Rights of public school teachers to witness to other school employees upheld.

[Sharp]

Teachers, have you ever had a supervisor warn you not to pray or witness in the public schools? Or in other gov't buildings? What does the law allow government employees in America to say or do to evangelize co-workers?

Teachers may meet for prayer on the same terms as they meet to talk about other topics. Someone had asked about a teacher's right to pray or witness and evangelizeother willing, non-student participants. [I believe teachers enjoy the right to pray with students outside of class time too.]

http://www.clsnet.org/clrfPages/litigation/deLuca.php

On April 7, 2004 officials from the Chicago Heights School District 170 lifted their ban on teacher prayer.

In early March 2004, Teaching Assistant Robert De Luca and several other faculty members at the Garfield School in the Chicago Heights School District 170 began meeting for a five minute prayer meeting prior to the start of the school day. Even though many Garfield School faculty members met in the teachers' lounge each morning to discuss any number of topics from politics to sports, when Mr. De Luca sought school officials' permission to hold the prayer meetings, the request was flatly denied. Attorneys from the Center for Law and Religious Freedom intervened and convinced the school district that its policy violated Mr. De Luca's First Amendment rights of free speech and free exercise of religion.

===
Sharp:
The school created a limited public forum when it permitted other teachers to discuss sports or politics in the lounge. That automatically created a level playing field for religious discussions including witnessing, evangelism, and prayers.

This really shouldn't be a controversy, but many teachers and school administrators are misinformed by false reports to the effect that the "separation of church and state" requires them to censor any religious speech, symbols, literature and art in public schools. Nothing could be further from the truth.

If you are a gov't employee and need clarification about your rights to witness and discuss your faith in the workplace on equal terms with other permitted topics, you need help. There are non-profit, Christian websites that can help for free including free legal representation in court if needed:

http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/
http://www.christianlaw.org/
http://www.aclj.org/
http://www.thomasmore.org/
http://www.becketfund.org/
http://www.rutherford.org/
http://www.pacificjustice.org/
http://www.clsnet.org/
http://www.lc.org/
http://www.libertylegal.org/
http://www.hslda.org/

 

[Sharp]

Teachers may witness to students in the same school in which they serve.

I posted today that teachers could witness and evangelize other workers, and now just today I learn that they may witness in the same school via after school clubs.

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]First ruling of its kind in the nation!

Minneapolis, MN – Today, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Barbara Wigg, a public school teacher in Sioux Falls, SD, may participate in a Christian after-school Good News Club for elementary students. This ruling is the first of its kind in the country. Mathew D. Staver, President and General Counsel of Liberty Counsel, represents, Barbara Wigg.


Good News Clubs are sponsored by Child Evangelism Fellowship. These meetings are for elementary students who attend with parental permission. Children who attend the club meetings sing Christian songs, read the Bible, memorize Scripture, and learn about morals and character development. The Sioux Falls School District policy allowed both religious and secular groups to use school facilities for after-school meetings. Mrs. Wigg, who teaches at Anderson Elementary School, has participated in many after-school secular meetings, including Girl Scouts. Mrs. Wigg has been an outstanding teacher for many years and loves to teach children. However, the District prohibited her from participating in the Good News Club. The District argued that allowing a public school teacher to participate in a religious club and teach Christian viewpoints to elementary students after school would violate the Establishment Clause.


Liberty Counsel filed suit on behalf of Mrs. Wigg. On July 3, 2003, a Sioux Falls lower federal court ruled that the District could not ban teachers like Mrs. Wigg from participating in the Club at a school other than where she taught during the day, but the District could prohibit such participation in the school where she teaches during the day. The lower court reasoned that students and parents who know Mrs. Wigg would not understand that she changed hats from being a teacher to a private citizen, and thus might conclude that the school endorsed religion. However, the Court of Appeals disagreed, and ruled that Mrs. Wigg has the right to teach and participate in the Good News Club immediately after school on the same campus where she teaches during the day, as well as on any other campus in the District.


The Court of Appeals ruled that the District’s policy banning teachers from participating in religious club meetings designed for elementary students immediately after school is “viewpoint discriminatory and, thus, per se unconstitutional.” The Court ruled that Mrs. Wigg’s “participation in the after-school Club constitutes private speech … [and that her] private speech does not put the [District] at risk of violating the Establishment Clause.” This ruling is the first of its kind in the nation.


According to Staver, “Barbara Wigg cried for joy when I informed her of this great victory. Many public school teachers across America have been waiting with anticipation for this decision. Public school teachers and employees have the same right to participate in Christian clubs for students or adults immediately after school just like those who participate in secular clubs. Teachers who desire to take off their official teaching hat and put on a private one, step down the hall after the last bell, and participate in religious clubs have been finally liberated by this Court’s decision. When the state accommodates private religious speech in public venues, it is acting consistent with the best of our constitutional guarantees.”
[/font]

From lc.org