Rhode Island high school student Jessica Ahlquist has taught her school officials a useful lesson on civics this week. The Cranston High School West student won her challenge to a large prayer mural displayed at the school with a federal judge ordering its removal as a violation of the separation of church and state.
U.S. District Court Judge Ronald R. Lagueux issued a 40-page ruling Wednesday but I have not been able to review it (and this morning it is still not on Lexis/Nexis).
In the complaint below, the ACLU details how Ahlquist tried to engage her friends but found few allies in her campaign to have the prayer removed. She was undeterred by the peer pressure and created a Facebook account to campaign for its removal.
When she learned that the School Committee had established a subcommittee to consider the Prayer, she mustered her courage and spoke against the Prayer at its meeting on November 30, 2011 (11/30/11 Min. at 10) (“But, as an atheist, I have the right to go to school and not feel discriminated against by the people who are praying there.”) “When [Plaintiff] said she was an atheist, someone in the room let out a small gasp and J –A- heard some quiet whispering. She felt they dismissed her beliefs and feelings, and made her feel entirely alone, causing her to wonder whether she was irrational for feeling the way she did. She also felt extremely nervous and unwelcome at this meeting.” (Pl. Int. # 5 at 8)
Plaintiff also spoke out against the Prayer at the Subcommittee meeting of February 22, 2011 (2/22/11 Min. at 7) and at the School Committee meeting of March 7, 2011 (3/7/11 Min. at 60 and video of entire proceedings, Pl. 19). At the February 22 subcommittee meeting, Plaintiff again was made to “feel very intimidated and nervous, as well as hated. Speaking was much more difficult that night because she felt that many of the people in the room were angry at her and disliked her personally for speaking out against the prayer.” (Pl. Int. #5 at 9) After the March 7, 2011 meeting and after she filed the law suit, Plaintiff received bullying and intimidating taunts, comments and threats at school, on her way home from school, and on-line. (Pl. Int. #5 5 at 10-14; JA Dep. at 40-44)
At a meeting on the issue, local board members publicly proclaimed their faith and the need for the religious statement. Committee member Traficante identified himself as “a person of faith” and noted that as a coach he made sure to start every game with a prayer with the team. He insisted on preserving the display as part of the “obligation as School Committee members to protect and defend the moral values of our students and that banner helps us to express that[.]” Chairperson Iannazzi’s went further to say that the country “was founded not on freedom from religion but freedom of religion. Each person has the ability to practice whatever religion they want. That does not mean that they have the freedom from religion being practiced.” Obviously, the federal court disagreed.
The school insisted on fighting this well-based challenge despite a long line of cases contradicting the positions of the school board. As the Court noted in Pleasant Grove City, Utah v. Summum, 555 U.S. 460 (2009), “[b]y accepting a privately donated monument and placing it on city property, a city engages in expressive conduct[.]” It further stressed that a permanent monument is, “by definition, a structure that is designed as a means of expression.”
This girl stood up to not just peers but politicians to fight for the values of separation of church and state. In doing so, she gave her friends a lesson in civic responsibility and gave her school board a lesson in constitutional values. At a time with separation principles under attack, Jessica added a case in the win column for a society where faith is a personal not a public priority.
Congratulations to the lawyers of the Rhode Island ACLU in this important victory and again to Jessica Ahlquist and her parents.
I would suggest against it, Sean. Liking to argue isn’t enough. You have to be good at it.
You’re not.
Besides, what you like to do is fight, not argue.
You’re not very good at that either.
Sean:
Otteray Scribe is a Forensic Scientist. Plus he flew airplanes for the military.
I think he knows a tad bit about science.
Uh yep…I hope to graduate next year. I’ve been told I should go into law because I like to argue. I thought about it but have too much self respect.
“brave girl. now come the hard part, all the shitstorm she’s going to get for winning. ” -pete
Yep. Odds are good…
Just keep digging that hole, high school boy.
roflol
Oh..did not know you needed a picture. I’ve made my point. BTW…why did you become a lawyer? No aptitude for something useful…like math or science?
This is a grownup law blog, Sport, Do you have a point to make?
LOL…Awwww the poster child for our public schools. You tell’em man.
I find it interesting that someone who writes at about a ninth or tenth grade level and obviously is not a lawyer, wants to argue Constitutional law on a law blog with Constitutional lawyers.
I always hate to get clients like that, because they think they know more than the pros because they Googled something. I have fired more than one client for that behavior, and I am sure every one of the lawyers here have done the same thing.
One of the giveaways regarding immaturity is the gratuitous foul mouth that is more often found on YouTube comments than in a serious discussion. I am wondering if our current troll is one of the bullies from the school. Kind of sounds like it.
“Bop” in the nose???? OMG REALLY??? Not that is funny. I would love to see that…
brave girl. now come the hard part, all the shitstorm she’s going to get for winning.
prepare the scarlet letter
You guys are fun..simple but fun. :>
And sooooooooo easy…BAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Yep.
Mespo,
I think you summed it up pretty good.
I find it ironic that the good people of Cranston, RI, are willing to fight to the death over a religious icon catering to some Christians, but not one word spoken in favor of posting a copy of the Constitution in the halls of the school.
Anyone taking any bets on how close we are to a theocracy?
As for Sean, if I heard a person on the street call a young teenage girl a “c**t” for any reason, I’d engage him only so far as to bop him in the nose. A discussion would be out of the question, as I could surely not stand that foul mouth directed against a kid.
Sean,
are you talking about the minority in the Senate that is styming majority rule? Or are you talking about the rights that a minority is guaranteed under the Constitution?
RI atheist, 16, thrilled with prayer banner order
By Laura Crimaldi
Associated Press
1/12/12
http://www.boston.com/news/local/rhode_island/articles/2012/01/12/ri_atheist_16_thrilled_with_prayer_banner_order/
Excerpt:
PROVIDENCE, R.I.—The Rhode Island teen who won a legal battle over a prayer banner displayed at her high school said Thursday that a federal court order requiring the banner’s removal reflects “what true American values are.”
Jessica Ahlquist, 16, who describes herself as an atheist, said the prayer banner displayed in the Cranston High School West auditorium does not belong in a school.
“When I saw it there, I knew it didn’t belong,” Ahlquist told reporters. “And every time that I saw it, it was a reminder that my school wasn’t doing the right thing and that my school didn’t necessarily support me and my views.”
A federal judge on Wednesday ordered the banner to be removed immediately. Attorney Joseph Cavanagh Jr., who represented the city, said the banner is being covered up pending a decision from the School Committee on whether to appeal.
The Rhode Island chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union sued the city and school committee last year over the banner on Ahlquist’s behalf.
The school committee plans to discuss the litigation at its next meeting on Tuesday.
Some board members are saying they do not want to appeal because of the potential costs of continued litigation. The court order also requires the city to pay for the ACLU’s legal fees. Cavanagh has handled the case so far for free.
Committee member Michael Traficante said he’s “extremely disappointed” in the ruling.
“What’s ironic is this banner has to be removed because one individual after 50 years believed it to be offensive because of her disbelief in any religion,” Traficante said.
Gov. Lincoln Chafee said he agrees that the banner violates the Constitution and supports the court order.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” was a radical stroke of genius at the time and thanks to that genius has protected this nation from devolving into religious warring factions while permitting new religions to flower and flourish. It has also protected the non-religious from their intemperate fellow citizens bent on proselytism by force of might or law.
Pure genius