I still don't see how it's a constitutional violation...
I wasn't aware that "the right to not be exposed to an inanimate object that I don't want to look at" was a constitutional protection, maybe you can point me to the specific verbiage in the constitution that covers that.
There's also no reason to assume that a picture hanging in a hallway somehow to equates to special treatment for any students.
Making the claim that a Jesus picture in a hallway equates to special treatment for Christians is about as big of a stretch as if someone where to claim that a School having "Cesar Chavez" in the name somehow implies special treatment for Latino students.
At the end of the day, people should just be honest about what this is....
It's not about a true advocacy of separation of church and state, if it were, then there are much bigger fish for the FFRF to go after in that regard.
It's not about protecting Children from indoctrination, if it were then they should be going after religious based schools, because, while they're privately funded, their accreditation is regulated by the state (and another poster said earlier, simply being regulated by the state is enough to satisfy the requirement of being a state actor)
It's not about protecting people from religious based legislation...because there are no laws being passed by hanging a picture...and there are plenty of things in society (like anti-abortion laws) that groups could be spending their time fighting against, and have a valid case.
This is simply about one thing for the FFRF, and that is "Taking Christians down a few pegs and letting them know who's boss"...plain and simple.
If anyone from that organization actually thinks a picture in a hallway constitutes religious legislation, then they need to have their IQ checked.
I realize there have been court cases on the matter, but a court's ruling shouldn't be viewed as the "end-all" for the discussion either...simply because the political affiliation of the Justice(s) involved often decides how the case will be handled. For every case where a judge rules to remove a picture...another judge makes a ruling like this:
the Supreme Court gave new support to cities that want to accept and display 10 commandments monuments without being forced to do the same for any and all other groups that want to make a permanent statement as well.
Justice Samuel Alito offered the opinion, finding that a 10 Commandments display in a Utah City Park is government speech, and therefore not subject to first amendment scrutiny.
You may have one judge that thinks a picture is a violation...and another that says that "Government Speech" is protected the same way Personal Speech is when it's not being done in a legislative manner or attempting to dictate the actions of others.