendment rights of secondary school students.

Mr. Chairman, that briefly is the crux of the bill that I have introduced. It is a rights bill, a civil rights bill. As a civil libertarian, I am deeply concerned about this right being denied, and therefore, I hope that we can have positive action on the part of this committee.

[The following was received for the record:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR MARK 0. HATFIELD

MR. CHAIRMAN:

FIRST, I WANT TO COMMEND THE CHAIRMAN OF THIS COMMITTEE, SENATOR

THURMOND, AND SENATOR HATCH FOR HOLDING EXHAUSTIVE HEARINGS ON

THE PRESIDENT'S SCHOOL PRAYER AMENDMENT. I APPRECIATE THEIR

SENSITIVITY IN SCHEDULING ANOTHER DAY OF HEARINGS AFTER THE

CONSTITUTION SUBCOMMITTEE RECENTLY APPROVED AN ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL

PRAYER AMENDMENT. IT IS ESPECIALLY ENCOURAGING TO NOTE THE

ENDORSEMENT OF THE EQUAL ACCESS PRINCIPLE FOR STUDENT-INITIATED

RELIGIOUS MEETINGS BY THE CONSTITUTION SUBCOMMITTEE.

MY COMMENTS TODAY ARE DIRECTED TOWARDS THE TASK OF DESIGNING AN

APPROPRIATE REMEDY FOR STUDENTS WHO WISH TO USE SCHOOL FACILITIES

ON AN EQUAL BASIS WITH OTHER STUDENT GROUPS. LAST FALL, I

TESTIFIED BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE AND ARGUED THAT THE FIRST

AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION SETS LIMITS ON THE ABILITY OF

GOVERNMENT TO PROMOTE, ESTABLISH, AND INCULCATE RELIGIOUS BELIEFS

IN PUBLIC SCHOOL STUDENTS

BUT IT SETS NO LIMIT ON

STUDENT INITIATED PRAYER OR RELIGIOUS DISCUSSION DURING

NON INSTRUCTIONAL TIME PERIODS. INSTEAD OF CONCENTRATING UPON A

SCHOOL PRAYER AMENDMENT, I URGED MY COLLEAGUES TO DEVOTE THEIR

ENERGIES TO ROOTING OUT RIDICULOUS BARRIERS THAT HAVE BEEN

ERECTED TO FORBID VOLUNTARY MEETINGS OF STUDENTS WHO SEEK TO MEET

AND PRAY IN NON-DISRUPTIVE WAYS.

A GROWING NUMBER OF FEDERAL COURTS, HOWEVER, HAVE EXPANDED THE

PROHIBITIONS ON THE SPONSORSHIP BY THE STATE OF RELIGIOUS

ACTIVITY IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS TO ENCOMPASS EQUAL ACCESS POLICIES

ADOPTED BY SCHOOL BOARDS AS WELL AS STUDENT REQUESTS TO MEET ON

THEIR OWN TIME BEFORE OR AFTER SCHOOL HOURS FOR PRAYER,

DEVOTIONAL READING OR RELIGIOUS DISCUSSIONS. THESE PROHIBITIONS

ARE HOSTILE TO THE RIGHTS OF RELIGIOUS EXPRESSION AND, IN MY

VIEW, VIOLATE THE FREE SPEECH RIGHTS OF STUDENTS.

IN THE LUBBOCK CASE, 23 SENATORS JOINED WITH ME IN FILING A

FRIEND OF THE COURT BRIEF ASKING THE SUPREME COURT TO GRANT A

HEARING AND REVERSE THE DECISION. IN THAT BRIEF, WE ARGUED THAT:

"NEITHER LEGISLATION NOR A CONSTITUTIONAL
AMENDMENT IS REQUIRED TO PERMIT A SCHOOL TO
OPEN ITS FACILITIES FOR ALL APPROPRIATE
STUDENT INITIATED AND STUDENT-MANAGED
ACTIVITIES INCLUDING, IF THE STUDENTS WISH,
RELIGIOUS ACTIVITIES. THE CONSTITUTION
ALREADY SO PROVIDES. THE ESTABLISHMENT, FREE
EXERCISE AND FREE SPEECH CLAUSES OF THE FIRST
AMENDMENT REQUIRE TREATMENT OF SUCH ACTIVITIES
IN A NEUTRAL MANNER. CONSEQUENTLY, PUBLIC

SCHOOLS PROPERLY MAY ALLOW STUDENTS EQUAL
ACCESS TO SCHOOL FACILITIES FOR VOLUNTARY,
EXTRA-CURRICULAR, RELIGIOUS SPEECH AND

ASSEMBLY.

UNFORTUNATELY, HOWEVER, THE SUPREME COURT ON JANUARY 17, 1983,

FAILED TO GRANT A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE LUBBOCK SCHOOL BOARD.

IT WAS MY HOPE THAT THE SUPREME COURT WOULD SEIZE THE OPPORTUNITY

AT THE URGING OF 24 SENATORS TO GIVE GUIDANCE TO 90,000 PUBLIC

SCHOOLS ON WHAT THE LAW SHOULD BE REGARDING THE USE OF SCHOOL

FACILITIES DURING NON-CLASSROOM TIME PERIODS BY STUDENT INITIATED

39-015 0-84--22

RELIGIOUS GROUPS. IT NOW BECOMES IMPERATIVE THAT THE CONGRESS

GIVE GUIDANCE TO SCHOOL DISTRICTS RECEIVING FEDERAL FUNDS THAT

RELIGIOUS SPEECH IS NOT TO BE GIVEN SECOND-CLASS TREATMENT.

UVER 20 SENATORS HAVE JOINED TOGETHER IN OFFERING S. 815 WHICH

WOULD MAKE CLEAR THAT SECONDARY SCHOOL STUDENTS HAVE THE RIGHT TO

MEET VOLUNTARILY DURING NON-INSTRUCTIONAL TIME PERIODS FOR PRAYER

OR DEVOTIONAL READING. S. 815 HAS UNITED A NUMBER OF SENATORS

WHO DIFFER ON CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS THAT PERMIT

SCHOOL-SPONSORED PRAYER OR STATUTORY APPROACHES WHICH DENY

JURISDICTION TO FEDERAL COURTS TO DECIDE SCHOOL PRAYER CASES.

BUT THE SPONSORS OF S. 815 AGREE THAT THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT

ALLOW OUR PUBLIC SCHOOLS TO BE HOSTILE TO RELIGION.

MOST RECENTLY, IN BENDER V. WILLIAMSPORT AREA SCHOOLS, THE

U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA HELD

THAT A STUDENT INITIATED RELIGIOUS GROUP HAD THE RIGHT TO MEET

DURING A SCHOOL ACTIVITY PERIOD UNDER THE CONSTITUTION'S

PROTECTION OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH. ALTHOUGH THIS CASE MAY BE THE

BEGINNING OF A CHANGE IN DIRECTION BY OUR FEDERAL COURTS,

EXISTING FEDERAL APPELLATE PRECEDENTS CONTINUE TO REQUIRE SCHOOL

DISTRICTS IN AT LEAST TWO CIRCUITS TO RULE AGAINST

STUDENT INITIATED RELIGIOUS MEETINGS.

TESTIMONY ON APRIL 28, 1983, BEFORE SENATOR DENTON AND THE SENATE

JUDICIARY COMMITTEE ESTABLISHED THE FACT THAT THERE ARE MANY

INSTANCES ACROSS THE NATION IN WHICH STUDENTS MEETING QUIETLY

OUTSIDE OF CLASSROOM HOURS FOR RELIGIOUS DISCUSSION WERE REQUIRED

TO DISCONTINUE THEIR MEETINGS BECAUSE OF UNCERTAINTY AND

APPREHENSION ABOUT LOWER COURT DECISIONS AND POSSIBLE LITIGATION.

THESE FEDERAL COURT DECISIONS HAVE HAD A CHILLING EFFECT WHICH

HAS RESULTED IN CONFUSION, INCONSISTENCY AND ARBITRARINESS IN

ATTEMPTING TO COMPLY WITH THE CONSTITUTION'S PROTECTION AGAINST

THE ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION.

DISTINGUISHED CONSTITUTIONAL LAW EXPERTS, SUCH AS PROFESSOR

LAURENCE TRIBE OF THE HARVARD LAW SCHOOL, HAVE CONCLUDED THAT

S. 815 IS "BOTH CONSTITUTIONALLY SOUND AND WISE AS A MATTER OF

POLICY." PRESIDENT REAGAN HAS URGED THIS COMMITTEE TO APPROVE

EQUAL ACCESS LEGISLATION. GIVEN THE STRONG BIPARTISAN SUPPORT

THAT THIS BILL HAS RECEIVED IN THE SENATE, I URGE THE COMMITTEE

TO PLACE EQUAL ACCESS LEGISLATION ON ITS CALENDAR FOR ACTION THIS

SUMMER.

I ASK THAT PROFESSOR TRIBE'S LETTER, AS WELL AS OTHER

ACCOMPANYING MATERIALS, BE PLACED IN THE RECORD AT THE CONCLUSION

OF MY STATEMENT.

« PreviousContinue »