The first thing to go were the Christmas trees.

Then it was decided that any song or carol mentioning the word "Christmas" needed to be avoided in concerts and school programs. And now even the colors of plates and napkins are under review during the month of December in the public schools of Plano, Texas.

The Plano Independent School District in December 2004 instructed parents that they could only supply white plates and white napkins for the "Winter Break Party". Red and green were to be avoided at all costs. Their anti-Christmas directives included a ban on the words "Merry Christmas" on greetings being sent from students to armed forces who were overseas during the holiday season. While they were at it the district banned distribution of candy canes pens and prohibited parents from exchanging "religious oriented items" with each other on school property. For good measure, they threw in a new rule prohibiting criticism of school administrators or board members on campus. (How convenient, eh?)

This sad, media-documented tale is just one of hundreds coming out about public schools in 2004.

Perhaps what well-meaning school boards and administrators should do is return to the classroom for a crash-course on the constitutional freedoms and established precedent of law. Here are some facts for parents, students and school administrations to consider:

Singing "Christmas" carols in government sponsored schools is okay.
In 1980, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled in Florey v. Sioux Falls School District that students may sing religious Christmas carols in government schools.

However, the purpose of the performance must be the "advancement of the students' knowledge of society's cultural and religious heritage, as well as the provision of an opportunity for performing a full range of music, poetry, and drama that is likely to be of interest to the students and their audience." The school board policy upheld by the court said that singing of the carols needs to be done in a "prudent, objective manner and as a traditional part of the cultural and religious heritage of the particular holiday."

Even religious symbols in the schools is permissible.
The United States Supreme Court, in Lynch v. Donnelly, upheld the right of the government to display a creche scene in the context of secular symbols of Christmas, e.g. a Christmas tree, reindeer, Santa Claus, etc. In the context of a government school, the school policy upheld by the Florey decision said that creches, crosses, the Star of David, and other symbols may be used as teaching aid or resource provided the use is temporary in nature.

The presence of the religious symbol must serve an educational purpose and be present in the context of secular symbols of Christmas.

It is okay to say the word "Christmas" in public schools.
School personnel certainly are free to use the term "Christmas Holiday" based on the freedom of speech protection. Government school districts may also use the term since Congress and the President "have proclaimed both Christmas and Thanksgiving National Holidays in religious terms," and government workers received a paid holiday on December 25th which the federal government refers to as "Christmas" (Lynch v. Donnelly). It is not required, therefore, to purge the word "Christmas" from government schools.

You can even use the Bible when talking about Christmas in public schools.
School teachers may read portions of the Bible which relate the Christmas story for the purpose of providing a literary or historical context for the Christmas season but not for religious or devotional purposes.

The United States Supreme Court in The School District of Abington Township v. Scamp banned organized prayer and devotional Bible reading from government schools but also said, "It certainly may be said that the Bible is worthy of study for its literary and historic qualities. Nothing we have said here indicates that such study of the Bible or of religion, when presented objectively as part of a secular program of education, may not be effected consistently with the first amendment."

In the U.S. Supreme Court's 1980 decision Stone v. Graham, the Court said, "the Bible may constitutionally be used in an appropriate study of history, civilization, ethics, comparative religion, or the like."

Christmas trees can be displayed in the classroom and on school property.
Christmas trees are permissible because they are a secular symbol of Christmas, e.g. they don't have religious significance like a cross, nativity scene, or a Menorah. There is no establishment clause issue if the items in question are not religious in nature (Allegheny County v. American Civil Liberties Union).

Exchanging Christmas Cards -- even cards with religious messages -- is legal.
The right of students in government schools to distribute religious literature is protected by the First Amendment right of free speech. The distribution of printed materials is considered "pure speech" by the United States Supreme Court (Texas v. Johnson. The fact that the speech or literature is religious in nature does not diminish its protection by the Constitution (Widmar v. Vincent).

The only basis for restricting students' speech is if the school can show that such distribution would 'materially and substantially interfere with school operations or with the rights of other students," (Tinker v. Des Moines School District). Merely showing that the regulation is designed to "avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint ....[is insufficient]," (Johnston-Loener v. O'Brien).

Go ahead -- wish each other "Merry Christmas" at school.
Government schools cannot ban the use of the word "Christmas" under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment (Cohen v. California). The Supreme Court has found that simply because other students object to the speech in the absence of any other justification is no reason to prohibit the speech. The court has ruled that speech that "interferes with the rights of students" means speech that is sexually explicit, libelous, or defamatory toward another student (Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier).

School districts are often put in difficult positions when it comes to regulating Christmas in the schools. Frequently they will mention the "great offense" taken by families of students who are not Christian or who simply do not celebrate Christmas as the motivating factors in instituting strict new Christmas guidelines. But further investigation oftens reveals that paid political organizations with agendas to advance are often the driving force against Christmas in the schools.

When it comes to Christmas, the school boards of America are proving they have a lot to learn.

© 1989-2005 by The Merry Network, All Rights Reserved. Printed from My Merry Christmas.com. This article may be reproduced free of charge in its entirety only as long as this notice remains intact with due credit given to the author and My Merry Christmas. Kindly notify us of how and where this article is used so that we can link to your site or publication.