Broadcast Schedule

THE RULING "The Bill of Rights was created to protect the minority from tyranny of the majority," said Judge Biggers, responding to the school's argument that the prayers should continue because a majority of students and parents are in favor of the practice. "To say that the majority should prevail simply because of its numbers is to forget the purpose of the Bill of Rights." The plaintiff in the case, Lisa Herdahl, was insistent that: "Parents and kids should be able to decide for themselves if they want to go to Sunday school, or what church or synagogue they want to attend. They shouldn't have to battle that out in court." Herdahl brought suit in December 1994 after school officials at the North Pontotoc Attendance Center refused her request to discontinue the religious practices. When news of her request got out, she and her five school children, ages 5 to 15, were harassed and ostracized. ORDER This cause is presently before the court on the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff Lisa Herdahl is a resident taxpayer and mother of five children currently attending the North Pontotoc Attendance Center ("Center"), a public school located in Ecru, Mississippi. The Center provides public education from kindergarten through twelfth grade. On December 20, 1994, the plaintiff filed this action seeking relief from the school prayer practices, religious Bible instruction, and other practices of the defendants Pontotoc County School District ("District") and its officials that violate the Establishment Clause.[1] On April 18, 1995, this court preliminarily enjoined the defendants' school prayer practices, including the broadcast of morning prayer over the school intercom and organized, vocal prayer in classrooms during instructional time. Herdahl v. Pontotoc County Sch. Dist., 887 F. Supp. 902 (N.D. Miss. 1995). The court incorporates by reference the fact finding of its previous opinion. Pending a more complete record through discovery, the plaintiff did not seek preliminary relief regarding the defendants' other practices. Now that discovery is complete, the plaintiff seeks summary adjudication on all claims raised in her First Amended Complaint. Upon due consideration of the motion, the defendants' response thereto, the affidavits and memoranda submitted by the parties, the court now rules. Prior to this court's preliminary injunction, the District's stated policy and practice on the issue of the school-wide prayer was that the Center would permit "student clubs or organizations brief access to the public address system, following the morning announcements by the administration, for the purpose of make any student announcement or any other free speech comments the students desire." The Aletheia Club, one of the recognized student clubs at the school, had frequently utilized this period of time to present a short devotional, or inspirational message, often including a short Bible reading, which was frequently followed by a short prayer. The entire devotional and prayer generally lasted no longer than a minute. It is the District's position that they have created a "limited open forum" as described in the Equal Access Act.[2] 20 U.S.C. [section] 4071 et seq. By permitting student clubs or organizations the right to request and use the public address system for a brief moment for announcements or such other appropriate use, following the official morning announcements, the District contends that they cannot now discriminate against the Aletheia Club on the content of their message. The court has serious reservations concerning the existence of such a "limited open forum" beyond the brief moment allowed for announcements. The District concedes that, with the exception of the Aletheia Club's morning activities, their previous practice only permitted the broadcast of information concerning student or school activities. These announcements are not comparable to the actual practicing or preaching of an organization's belief to students in a captive audience situation as the Aletheia Club was permitted to do. The court will, however, reserve judgment on this issue to allow counsel to produce evidence at trial and/or to develop their legal arguments in support of or in denigration of such a forum, as well as the validity of the defense itself given the captive environment. The court further finds that the remaining claims in the plaintiff's amended complaint should be carried over to the trial of this cause, scheduled to begin March 4, 1996, for the hearing of evidence and arguments on the merits. For the foregoing reasons it is ORDERED: That the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is carried over to trial. NEAL B. BIGGERS, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Home | The Story | The Issue | Filmmakers | Resources | Comments | ITVS | POV