BILL ANALYSIS
AB 974
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 14, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Mike Feuer, Chair
AB 974 (Strickland) - As Amended: April 13, 2009
SUBJECT : Pupil Rights: Religious Expression
KEY ISSUES :
1)Is there sufficient evidence that existing protections of
student expression are inadequate to support the approach
taken in the bill?
2)do the "model policies" envisioned by this bill appear to FAIL
constitutional muster, especially in light of recent case law?
FISCAL EFFECT : This bill as currently in print is keyed fiscal.
SYNOPSIS
This bill is modeled nearly word-for-word after the "Religious
Viewpoints Antidiscrimination Act," enacted in 2007 in Texas and
endorsed nationwide as a model bill by the American Family
Association. In order to ensure that school districts treat
student expression of a "religious viewpoint" in the same manner
that it treats secular viewpoints, this bill would require local
school districts and non-religious private secondary schools to
create a "limited public forum" for student speakers at all
school events at which a student may speak. The bill also
requires schools to adopt policies that allow religious groups
to form clubs and use school facilities in the same manner that
is available to other extra-curricular groups. The bill
provides "model policies" which school districts may adopt to
ensure conformity with the bill's provision. As noted in the
analysis below, while the measure purportedly is an effort to
codify existing case law, the court's most recent and important
case on this subject - Santa Fe Ind. School Dist. v. Doe (1980)
- erects substantial barriers to school-sponsored religious
expressions and holds that a school does not create a "limited
public forum" merely by declaring it as such. In addition,
existing law already provides substantial protections for
student speech and religious expression and delineates
AB 974
Page 2
procedures by which religious groups may have access to school
facilities. The Committee may conclude that neither the author
nor supporters have presented sufficiently persuasive evidence
that students are being disciplined or discriminated against to
any large extent for their religious views, or that existing law
does not provide adequate remedies for the few cases that arise.
Although the bill does not mandate the exact content of a
school's required "limited public forum" policy, it apparently
seeks to entice schools toward a uniform policy by offering a
detailed "model policy." A school district that adopts the
model policy will be deemed to be in compliance with the bill's
substantive provisions. Finally, as most recently amended, any
school district that fails to develop and implement the policy
in the manner prescribed by the bill will be subject to civil
actions for both monetary damages and injunctive relief.
Attorney's fees will be available only to the prevailing
plaintiff. Moreover, the bill specifies that civil actions may
be brought under this bill without exhausting any administrative
remedies required by the district or by the state Tort Claims
Act. In short, while the bill does not require a school
district to adopt the model policy, it creates a very strong
incentive for them to do so if they want a safe harbor against
potential lawsuits.
SUMMARY : Enacts the Religious Viewpoints Discrimination Act to
ensure that a student's voluntary expression of a religious
viewpoint is treated in the same manner as a student's voluntary
expression of a secular viewpoint, and requires schools to adopt
a policy establishing a "limited public forum" for student
speakers, as specified. Specifically, this bill :
1)Requires a school district to treat a student's voluntary
expression of a religious viewpoint, if any, on an otherwise
permissible subject in the same manner the district treats a
student's voluntary expression of a secular or other viewpoint
on an otherwise permissible subject and prohibits
discrimination against a student based on a religious
viewpoint expressed on an otherwise permissible subject.
2)Requires, in order to realize the general objective set out
above, all school districts to adopt a policy that includes
the establishment of a "limited public forum" for student
speakers at all school events at which a student may speak
publicly. Specifies that the policy establishing the limited
public forum must do all of the following:
AB 974
Page 3
a) Provide a forum in a manner that does not discriminate
against a student's voluntary expression of a religious
viewpoint, if any, on an otherwise permissible subject.
b) Provide a method, based on neutral criteria, for the
selection of student speakers at school events and
graduation ceremonies.
c) Ensure that a student speaker does not engage in
obscene, vulgar, offensively lewd, or indecent speech.
d) State, in writing, that the student's speech does not
reflect the endorsement, sponsorship, position, or
expression of the district, and this disclaimer shall be
provided at all graduation ceremonies or other events for
as long as need exists to dispel confusion over the
district's nonsponsorhip of the student's speech.
3)Requires that students be permitted to express beliefs about
religion in homework, artwork, and other written or oral
assignments free from discrimination based on the religious
content of their submissions, and that such submissions shall
be judged by ordinary academic standards of substance and
relevance and against legitimate pedagogical concerns.
4)Provides that students may organize prayer groups, religious
clubs, "see you at the pole" gatherings, and other religious
gatherings before, during, and after school to the same extent
that students are permitted to organize other noncurricular
groups. Provides further that if student noncurricular groups
are permitted to advertise or announce group meetings and
events, then students that meet for prayer or other religious
speech shall be entitled to this same privilege.
5)Sets forth a detailed "model policy" governing religious
expression and provides that a school district that adopts the
model policy shall be deemed to have complied with the
requirements set out in this bill.
6)Provides that the above provisions may be enforced through a
civil action, brought by or on behalf of a student enrolled in
the school at the time any of the above provisions have been
violated. Such action may seek damages and injunctive relief.
Provides that, upon motion of the court, the prevailing
plaintiff (but not a prevailing defendant) may be awarded
attorney's fees. Provides that any person who violates, or
aids in the violation of, the rights protected under this bill
AB 974
Page 4
shall be liable for not less than $4000 and not more than
$25,000 for each occurrence. Provides further that a
plaintiff bringing an action under this bill need not exhaust
any administrative remedies required by the school district or
by the state Tort Claims Act.
7)Specifies that the above provisions apply to public schools
and private secondary schools, but not to a private secondary
school that is controlled by a religious organization.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Prohibits school districts, including private secondary
schools, from making or enforcing a rule subjecting a high
school student to discipline based solely on speech or
expressive conduct that, if engaged in outside of the school,
would be protected by the First Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution and parallel provisions in the California
Constitution. (Education Code Section 48950.)
2)Protects a student's right to freedom of speech and press in
public schools, including the use of bulletin boards, the
distribution of printed materials or petitions, and the right
of expression in official publications, so long as the
expression is not obscene, libelous, or slanderous.
(Education Code Section 48907(a).)
3)Requires each governing board of a school district and each
county board of education to adopt rules and regulations, in
the form of a written publications code that shall include
reasonable provisions for the time, place, and manner of
student expression. (Education Code Section 48907 (b).)
4)Provides that every public school facility within the state is
a "civic center" where specified groups may hold meetings and
conduct activities for specified purposes, subject to terms
and conditions that the governing board of the school district
deems proper. Expressly permits religious and church
organizations to use facilities for temporary periods on a
renewable basis, so long as a fee is charged at least equal to
the school district's direct costs. (Education Code Sections
38131 and 38134.)
5)Provides, at a minimum, that the Establishment Clause of the
U.S. Constitution prevents public schools from students to
AB 974
Page 5
support or participate in religion or its exercise, even when
a student that does not want to participate has a theoretical,
but not practical, ability to excuse him- or herself from the
activity. (Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe (2000)
530 U.S. 290.)
6)Provides that school sponsorship of an invocation - which by
common definition is a prayer invoking an appeal for divine
assistance - at a sporting event is unconstitutional, because
it sends the message to members of the audience who are not
adherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the
political community, and a message to adherents that they are
insiders, favored members of the political community. (Id. at
309-310).
7)Delivery of an invocation, or other religious message, over
the school's public address system, by a speaker representing
the student body, under school supervision, and pursuant to
school policy, is not properly characterized as private speech
and is therefore constitutionally impermissible. (Id. at
310.)
COMMENTS : This bill is modeled nearly word-for-word after the
"Religious Viewpoints Antidiscrimination Act," enacted in 2007
in Texas and endorsed nationwide as a model bill by the American
Family Association, a group which describes its mission as
changing American culture to "to reflect Biblical truth and
traditional family values." In order to ensure that school
districts treat student expression of a "religious viewpoint" in
the same manner that it treats secular viewpoints, this bill
would require local school districts and non-religious private
secondary schools to create a "limited public forum" for student
speakers at all school events at which a student may speak.
This limited public forum would be required at more than just
"events" as that term is usually understood, for this bill would
also dictate that public school districts and private secondary
schools develop policies that permit students to express beliefs
about religion "in homework, artwork, and other written and oral
assignments free from discrimination based on the religious
content of their submissions. Finally, this bill would require
that students be permitted to organize prayer groups, religious
clubs, "see you at the pole" gatherings, or other religious
gatherings before, during, and after school hours to the same
extent that other students are permitted to form non-curricular
secular groups.
AB 974
Page 6
Background : The Texas statute upon which this bill is based
grew, at least in part, out of the United States Supreme Court
landmark decision in Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe
(2000) 530 U.S. 290. In that case, the Court struck down a
school district policy that required a student council
"chaplain" to deliver a prayer over the public address system
before every varsity football game. (This may explain AB 974's
model policy oddly privileges football games and football team
captains as favored events and speakers.) While the Santa Fe
case was proceeding at the district court level, the school
changed its policy so that the student-elected "chaplain" was
permitted rather than required to deliver the prayer that was
required to be non-sectarian and non-proselytizing. A Court of
Appeal ruled that the policy, even as modified, was invalid, and
the U.S. Supreme Court agreed. "When a governmental entity
professes a secular purpose for an arguably religious policy,"
the Court reasoned, "the government's characterization is, of
course, entitled to some deference. But it is nonetheless the
duty of the courts to 'distinguish a sham secular purpose from a
sincere one.'" (Santa Fe, supra at 308, quoting Wallace v.
Jaffre (1985) 472 U.S. 38, 75.)
The Court in Santa Fe also rejected the school district's claim
that, because the students had elected the speaker, that this
somehow avoided an Establishment Clause issue because the
students, not the school, were endorsing the religious speech.
The Court concluded that delivery of an invocation, or other
religious message, over the school's public address system, by a
speaker representing the student body, under school supervision
and pursuant to school policy, is not properly characterized as
private speech and is therefore not permissible under the
Establishment Clause. (Id. at 310.)
The Court in Santa Fe also concluded that the school's claim
that religious speech was somehow saved from Constitutional
scrutiny because the speaker was chosen in a student body
election also failed constitutional muster. First Amendment
protections - like the Bill of Rights more generally, the Court
reasoned - cannot be diminished by a mere majority vote.
Indeed, it is the minority, whose views are most likely to be
unpopular, that is the most in need of protection. As the Court
noted in Santa Fe, quoting Justice O'Conner's opinion in Lynch
v. Donnelly (1984), the expression of religious messages at
school events, even if by a "private" student speaker and with
AB 974
Page 7
school disclaimers, is constitutionally impermissible because it
sends a message to nonadherents "that they are outsiders, not
full members of the political community, and an accompanying
message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of
the political community." (Id. at 309-310, quoting Lynch v.
Donnelly, 465 U.S. at 688 (O'Conner, J., concurring.))
Complex Interaction of Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses :
There are actually two provisions concerning government and
religion in the First Amendment: "Congress [and the states as
incorporated by the 14th Amendment] shall make no law respecting
an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof." The "establishment clause" has been held to mean that
government may not do anything to endorse religion or a
religious viewpoint, while the "free exercise" clause prohibits
the government from interfering with persons in the private
practice of their chosen religion. Sometimes these clauses
exist in tension with each other. For example, a state program
that provides aid to public and private schools alike might be
accused of violating the Establishment Clause if the aid is used
to support a religious private school. On the other hand, if
the state decides to deny the aid to avoid violating the
Establishment Clause, it may be accused of violating the "Free
Exercise" clause if it discriminates against a religious school
by denying a form of aid that is otherwise available to all
other private schools. (See e.g. Everson v. Board of Education
(1947) 330 U.S. 1, upholding a law permitting a Catholic
parochial school to receive a transportation subsidy that was
otherwise available to all private schools.) However, the two
clauses can reinforce each other as well, as in the Santa Fe
case. That is, the Court found that school-sponsored prayer,
even given by an elected student speaker, violated both the
Establishment Clause, in that it amounted to state support of
religion, and the Free Exercise Clause, in that it discriminated
against students with different religious viewpoints who were
effectively coerced to listen.
As the U.S. Supreme Court noted as early Engle v. Vitale in
1962, interpreting the Establishment Clause to ensure at least a
degree, if not a wall, of separation between church and state
does not reflect hostility to religion; to the contrary, it is
necessary "to secure religious liberty" in a religiously
pluralistic society. (370 U.S. 421, 430.) It is not
surprising, therefore, that in the Santa Fe the case was brought
not by atheists or agnostics, but by the parents of Catholic and
AB 974
Page 8
Mormon students. These parents and students complained that
allowing a majority to determine the speaker and the content of
the invocation invariably favored not only a Christian message,
but the Baptist revivalism apparently favored by the majority.
Separating church and state reflects deep respect for religious
viewpoints, not opposition to religious viewpoints.
Accordingly, in its letter of opposition, the Anti-Defamation
League "emphatically rejects the notion that the separation
principle is inimical to religion. To the contrary, we hold
that a high wall of separation is essential to the continued
flourishing of religious practices and beliefs in America."
Do the Policies Envisioned by this Bill Meet the Santa Fe
Requirements? Supporters of the Texas statue and many of the
letters in support of this measure claim that the model bills
conform with, and indeed codify, the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling
in Santa Fe. Apparently, supporters believe that the model
policies meet the Santa Fe requirements by replacing the invalid
student election approach with a policy by which school district
officials select students based on supposedly "neutral criteria"
and provide written statements that the school does not sponsor
or endorse the student speech. However, while it is true that
the Court in Santa Fe disapproved of the student election
because it simply permitted the majority to impose its religious
viewpoints on a captive minority, it was not merely the choosing
of speakers by election that met with the Court's objections.
The Court noted that any speech at a school sponsored event over
school sponsored media could reasonably be seen as indicia of
endorsement. AB 974 has done away with the elections, but
school involvement is not diminished - indeed it may be
intensified - by having the school district determine the
criteria for selection.
Proponents of the model legislation also appear to believe that
the "neutral criteria" upon which selection is based addresses
concerns raised in Santa Fe. But it is not clear in what sense
the "neutral criteria" in the model policy is in fact neutral.
For example, in selecting student speakers the school is
directed to select students who have achieved "positions of
honor," including student council officers, class officers,
homecoming kings and queens, prom king and queens, and captains
of the football team. In short, the "neutral criteria" appears
to be that the most popular students will be selected. Whatever
religious viewpoints these popular students may wish to express,
it is not clear how imposing their views on students with other
AB 974
Page 9
views addresses the problem identified in Santa Fe. The
"neutral criteria" simply appear to risk replacing the student
election with a popularity contest by other means. And
opponents question why students lacking in the requisite good
looks, athletic skill, and social graces - as measured by
adolescent tastes - should have less of an opportunity to
express their viewpoints, religious or otherwise.
Will written disclaimers meet constitutional objection ? In
addition to the fact the school selection process is no less
objectionable than the process struck down in Santa Fe, the fact
that the school issues a statement disclaiming endorsement or
sponsorship of the speech does not appear to meet the criteria
of Santa Fe either. Indeed, the Court expressly rejected the
school district's argument that, by eliminating the requirement
of a prayer before a football game with a two-stage election
that allowed students to select a speaker and approve an
invocation, the once school-sponsored speech was transformed
into "private" speech. As the Court noted in Santa Fe, the
delivery of the student's message "over the school's public
address system, by a speaker representing the student body,
under the supervision of school faculty, and pursuant to school
policy . . . is not property characterized as 'private' speech."
(Santa Fe, supra at 310.) It is the manner and medium by which
the speech is expressed that necessarily suggests school
sponsorship, and a mere disclaimer does not end the Court's
inquiry. (See e.g. Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish Bd. of Educ.
(2005) 201 F. 3d 602) (holding that disclaimer before teaching
of creationism is not enough to prevent a violation of the
Establishment Clause.)
Does existing law in California already provide adequate
protection ? Finally, neither the author nor the supporters have
provided evidence to the Committee that appears to show that
existing protections both in statute and in the state
Constitution do not already provide adequate protection for
student expression. The California Education Code already
provides that no school district shall make or enforce any rule
that disciplines a student solely on the basis of speech or
expression that, if engaged in outside of school property, would
be protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution or
Article I, Section 2 of the California Constitution. (Education
Code Section 48950.)
In addition to the general protection of First Amendment rights,
AB 974
Page 10
California law also protects a student's right to freedom of
speech and press in public schools, including the use of
bulletin boards, the distribution of printed materials and
petitions, and the right to expression in official school
publications. Of course, schools may prohibit obscene speech or
speech that might incite violence or unlawful conduct, and the
school district can develop reasonable provisions regarding the
time, place, and manner of such expression. (Education Code
Section 48907 (a)-(b).) But overall, California generally
accepts the rule laid down by the U.S. Supreme Court in Tinker
v. Des Moines (1969) 393 U.S 503: students do not shed their
First Amendment rights at the schoolhouse gate, while at the
same time recognizing that the requirements of maintaining an
orderly learning environment may require limitations in time,
place, and manner that might go beyond restrictions that would
be tolerated outside of a school among adults.
How will this bill conform with the existing Civic Center Act?
AB 974 would require school districts to give religious groups
the same access to school facilities - before, during, and after
school hours - that is afforded to other noncurricular groups.
Education Code Section 38131 makes every school facility a
"civic center" that should be open to community groups,
including church and religious groups. However, to ensure that
taxpayer funds are not used to support a particular religious
group, existing law requires local school districts to charge
religious groups a fee that is equal to any actual costs
associated with allowing the group to use the facilities (e.g.
utility costs, etc.). While such fees are also charged to other
groups, such as entertainment groups, they are not charged to
all community groups, such as Boy Scouts or Girl Scouts. Would
this bill require the elimination of those fees so that
religious groups would not be treated any differently than
secular groups? Would this bill apply to community religious
groups who want to use the facilities before or after school
hours, or would it only apply to groups that are formed by
enrolled students on the campus? At the very least, the
relationship of this bill to other statutes governing the use of
school facilities would need to be clarified, should the
Committee support the bill's broad provisions.
In light of the protections listed above and the opportunity
that existing law already appears to provide for religious
groups to use school facilities in a manner deemed proper by
school districts, the Committee is not aware of evidence that
AB 974
Page 11
existing laws and policies are preventing students from
presenting their religious viewpoints when it is an appropriate
time, place, and manner. The background sheet provided by the
author does not appear to cite a single instance in which a
student has been denied the opportunity to express his or her
religious viewpoint in an appropriate forum. Although the
background sheet includes an assertion by the Pacific Justice
Institute that it has handled "hundreds of cases" where students
have been penalized or discriminated against, not a single
example is actually provided. Committee staff could not locate
any list of cases on the Pacific Justice Institute website, but
the site did contain two items on religion in the classroom.
The first item is about a school that reversed a teacher's
decision to prevent an eight year old student from distributing
Bible literature to her classmates. The other item, entitled
"Islam Takes over Middle School Curriculum," is about a parent
who claimed that her child was made "uncomfortable" because a
7th grade teacher in San Luis Obispo taught the students about
Islam and allegedly gave students extra credit for memorizing
passages from the Quran. The discomfort of the student in this
particular case, opponents might note, illustrate why schools
find it best to limit professions of religious faith in a
religiously diverse student body.
( www.pacificjustice.org/resources/articles/focus.cfm?ID=ART434511
306 )
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : Concerned Women for America (CWA) of
California claims that this bill will protect students "who wish
to invoke their faith in writing assignments, clothing, and
artwork" from being discriminated against. "Unfortunately," CWA
claims, "too often they are [discriminated against and] teachers
either do not accept or penalize students for assignments that
include religious themes and expressions." The CWA does not,
however, cite any specific examples.
The Capitol Resource Family Impact also supports AB 974 because
it will protect a student's right to express his or her
"religious beliefs about religion in homework, artwork, and
other written and oral assignments free from discrimination" and
would also allow students "to organize prayer groups or
religious clubs or gatherings before, during, and after school
and use school facilities just as other secular groups are
permitted."
The Traditional Values Coalition supports this bill for
AB 974
Page 12
substantially similar reasons, and it does include a list of
nine instances that occurred between 2007 and 2008. However, of
these nine items, none actually involved students being formally
disciplined. Six of the nine cases in which students were asked
not to engage in certain activities (such as distributing or
displaying Bibles) were resolved in the students' favor after a
phone call or other communication to school officials. One of
the cases involved a parent who complained to the Pacific
Justice Institute that a school official told her that even
mentioning the word "Christmas" in school was "illegal," but the
PJI assured the parent that this was not the case. Another case
did not even involve an action taken by a school, but reports an
allegation that "someone in the community" threatened to sue the
school because a local church bulletin announced that a
Christian high school group would be holding a "See You at the
Pole" event. It is not clear if this "someone" ever followed
through on the threat or what the legal basis of such a suit
might be. Another case involved a San Diego-area school that
set aside a room an hour a day for Muslim students to pray, but
the school apparently reversed this policy when PJI urged the
school to make similar accommodations for Christian and Jewish
children.
A number of form letters from individuals assert that AB 974
would "clarify what the courts have already held, but some
schools and special interests continually attempt to deny."
There are no examples offered in support of this assertion.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : The Anti-Defamation League (ADL)
argues that, although the measure is ostensibly an attempt to
codify the Santa Fe ruling, it falls short in many respects.
First, ADL argues that a school cannot create a "limited public
forum" just by naming it as such. ADL contends that the Court in
Santa Fe held that the district's policy did not meet the test
of a limited public forum because it limited who could access
the forum and regulated the content of the speech in the forum.
AB 974 also restricts both who can speak and the content of the
speech, and would likely suffer the same fate as the school
district in Santa Fe. Second, ADL contends that model policies
recommended by this bill will not protect schools from
Establishment Clause violations, for the Court in Santa Fe held
that the mere creation of a public forum does not shield a
government entity from scrutiny under the Establishment Clause.
Moreover, a mere disclaimer of school sponsorship is not enough
to pass constitutional muster. The court looks at the specific
AB 974
Page 13
facts and total environment in which even "private" speech
occurs in order to determine if the speech could reasonably be
seen as constituting government endorsement. Third, the model
policy suggested in AB 974, ADL believes, will potentially
permit religious proselytizing that will leave students subject
to the coercion of peers, the kind of coercion Santa Fe and
other cases have found impermissible. Finally, ADL contends
that AB 974 will subject California schools to more litigation.
Indeed the most recent amendments to the bill expressly provide
for civil actions to be brought without the usual requirement
that administrative remedies be exhausted.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) opposes this bill for
many of the reasons already cited, but stresses that students
are inherently "captive" audiences, and no matter how student
speakers are selected "students who are not religious or whose
beliefs are different must listen" to the speech during
school-sponsored and school-controlled events, such as
graduation ceremonies, sporting events, daily morning
announcements, school assemblies, and pep rallies. ACLU cites
case law supporting the proposition that mere "disclaimers" that
student speech does reflect endorsement is not sufficient to
withstand an Establishment Clause challenge, because Courts must
consider the "whole context" to determine if "a reasonable,
objective observer should be able to conclude that the
government does not endorse the religious exercise." (Citing
Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish Bd. of Educ. (2005) 201 F. 3d 602.)
Finally, ACLU claims that the provisions relating to forming
religious clubs and using school facilities are unnecessary
because the federal Equal Access Act (20 USC Section 4071)
"already delineates the rights and responsibilities of public
schools regarding student meetings on campus."
Americans United for Separation of Church and State, in addition
to reiterating the above points, stress that existing law
already provides adequate protection. However, this law merely
"tries to transform every classroom, assignment, and school
function into a place for [students] to proselytize to
classmates, but does so in a way that will violate both the
Establishment Clause and Free Speech Clause of the First
Amendment."
Some religious groups also oppose this bill. The Religious
Society of Friends views the "free, un-coerced exercise of
religions as the most basic of human rights. Therefore we view
AB 974
Page 14
any imposition of participation in religious observance in a
public setting (such as public schools) to be the abridgement of
the freedom to choose one's own religion." [Emphasis in
original.] Whenever and however religious viewpoints are
expressed in the school context, the Friends believe, the
students are always a "captive audience" and students of
minority faith traditions are improperly subjected to the
religious viewpoints of the majority.
Finally, California Church IMPACT, which represents 21
mainstream, progressive Protestant denominations, "believe
utterly in the freedom of religion, but we seriously oppose AB
974." "Religion in American," IMPACT contends, "is not under
assault," as the supporters of the measure claim. For 200
years, IMPACT argues, the First Amendment has wisely prohibited
government from trying "to meddle in these intensely personal
and profound issues." Prayer is not banned in public schools,
but organized prayer, IMPACT claim, is and should be banned. AB
974, IMPACT believes, diminishes "sanctity of faith" by
suggesting that it is the "mere equivalent of secular speech."
Moreover the bill "creates mandates on government to open up
forums to those with the most clout in the community." The bill
"oversteps the bounds" of government intrusion by allowing a
school district to decide "who gets speak, how it must be
organized, [and] what kinds of assemblies are legitimized."
IMPACT concludes that "this measure is a thinly-disguised effort
to promote one type of faith expression" and, as such, "does
many of us in the faith community grievous harm."
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Capitol Resource Family Impact
Concerned Women for American (CWA) of California
Traditional Values Coalition
Several Individual Letters
Opposition
American Civil Liberties Union
Americans United for Separation of Church and State
Anti-Defamation League
AB 974
Page 15
California Church IMPACT
Religious Society of Friends, Friends Committee on Legislation
in California
Analysis Prepared by : Thomas Clark / JUD. / (916) 319-2334