FREEDOM FROM RELIGION foundation P.O. BOX 750 + MADISON, WI 53701 + (G08) 256-8900 » WWW.FFRF.ORG October 26,2017 SENT BY MAIL AND EMAIL TO: ‘Scott Smith@bossierschools.org Mr. Scot Smith ‘Superintendent Bossier Parish Schools 410 Sibley Steet Benton, LA 71006 Re: legal prayer practice designed by district teacher Dear Superintendent Smith ''am writing on behalf of the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) to alert youto a serious constitutional violation occuring within Bossier Parish Schools. As you are aware, FFRF's purposes are to protect the constitutional separation between sate and church and to educate the public on matters relating o nontheism. We have more than 29,000 members across the county, including ‘members in Louisiana, ‘A concerned parent of @ Bossier Parish student contacted us to report that an elementary school teacher at Legacy Elementary, Ms. Keli Aiello, has enacted a prayer practice with her class. We are informed that atthe start of class Ms. Aiello goes student-by-student and asks what th: student would ike to pray for. The teacher then delivers a brief Christian prayer for whatever the cid requests, \wetes down what the prayer was for, and then moves on to the next student We write to ensure that the district immediately investigate this situation and ensuresthat its employees are nat illegally promoting religious practices to their students Public schoolteachers may not lead their students in prayer, encourage students to prey participate in prayer with students, or otherwise endorse religious practices. The Supreme Court has continually siruck down teacher- of schoolendorsed prayer in public schools. See, e.g. Engel v. Vitale, 370 US. 421 (1962) (declaring prayers in publi schools unconstitutional): Sch, Dis, of Abington Twp, v Schempp, 374 US. 203 (1963) (declaring unconstitutional devotional bible reading ard recitation of| the Lori's Prayer in public school); Wallace v. Jafre, 472 U.S. 38 (1985) (overturing law requiring daily period of silence not exceed one minute... for meditation or daily prayer) ‘The district has an obligation under the law to make certain that “subsidized teachers do ot inculcate religion.” Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 US, 602, 619 (1971). Certainly, “a school can ditect a teacher to “refrain from expressions of religious viewpoins in the classcoom and like settings." Helland. S. Bend Cann. Sch. Corp. 93 F.3d 327 (Mh Ci. 1993) (quoting Bishop v. Amov, 926 F.2d 1066, 1077 (1th Cie. 1991), The Supreme Court has recognized that “[Flamiles entrust public schools with the education of thet children but condition their rust on the understanding thatthe clasiroom will not purposely be used to advance religious views that may conflict with the private belie ofthe student and his or her family.” Edwards v.Aguillard, 482 US. 578, 584(1987) Dan Barker and Anne are{tis nota violation ofthe free speech rights of teachers when a public school regulates what they teach fo students while cting in their official capacities. Teachers have access toa captive audience ‘of students du to their position as public educator. The district has a duty to regulite religious proselytizing during the school day. “Because the speech a issue owes its existence to [his] position 8 teacher, [the School Distriet} acted well within constitutional limits in ordering the teacher] not ‘0 speak ina manner it did not deste." Johnson v, Poway Unified Sch, Dist, 658 F.3d 984, 970 (9th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 1807 (2012) (upholding decision of schoo! board to require 8 rath teacher to remove two banners with histrieal quotes referencing "God" see also Garceti. Ceballos, 47 U.S. 410, 421 (2006) (“We hold that when public employees make shtements pursuant to ther official duties, the employees are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes, andthe Constitution des not insulate their communications from employer discipline.) We are aware that Ms. Aiello sent a message 1 parents indicating that they could opt out their child {fom this prayer practee, but no amount of disclosure prior to tis religious riual can make I legally permissible, Any student who is opted out will stl have to sit through the payers and their ‘onpartiipation wll be noted by thei elassmates, which will ead to ostracism and potentially bullying. The voluntary nature ofa religious program orth provision of an alternative does nat ‘excuse in-school proseltization. The Supreme Court has summarily rejected arguments that voluntariness excuses a constitutional violation. See generally, Lee, $05 US. at $96 ("Iisa tenet of the First Amendment that the State cannot requie one ofits citizens to Forti his other rights and benefis asthe price of resisting conformance to state-sponsored religious practice"); Scliempp, 374 US. a 288 (Brennan, J, concurring) (“Thus, the short, and to me suficent, answer is that the availability of excusal or exemption simply has no relevance tothe establishment question...) FFFRF is committed to defending the rights of students in public schools. Given how young and impressionable these students are this violation of the law is particulary egregious In 2015, we seitled a lawsuit with Emanuel County School District in Georgia over similar issue, In Emanuel County, two different teachers asked students to pray before eating lunch. Given hew clear the law is on the illegality ofthis practice, those teachers were sed in thee official and personal capacities, as ‘were disrict administrators. The lawsuit ended with Emanuel teachers receiving educational taining ‘on the Establishment Clause and our complainants being financially compensated forthe hacm they slfered, We hope that Bossier Parish Schools will ake affirmative sleps to protects students right ‘of conscience and avoid the need for costly litigation. "Nothing inthe law prevents students, teachers, or school employees fom freely exercising their religion on their own time and inthe own way. But a public schoo! itself must nat promote exclusively religious practices toa captive student audience, thereby isolating and excluding those students who are non-Christian or nonreligious. The dstrit must investigate this siuation and ensure that all its employees are remaining neural on matters of religion. Please inform usin writing ofthe steps the disict takes to remedy this violation so that we may notify our complainant. Sincerely, Lg Sam Grover Associate Counsel