Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
And another case that I just can't believe the school would bother to try and defend. A school in New York refused to allow a 4th grader to hand out a little postcard sized flyer about her belief in God to her schoolmates. The parents filed suit and a Federal judge, in what was surely one of the easiest decisions they've ever had to make, ruled against the school
According to the family's 2004 lawsuit, Nicole Bloodgood tried three times to get permission for Michaela to pass out the homemade fliers to other students at Nate Perry Elementary School. The flier, about the size of a greeting card, started out: "Hi! My name is Michaela and I would like to tell you about my life and how Jesus Christ gave me a new one.".Bloodgood's requests to school officials said that her daughter, now a sixth-grader, would hand them out only during "non-instructional time," such as on the bus, before school, lunch, recess and after school.
The lawsuit noted that Michaela had received literature from other students at school, including materials for a YMCA basketball camp, a Syracuse Children's Theater promotion and Camp Fire USA's summer camps.
The school's arguments were quite weak:
Liverpool officials said at the time there was "a substantial probability" that other parents and students might misunderstand and presume the district endorsed the religious statements in the flier, according to the lawsuit."The court cannot say the danger that children would misperceive the endorsement of religion is any greater than the danger that they would perceive a hostility toward religion as a result of the district's denial," Mordue wrote.
They also tried to argue that the flyers might cause a disruption, which is pretty farfetched, especially among 4th graders. This was a no brainer that the school should have settled immediately.
Comments
But imagine what would happen if someone handed out flyers advocating atheism, the school would get sued whether it condoned it or tried to stop it. There would be an outcry from every christian group ever created if they condoned it, and there would definitely be an ACLU suit if they didn't. I can see the same thing happening in this case (some atheist/nonchristian parents get a little ticked off that their child was handed them that card), and the school gets sued anyway.
The school is just screwed no matter what it does, because it's going to piss someone off if the flyers get handed out or if they don't. And since it could appear that the school is proselytizing by condoning the religious material, I'm not surprised at all that they didn't allow it, and I don't think that this one is really as easy of a no-brainer as most.
Posted by: Stuart Coleman | April 4, 2007 10:24 AM
This is just bizarre to me. Don't any of these school districts have attorneys (prior to getting sued)? How does this keep happening over and over again? I guess most of time the decisions are made by well-meaning but misinformed principals who don't bother to consult with the higher ups, but why they wouldn't settle quickly is beyond me.
On a side note, while clearly protected speech, the concept of a born-again 4th grader is bizarre and a little disturbing.
Posted by: 3L | April 4, 2007 10:31 AM
Stuart writes:
Of course, the fact that a student expresses himself or herself does not mean that the school is "condoning" anything at all, and no rational person can draw such a conclusion.
Your anti-religious bias is a bit too obvious here. You should do a better job in covering it up next time. The tell is your use of the loaded word "proselytizing". Apparently for you, any public expression with a religious theme is "proselytizing".
So please explain why this particular expression can be considered "proselytizing"?
Also, please explain why flyers promoting "... a Syracuse Children's Theater promotion and Camp Fire USA's summer camps" are not "proselytizing"?
Public schools are not the private property of individuals, teachers, principals, or even the local school board. Reasonable - and consistent -'time, place and manner' restrictions on expressions by students can be imposed in keeping with the educational activity and level. But public schools are still public, and the people who run them can't just ride roughshod over the law because they feel like it.
Posted by: Poly | April 4, 2007 11:33 AM
If this happened at my kid's school we, and he, would laugh it off... And assume the other child's parents were assholes.
But we wouldn't sue and we wouldn't want the district to stop it... It just gives the assholes an even more highly developed persecution complex
Posted by: Lettuce | April 4, 2007 12:06 PM
Poly writes:
I doubt that, but this particular expression, "...I would like to tell you about my life and how Jesus Christ gave me a new one." would seem rather difficult to explain by any purpose other than proselytizing.
There is certainly a sense in which they are. However, even considered as such that type of proselytizing isn't problematic in the same manner as religious proselytizing. A government agent may, depending upon the circumstances, participate in such "proselytizing" while religious proselytizing would be forbidden (pesky First Amendment!)All of that said, I have to agree with Ed and the judge: as long as the student wasn't interfering with the actual purpose of school (edumacashun, i.e., "instructional time") then IMO forbidding the student from proselytizing in the manner indicated here would be a violation of her own First Amendment right to free speech.
Posted by: Bill Snedden | April 4, 2007 12:09 PM
Ed is right, of course, this is an easy call. But, uh, yeah, it most certainly is proselytizing.
Dictionary.com:
Posted by: itchy | April 4, 2007 1:05 PM
Is anyone else more than a little creeped-out by that line?
She's a 4th grader. That's probably 10 years old? Barring homelessness or conditions created for her by her parents, how bad could her life really have been? This has always bothered me about religion. They tell even, even children, that they are lower than dirt and don't deserve to even be alive, but as long as they pay reverence to the sky fairy they'll live happily ever after even after they leave this earthly life. To me, that's the very definition of "morally reprehensible".
Posted by: Godless Geek | April 4, 2007 1:22 PM
"Your anti-religious bias is a bit too obvious here. You should do a better job in covering it up next time. The tell is your use of the loaded word "proselytizing". Apparently for you, any public expression with a religious theme is "proselytizing".
So please explain why this particular expression can be considered "proselytizing"?"
Are you kidding me? This is about as clear an example of proselytizing as you can get? Why else is the kid handing out the fliers?
Posted by: Ric | April 4, 2007 1:40 PM
Can we go one discussion without the hate speech, please? There is not a single religious group (besides the crazies) that tells children they deserve to die for not converting. And not all religious people believe in Hell, and only a minority believe that only their religion gets to go to Heaven. Do some research before you spout this nonsense again.
Posted by: Brandon | April 4, 2007 4:02 PM
You're misinterpreting me. I'm not saying religion most religions advocate killing for not converting, simply that a prevailing doctrine of the Abrahamic religions that I have had direct contact with says that everyone should feel fortunate that God is merciful enough that he doesn't strike them dead where they stand. I will go flat out and say that the majority of Christians and Muslims feel that only members of their religion (but not necessarily only their denomination) will go to heaven. One of the core doctrine of the Southern Baptist faith, which I was raised in (in mainstream churches), is that everyone is an evil sinner and does not deserve anything short of hell, but it is only the mercy and love of God that gives them any chance whatsoever of avoiding it.
I lived this, and it is by far the predominant view where I grew up (the Southeast US).
Posted by: Godless Geek | April 4, 2007 4:47 PM
It certainly creeps me out to hear that a 4th grader is motivated to evangelize at her school. Someone that young does not have the life experience to have critically thought through such a complex issue. The incident screams of boosting by her parents and church, who should have encouraged her to wait until she has the perspective of age.
"Proselytizing" is not an inappropriate word here. Evangelical Christians do not witness in public just because it is a hoot. They do it to "save" others (in their view), which involves inducing others to convert.
Regardless of any perception of the school's endorsement of the witnessing, this type of religious activity has no place on public school grounds. Parents should not have to worry about having religion thrust in their children's faces during the schoolday, no matter the source. I imagine that the fundamentalist Christian community would be up in arms if the literature concerned the Unification Church or Scientology.
Posted by: Ex-drone | April 4, 2007 6:02 PM
Kind of along the same lines as the posts above, I have also always had issues with the doctrine that humans are weak without God's interference, etc. Not specifically in the "who's going to Heaven or Hell" way, but just in the way one's humanness is diminished without God.
For example, my wife, a Lutheran, is teaching our 2 1/2 year old son the song "Jesus Loves Me, This I know" which includes the lines, "little ones to him belong, they are weak but he is strong". I'm uncomfortable teaching my son, right off the bat before he can think for himself, that he is "weak".
Posted by: chris | April 4, 2007 6:09 PM
Well, Godless Geek, sorry to hear that you're going to Hell. ;-)
As I have commented before, I understand why school administrators don't get the concept here: This type of issue doesn't come up that often and it is usually handled properly. When they don't, it makes the news. Why do the attorneys not know? Good question. Since this is an easy issue to research I'm guessing that the cases that arise do so because either 1) There is an ideological element involved (normally a Christian school board) or 2) There is some personal issue that the news story hasn't broached. I'm guessing the family here did something to tick the school officials off early in the process.
Back in 1987 we had a local dustup when a 4th-grader in nearby Marion started "preaching" on the playground before school. He would tell all the other kids that they were fornicators, which I thought was pretty funny. They probably would have found it funny, too, if any of them had a clue what the word meant. Kid named Duffy Strode. Good times.
Posted by: kehrsam | April 4, 2007 6:23 PM
Is it just me or is a recognition by the school that they are run by 4th graders? It would explain quite a bit.
Posted by: James | April 5, 2007 5:43 AM
I think much of the school's reluctance to appear to endorse any religious speech comes as a result of the overblown hype constantly pushed by the rightwing 'oh noes, we're being persecuted' mouthpieces.
This is exactly what they want. The leaders in the neocon/reconstructionist movement want people to think that all the schools/governments/etc. are out to 'remove god' from their lives. They want the sheeple scared. Then, when the sheeple in the schools buy into their rhetoric (much to the consternation of those of us who are familiar with how the law should work, based on current jurisprudence), they get to cry persecution, and push for one more law to force religion back into government. It's a vicious cycle, and they are reaping the benefits of their own PR campaign. Like I said, I'm almost certain that it is exactly what they are aiming for.
And this really is a no-brainer. To the poster above who said that parents would cry and scream if a child were to hand out postcards promoting atheism, you're probably right. But who cares, the school should still allow it, and it is just as constitutional. If that did happen, all the outries would demonstrate is that many of the xian parents in this country are hypocrits.
And that would be news to who?? .... :-)
Cheers.
Posted by: Fastlane | April 5, 2007 12:21 PM
itchy writes:
I notice you conveniently left out the second part of my question.
So I'll ask you the same question I asked previously. If this is "proselytizing", how is it different from the -previously allowed - flyers promoting "... a Syracuse Children's Theater promotion and Camp Fire USA's summer camps"? Why are these latter expressions not also "proselytizing"?
I'd just like you to be honest and up-front and tell us straight out by what criteria you differentiate these forms of expression.
Posted by: Poly | April 5, 2007 1:37 PM
Bill wrote:
First of all, a student , even while in school, is not a "public agent " unless their expression is being directed by the school. That isn't the case here - this is purely private expression. Whatever would lead you to think otherwise?
Second, your reading of the Constitution is perverse, to say the least. The First Amendment restricts government activity, not the activity of individual persons. If this were a private school, they would have every right to ban this expression and there wouldn't be much that could be done about it. But this isn't a private school, it is a public school. And while I am sure you consider personal religion expression as "problematic", there is nothing "problematic" about it at all except to people with an anti-religious bias.
Posted by: Poly | April 5, 2007 1:59 PM
This wasn't directed at me, but to my mind, the difference is that the fliers in question during the court case participated in a direct attempt on the school grounds to convert, whereas the fliers you mentioned merely announced events and did not make attempts to convert directly.
Posted by: Godless Geek | April 5, 2007 2:02 PM
Brandon asks:
Apparently not, because close to half the responders so far display a veiled anti-religious bias. I find that most interesting, because Ed's original report is really about the legal concept of content-neutrality. One could have agreed with this outcome - and Ed's report - without bringing up religion at all.
That's the way it maybe should have been - but it wasn't to be.
The message you singled out is just expressed more outrageously than the others - the underlying bias is still the same.
Posted by: Poly | April 5, 2007 2:28 PM
I certainly agree that it's kind of creepy for a 4th grader to be proselytizing in this way about subjects they can't possibly understand. But that has nothing to do with the legality of it.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | April 5, 2007 2:46 PM
Godless wrote:
I don't think that you will get it no matter what in view of your previous messages. But I'll try anyway.
There's nothing in the wording of flyer about "convert(ing)" anybody - you are just making that up to cover your anti-religious bigotry.
Don't get me wrong - you are entitled to be as much of a bigot as you want to be. I'll defend your freedom of expression as much as anybody else's. But I will call it out for what it is.
Posted by: Poly | April 5, 2007 2:51 PM
Ed Brayton wrote:
Agreed completely and I said as much on my own blog. The individual right to free speech is of paramount importance here and this shouldn't have even been an issue in the first place.
Poly wrote:
The very first line of the flier was proselytizing. She was talking about how great Jesus made her life along which carries all the usual implications that he can do it for you too. If that wasn't intended to convert, then why was it there?
I've put my views on religion out in a very straightforward and honest manner on my own blog. It once served an important purpose, but has long outlived its usefulness and is now a determent to our ability to advance as a society. You are right it's useless to debate this point, because I'll never be able to blind myself to the societal ills created by dogmatism, and I don't want to hijack this thread debating it with you.
Posted by: Godless Geek | April 5, 2007 4:38 PM