Sunday, October 2, 2011
Candy Cane Controversy
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans has ruled that elementary school principals are immune from liability for preventing students from passing out religious-themed items. The Morgan v. Swanson and Bomchill case, also known as the “Candy Cane” case was originally filed by parents of elementary students after school principals told the children they could not distribute their religious gifts. The students were banned from handing out candy cane pens with religious messages on them, giving out tickets to a religious play, and writing “Merry Christmas” on holiday cards sent to troops overseas. Attached to the pens were little cards titled “Legend of the Candy Cane” and explained the Christian origin of candy canes.
By a 10-6 vote, the Court agreed that principals Lynn Swanson and Jackie Bomchill deserved qualified immunity from being assessed punitive damages for their actions, reversing a district court's ruling that could have subjected each of the principals to monetary damages.
In the Morgan v. Swanson and Bomchill case the school principals argued that the First Amendment protection of Free Speech does not extend to the distribution of non-curricular materials in public schools. Government officials, on appeal, claimed that elementary school students are too young to have free speech rights. This case did not just involve two principals and some students; it threatened the basic rights every American is given, regardless of their age. The court ruled on November 29, 2010 that it is clearly established that elementary students have First Amendment rights. Had the court ruled in favor of the principals they “would have literally have stripped away the First Amendment rights of 42 million U.S. school children overnight," Liberty Institute president Kelly Shackelford (attorney for the parents of the elementary students) notes. "So we're very grateful that the court refused to do that. They said the First Amendment does apply."
Although this case is closed, what is currently under dispute by those involved is the lack of punishment for censoring the elementary student’s right to free speech. By limiting the rights of elementary students, these principals taught such young children that they do not have given rights. Not only did the principal’s actions take away rights, they violated a law and were not punished for it, what kind of message does that send to kids?
The 5th Circuit Judge Fortunato “Pete” Benavides said that “the many cases and the large body of literature on this set of issues' demonstrate a 'lack of adequate guidance,' which is why no federal court of appeals has ever denied qualified immunity to an educator in this area.” Essentially, since there is no precedent for handling teachers who violate students’ rights by trying to keep religion and the state separate, it’s okay to let them get off without any punishment. Also during the trial, the principals claimed that religion in school is a very confusing area. This statement could also set a precedent that any educators who are involved in a similar situation can just claim they don’t understand.
Personally, I believe that the principals should not be immune from liability for preventing elementary students from passing out religious-themed items. They broke a law, now they have to suffer the consequences, which most likely won’t be that detrimental anyway. Although I recognize that these educators were trying to keep religion out of the schools their actions took away elementary students basic rights. In any other free speech case there have been consequences, just because they are educators should not give the principals an exemption. If anything, the court should enforce the law more strictly on the principals because their actions directly affect children. I applaud the actions of the Liberty Institute who are considering appealing the issue of the principal’s immunity, because of the precedent it would set by leaving it unchallenged.
0 Responses to “Candy Cane Controversy”
Post a Comment