Misinformation about prayer in schools -Reply

[Eugene Volokh]

Brad Jacob writes:

> I have always found the phrase "teacher-led classroom devotions" to be
> very useful in describing what *Engel* and *Abington School District*
> prohibited and bills/amendments like RFA are designed to correct.  As
> Eugene suggests, it may not be 100% accurate, but it communicates the
> distinction and fits the terms of the real debate pretty well.  BTW, in my
> experience, even most of us conservative Christians understand the
> problems of giving public school teachers authority over religious
> instruction when it is explained in those terms.

    I'm not entirely sure about this.  We know from Lee v. Weisman
that some non-teacher-led prayers are forbidden.  I'd also suspect
that quite a bit of prayer *by school officials*, even when not an
attempt to "lead" the class in prayer, is forbidden.  And as we know
there is at least some uncertainty about prayer that is said by
students but is somehow connected to the school -- for instance,
student-body-selected and student-delivered graduation prayers, or
student prayers broadcast over the P/A system (which are also
probably not attempts at "leading" people in prayer, though I suppose
that varies).

    So while "prayer in schools is banned" overstates the scope of
the Estab Cl prohibition, "teacher-led prayer in schools is banned"
understates it.  Perhaps the understatement of the latter is less
than the overstatement of the former -- much there depends on how
many people interpret "prayer in schools is banned" as applying to
student speech, and how many people assume some sort of state
action requirement.  But I can certainly see how critics of the
current regime would be reluctant to endorse the "teacher-led prayer
in schools is banned" summary.



---------------------------------------------------------------------
Eugene Volokh, UCLA Law School, (310) 206-3926  fax -7010
               405 Hilgard Ave., L.A., CA 90095