Religious bigotry raise its ugly head at elementary school near Seattle

The recent example of overt hostility, even bigotry, toward students who are Christian occurred in Creekside Elementary School in Sammamish, Washington, about twenty miles east of Seattle. This controversy, it’s worth noting, is playing out not far from where controversy led to the Supreme Court’s ground-breaking judgment in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District. (After the Justices reasoned that board officials violated the football coach’s First Amendment rights to the free exercise of religion and speech in refusing to renew his contract because he prayed on the field after games, the school district had to pay him a $1.7 million damages award.

The principal in Creekside Elementary School, acting solely on her own discretion to evaluate requests for new organizations, refused to allow two students, L.A.W. and J.W. to organize an interfaith prayer club. Eleven-year-old L.A.W. wished to create the club because of an “especially difficult experience as a religious student in fifth grade.” Because of her experience, L.A.W. decided to start an interfaith prayer club so that students like her could have a place after school where they feel safe and welcome, and where they can bring students together to serve their community.” Both L.A.W. and J.W. had plans for club activities, including prayer and community service.

The principal denied the students’ request, even though the club’s goals clearly aligned with the board’s mission and work statement. However, the principal allowed a “Pride” Club to form in the elementary school, which teachers promoted, a week before meeting with L.A.W.

Moreover, during two meetings with L.A.W. and her mother, the principal cited budgetary concerns for denying the students’ request even though nothing in board records reflects any cost associated with the Pride club or, by extension, this proposed Christian club.

The principal’s hypocrisy is all the more evident in light of the mission and work statement on the district’s website promoting diversity:

We are dedicated to identifying and removing bias and systemic and institutional barriers that create marginalizing and disproportionality in student achievement and their well being….We are committed to creating equitable outcomes where all students thrive. We work to create welcoming and inclusive learning environments, where students, staff, and parents know that they matter and that they belong.

Further, L.A.W. told the principal (to no avail) that the club would be student-led and that if it needed a sponsor, staff members and other adults were willing to volunteer. Additionally, L.A.W. offered to host a fundraiser with friends for the club if necessary to cover any costs. In light of the students’ plans and the board’s diversity statements, remarkbly, the principal excluded the Christian students so arbitrarily.

After the principal denied L.A.W. and J.W.’s request to form the club, the two (through their mothers) contacted First Liberty Institute, “the largest legal organization in the nation dedicated exclusively to defending religious liberty for all Americans.” First Liberty sent a letter to the board and principal on April 9, 2024, explaining how they violated the students’ rights to religious freedom and speech by allowing non-religious clubs to meet, because in doing so they engaged in unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination.

First Liberty’s letter asked board officials to respond no later than April 22, 2024, stating that the students can start a prayer club no later than April 29, 2024. The letter concluded that if First Liberty did not receive these assurances, it “will proceed as our clients direct, likely pursuing all available legal remedies,” meaning litigation. Board officials acknowledged that they received First Liberty’s letter, promising to follow up after April 15.

Regardless of the principal’s and board members’ personal beliefs, given their duty to avoid viewpoint discrimination by not disfavoring religion it is almost inconceivable they acted with such total disregard to L.A.W.’s and J.W.’s rights to the free exercise of religion and speech in rejecting their request, while allowing other clubs to form. The callousness of the principal’s behavior is especially egregious because L.A.W.’s stated goals, to help her peers, regardless of their religious beliefs, to feel included in a powerful, positive and non-dividing way to help others in their community are entirely consistent with those of the board’s and its constitutional duty not to treat religion less favorably than other viewpoints.

Quoting the Supreme Court’s judgment in Kennedy, among other cases, First Liberty emphasized that “[u]nder the First Amendment’s protection of free exercise of religion and free speech, the government may not ‘single out’ religious groups ‘for special disfavor’ compared to similar secular groups.” In light of Kennedy and other recent litigation protecting religious freedom, it is incumbent that officials in Creekside Elementary School to wake up by meeting their constitutional duty to allow the proposed interfaith religion club to form.

Should officials in Creekside Elementary School fail to honor the students’ rights, they will probably face potentially costly litigation, very likely diverting needed resources to a fight they cannot win. More importantly, the board would display its antipathy toward Christian students, let alone their families, and others in their community as they espouse lofty, but apparently hypocritical, ideal promoting the commendable goal of diversity. Hopefully, the board and principal will come to their senses in recognizing that just as respect must go both ways, so, too, as educators, rather than mouth empty platitudes, they must model positive behavior by respecting the views of others with whom they may disagree by practicing what they preach in being open to diversity in its many forms, including, most notably, America’s first liberty, the free exercise of religion.

Catholic World Report