It is that season once again.  And no, I am not talking about the Christmas season, when America collectively ponders once again whether it is all right to say, “Merry Christmas.”  (The correct answer is “yes,” by the way.)  Instead, I am talking about graduation season, and apparently, the prayer grinches have popped up once again, this time at West Virginia University, Parkersburg.

While the general story line may be familiar, the facts here are unique.  During class in November, the graduating students were told that they would need to vote on three issues related to their pinning ceremony (the nursing equivalent to graduation).  One of these issues was whether to include prayers in the ceremony as prior classes had regularly done.  But when the students approved the prayers by more than a 90% margin (40-4) and selected a student’s father to give the prayers, the University suddenly decided majority rule would no longer apply.

Instead, the University decided that because the vote was not unanimous, no prayers would be allowed.  According to the director of the nursing program, Mrs. Rose Beebe, neither President Gnage nor Vice President Richards wanted the prayers included, and their voted outweighed those of 90% of the students.  She also explained that the University eliminated the prayers due to legal concerns, particularly the threat of lawsuits if someone found the prayers offensive.  When students noted that federal courts have repeatedly upheld college graduation prayers Mrs. Beebe commented that although the University understands that the Constitution allows graduation prayers, it is choosing to ban them at all ceremonies because someone might be offended.

WVU-Parkersburg’s decision is disappointing on many levels.  As the students noted, federal appellate courts have unanimously upheld these graduation prayers at universities, saying that they are completely consistent with the First Amendment.  After all, the First Amendment exists to protect—not eliminate—religious speech.  And as the Sixth Circuit observed when upholding these prayers in its 1996 Chaudhuri decision, “[t]he American people did not adopt the Bill of Rights to strip the public square of every last shred of public piety.”

In addition, the whole point of the First Amendment is to protect controversial speech, making the “100% approval” test a constitutional absurdity.  Controversial speech is, after all, the only kind of speech that needs protection precisely because it sparks disagreement.  But time and again, the Supreme Court has ruled that the government cannot restrict speech simply because someone is offended.  Because someone is bound to be offended by just about anything, any other rule would entirely squelch the free, unfettered exchange of ideas that makes our nation strong.  Thus, as the Supreme Court put it in Cohen v. California, the government is not empowered to cleanse public discourse until it is “palatable to the most squeamish among us.”

The good news, though, is that there is hope for the prayer grinches, just like there was for Dr. Suess’s character.  Back in May, the prayer grinches struck a community college in Arizona, but they ultimately restored the prayers after receiving a letter from ADF.  WVU-Parkersburg officials just received a similar letter, and hopefully, it will spark a similar reaction.  As the letter notes, “[i]t is both lawful and wise for University officials to respect and cherish our religious heritage and allow the invocation of God’s protection, blessing, and guidance on their graduates.”  But even more basically, the University should allow its students to do what the Constitution allows them to do at this memorable ceremony:  to pray.

It seems Peralta Community College District has not learned its lesson.  On the heels of settling an unfathomable case involving the punishment of two students who dared pray for an ill faculty member, Peralta is considering a new speech zone policy.  Our readers know that while creating a speech zone sounds supportive of the First Amendment, it is actually discouraging because it limits student speech and can result in the absurd—relegating student speech to ten square feet of campus.

Although Peralta has not published the proposed policy yet, reports claim that the proposed speech zone will limit free speech to the main quad on three campuses and to a student lounge on a fourth campus.  According to the Contra Costa Times:

The proposed rules handed out at Wednesday’s meeting would limit speakers to the main quads at Laney, Merritt College and the College of Alameda, and to a student lounge at Berkeley City College. Speakers would be required to reserve the space at least three business days in advance, and all fliers posted on campus bulletin boards would need to include English translations.

Although the proposal notes that administrators may not prevent someone from speaking based on the subject of their speech, it prohibits “disruptive behavior” and the “open and persistent defiance of the authority” of college employees. It also would ban obscenity, profanity and amplification.

I am surprised Peralta is taking this action at the same time that Southwestern College in San Diego is taking heat for a similar proposed policy (interestingly, both colleges label their proposals “Policy 5550”).  Southwestern suspended three professors last year for speaking outside the “free speech patio.”

Even though community colleges throughout California are experimenting with speech zone policies, California law defines community college campuses as civic centers “where citizens . . . may meet and discuss . . . any subjects and questions which in their judgment appertain to the educational, political, economic, artistic, and moral interests of the citizens of the communities in which they reside.”  Under this law and many others, these colleges are poised for a legal fight.  So I offer this, any college counsel that wants to avoid a lawsuit over these policies is welcome to contact us.  Do the right thing, and stop the spread of the speech zone malady.

On December 22, 2007, two students—Kandy Kyriacou and Ojoma Omaga—at the College of Alameda received letters from the Vice President of Student Services notifying them that the College intended to suspend them. What did Ms. Kyriacou and Ms. Omaga do to deserve suspension? Did they assault someone? Did they verbally abuse a fellow classmate or faculty member? Did they destroy property or commit some campus crime? No. They prayed.

Besides the self-evident absurdity of this situation, the details reveal a more troubling institutional problem. According to court documents, the students prayed with each other outside of class during class breaks, prayed silently to themselves in class, and on one occasion, engaged in a consensual and student-initiated prayer with an ill faculty member in her office. For these actions, Mr. Kerry Compton, the Vice President of Student Services at the College, informed the students that they were being charged with violating school policy against:

Disruptive or insulting behavior, willful disobedience, habitual profanity or vulgarity, or the open and persistent defiance of the authority of, refusal to comply with directions of, or persistent abuse of, college employees in the performance of their duty . . . .

So according to the College, engaging in student-initiated, private, and consensual prayer is the equivalent of disruption, insults, profanity, vulgarity and abuse. Really? While this charge alone is ridiculous, it is perhaps more astonishing that the College held its ground. After Ms. Kyriacou and Ms. Omaga explained their actions to Mr. Compton, he banned such “disruptive” behavior and issued an official warning that any similar actions in the future “may result in further disciplinary action, including, but not limited to suspension or expulsion.”

In light of this overt threat by a high university official, the students sought relief in federal court to protect their constitutional rights to free speech and the free exercise of religion, among others. But even then, the College would not back down. Instead, the College sought to throw the case out of court on the grounds that its actions were necessary to prevent a government endorsement of religion. The Court wisely rejected this argument, because it has been well-understood for decades that there is a “crucial difference between government speech endorsing religion, which the Establishment Clause forbids, and private speech endorsing religion, which the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses protect.” See Bd. of Educ. of Westside Comty. Sch. v. Mergens, 496 U.S. 226, 250 (1990).

In the wake of the Court’s strong decision rejecting the College’s motion, the College agreed to settle the case. But what is telling here is how far the College was willing to go to resist clearly protected speech and the reasons for its resistance. Engaging in a year and a half of litigation is not the reaction of a university welcoming of its students’ religious freedoms. Instead, its actions reveal a deep, unsettling hostility to religion that is all too prevalent at America’s institutions of higher education.

Within the past few weeks, the topic of prayer—particularly public prayer—has appeared regularly in the headlines.  Last Thursday was the National Day of Prayer, which the majority of Americans support, despite Judge Crabb’s ruling that this tradition, which dates back to 1775, now violates the Constitution.  And as graduation season returns, the issue of prayer in schools and at graduation ceremonies returns to people’s minds.

What many people, including many university administrators, do not realize is that federal appellate courts have repeatedly upheld prayers at university graduation ceremonies.  In fact, this was news to officials at Mohave Community College, which had removed the traditional prayers from the pinning ceremony for its nursing graduates.  As a result, the ADF Center for Academic Freedom sent the officials a letter, explaining that the United States Courts of Appeals for the Sixth and Seventh Circuits have both upheld university graduation prayers.  Both courts recognized that university graduation ceremonies involve adults, thus eliminating any remote chance of coercion or indoctrination.  And as the Sixth Circuit noted in its 1997 Chaudhuri decision, “[t]he people of the United States did not adopt the Bill of Rights to strip the public square of every last shred of public piety.”

To its credit, Mohave Community College responded to this information by assuring ADF that the pinning ceremony prayers would continue and that student speakers would be allowed to include religious remarks in their speeches.  Hopefully, more colleges and universities will follow this example and recognize that the Constitution protects religious speech and does not require them to purge it from every public ceremony.