This month a federal district court dismissed the lawsuit of a high school Christian band that sued an Ohio school district for prohibiting the band from playing during an anti-drug assembly at the district’s high school, Rossford High. The judge concluded that there was a “realistic danger” that the school district could be perceived as endorsing a particular religion if it allowed the band to perform at the assembly. The members of the band Pawn say they will appeal the ruling because being banned from the assembly represents religious discrimination.
The school made a poor decision in withdrawing its invitation to the band because, the judge’s ruling notwithstanding, there is nothing unconstitutional about allowing a Christian band to perform at an anti-drug assembly. Suppose someone was invited to the assembly to perform John Lennon’s “Imagine,” a song which disclaims the usefulness of any religion. Would that performance violate the First Amendment because of the “realistic danger” that the school district could be perceived as endorsing humanism? I doubt the judge would so hold, but he would have to in order to be consistent. Giving a Christian message in school does not establish Christianity as the school district’s religion.
However, the band members’ rights have not been violated. The school is entitled to decide who will perform at the assembly and who will not and it does not violate the band members’ “free exercise” of religion not to play at the assembly. Playing in the band may be one avenue in which the members express their religion, but playing at school is not quintessential to their “free exercise” of religion. Though the Rutherford Institute may claim so, there is no free speech violation either because free speech does not grant the band an automatic place in the assembly; if it did, then any and every band would have the right to perform at the assembly should it choose to do so. This is simply a case of a school district misunderstanding the law, but that misunderstanding has not resulted in a violation of constitutional rights. So, while the judge’s reasoning for the dismissal of the suit is wrong, the result is correct.
