I think the guidance follows what you said, Ronalfy, up to the point when you start talking about peers.

When acting in their official capacities as representatives of the state, teachers, school administrators, and other school employees are prohibited by the Establishment Clause from encouraging or discouraging prayer, and from actively participating in such activity with students.

The key part is “…acting…as representatives of the state…”. When they are in that role, they are prohibited from actively participating (not sure what inactive participation looks like…). When they leave that role and are no longer “representatives of the state”, they may participate. However, I don’t think that they have to be a “peer”, seeing as that is more or less impossible for a teacher to be a peer to students.

The example they give of participation is not very clear/helpful, seeing as it only references activities with other teachers.

cetroyer

Thanks for weighing in. If I interpreted your comment correctly, let individuals and groups decide, but leave everybody else alone? If that’s the case, I don’t think that’s violating the Constitution.

@Cetroyer,

You brought up a good point that teachers can join in religious activities if the teacher is not operating in his/her official capacity.

One thing that isn’t clear to me is if a teacher can join a student or group of students in a Bible study if the teacher is not acting as a teacher but merely a peer. Is it possible for a teacher to become a peer to students under current rules?

Some highlights: (all quotes can be found in the document referenced in the post above)

First Amendment to the Constitution, which both prevents the government from establishing religion and protects privately initiated religious expression and activities from government interference and discrimination

…”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.”

…teachers and other public school officials may not lead their classes in prayer, devotional readings from the Bible, or other religious activities. Nor may school officials attempt to persuade or compel students to participate in prayer or other religious activities.

…public school officials may not themselves decide that prayer should be included in school-sponsored events.

…students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate,” and the Supreme Court has made clear that “private religious speech, far from being a First Amendment orphan, is as fully protected under the Free Speech Clause as secular private expression.”

…where schools permit student expression on the basis of genuinely neutral criteria and students retain primary control over the content of their expression, the speech of students who choose to express themselves through religious means such as prayer is not attributable to the state and therefore may not be restricted because of its religious content. Student remarks are not attributable to the state simply because they are delivered in a public setting or to a public audience.

Teachers may, however, take part in religious activities where the overall context makes clear that they are not participating in their official capacities. Before school or during lunch, for example, teachers may meet with other teachers for prayer or Bible study to the same extent that they may engage in other conversation or nonreligious activities. Similarly, teachers may participate in their personal capacities in privately sponsored baccalaureate ceremonies.

As for the last quote, teachers do have some leeway if they want to join in to a religious activity.

Most of boils down to fair treatment of religion by the public school. If a secular student group can advertise in the school newspaper, so can a religious student group. If students are presenting something (and the school doesn’t “determine or substantially control the content of what is expressed”), then the student is free to present religious content, without any school liability.

I recall hearing about valedictorian speeches at graduation that were rejected because of religious content. On the basis of this document, as long as the speakers were chosen “on the basis of genuinely neutral, evenhanded criteria and retain primary control over the content of their expression”, the school has no right to reject religious content.

I’m glad that religion is in schools, and more so that this document lays out the details on how that works. If the school isn’t advocating the religion, they also have no call to discriminate against that religion. Of course, they can discriminate against it if they also deny all secular groups in the same fashion. I think fair treatment is an excellent example of Constitutional rights in action.

cetroyer

I’m not religious, and my personal preference would have been to have seen less religion in my schools than I did, but I think the individual/group boundary is the most fair place to draw the line. (I’m Canadian, so I have no idea whether that would bring up any Constitutional issues in the US.)