Individual Indian River School District (IRSD) School Board members have been excused as defendants in the ongoing Dobrich v. Indian River School District lawsuit, but the district, as an entity, is still under scrutiny. And those board members are set to make a key decision regarding the case this week.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs (members of the Dobrich family and members of another, unnamed family) have offered the school board a “six-figure” settlement agreement, and board members will consider their next step in executive session during their meeting set for Monday, Jan. 9, 7 p.m. at the Sussex Central High School.
Executive sessions are closed to the public, but matters discussed in executive session have to be voted on in open session, so the public should have an opportunity to learn something regarding the board’s next move by the end of the evening.
There’s sure to be some debate at that executive session, and at least one board member has already said the matter of prayer before school board meetings should still be decided, once and for all, in the courts — not with a settlement deal.
For those who haven’t been following along, the plaintiffs have accused the IRSD of First Amendment civil rights violations — namely, religious intolerance.
Prayer before school board meetings was a side issue to the larger picture. However, U.S. District Court Judge Joseph Farnan offered an opinion back in August of 2005 (at the same time the school board members were individually dismissed as defendants). At least in Delaware, school boards are virtually indistinguishable from other legislative bodies, Farnan said — and therefore, an opening prayer is permissible.
Farnan cited U.S. Supreme Court precedent case Marsh v. Chambers (1983). In that case, a Nebraska state legislator objected to the practice of: (1) opening the legislative session with a prayer, and (2) paying a clergyman out of private funds to deliver that prayer.
The District Court hearing that case objected to the first part. The Appellate Court objected to the second part.
U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Court decision, 6-3, based largely on historical (rather than legal) precedent.
In his majority opinion, Chief Justice Warren Burger noted, “The opening of sessions of legislative and other deliberative public bodies with prayer is deeply embedded in the history and tradition of this country. From colonial times through the founding of the Republic and ever since, the practice of legislative prayer has coexisted with the principles of disestablishment and religious freedom.”
But again, this is all just one element of Dobrich v. Indian River School District.
The Dobriches are Jewish. According to the legal complaint filed by plaintiffs’ attorneys, the breaking point came at Samantha Dobrich’s graduation ceremony, when Pastor Jerry Fike delivered two Christian prayers mentioning Jesus Christ during both the invocation and the benediction.
The Dobriches considered parts of Fike’s benediction inappropriately evangelistic, including: “We pray that You direct them into the truth, and eventually the truth that comes by knowing Jesus.” (Both prayers were reproduced in the complaint.)
According to the complaint, Dobrich appeared startled by these words, and with a pained expression turned to look for her mother in the stands. Immediately following the ceremony, her mother complained to district Superintendent Lois Hobbs that the prayers had ruined Dobrich’s graduation.
The school board first publicly addressed the issue in June 2004, less than two weeks after Dobrich’s graduation, according to the complaint. Dobrich’s mother would eventually face a storm of support for the status quo, but the district did clarify and adopt its policies regarding prayer in the schools and prayer at school-sponsored functions by October 2004.
From those policies: “School officials may not mandate or organize prayer at graduation or select speakers in a manner that favors religious speech. Graduation speakers shall be selected on the basis of genuinely neutral criteria…”
And further, “Neither the District, nor any school administrator, teacher or other school employee shall implement any selection processes…to determine whether or not a political, philosophical, religious or other message shall be presented during commencement or graduation ceremonies.”
But the Dobriches were ostracized for taking a stand on this issue, the complaint alleges — they were ridiculed, even threatened, and felt pressured to leave the area. They eventually did so, and then moved a younger son out of the public school system altogether.
The plaintiffs filed their lawsuit in February of 2005.
Graduation issues aside, the complaint also delves into practices around district schools in the year prior to Dobrich’s graduation.
From the plaintiffs’ complaint, “School-sponsored prayer has pervaded the life of teachers and students in District schools,” referring to prayers at athletic and academic banquets and events, etc.
The complaint also notes the school-sponsored Bible Club and allegedly preferential treatment for students who participated in it, and in 2003, the distribution of Bibles to students at a district elementary school during the school day.
According to the complaint, “The District schools’ sixth grade science classes include a lesson on evolution. In at least one school, however, school officials have given students the option to attend Bible Club and do a worksheet instead.”
There are other examples of specific teachers espousing “one true religion,” or suggesting students might find a more meaningful alternative to the “Big Bang” theory in Bible Club, allegedly.
The plaintiffs further allege the district has not conducted investigations into allegations of teacher and administrator misconduct. And they allege the district has failed to properly distribute its new policies “in an effort to prevent their effectiveness.”
The plaintiffs have levied charges against the IRSD, claiming violation of First Amendment rights. By way of example, the third count against the IRSD reads, “The district and school board have failed to train the district’s personnel to avoid establishing religion within the district and violating the free exercise (of religion) rights of the students, students’ parents and the employees of the district.”
At the time the complaint was filed, attorneys Thomas Allingham and Robert Saunders of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom were representing the plaintiffs. Allingham and Saunders have apparently spent more time around Chancery Court, working in corporate litigation.
Thomas Neuberger of the Rutherford Institute has been representing at least one of the board members, Reggie Helms, pro bono. While the plaintiffs’ attorneys are contesting the district on First Amendment civil rights violations, the Rutherford Institute also purports to champion free exercise rights. Headlines on the Web site include, “School Officials Try to Silence Christian Motivational Speaker! Rutherford Attorneys Respond!”
With such widely varied interpretations of religious freedom, Dobrich v. Indian River School District will certainly generate some argument.
On Jan. 9, school board members will have to decide whether they want a definitive ruling from Judge Farnan, or whether they want to drop the argument and settle with plaintiffs’ attorneys.
However, there’s more to that decision than weighing the cost of litigation against settlement costs. If the district decides to settle on Jan. 9, there would still be no definitive ruling on the appropriateness, or inappropriateness, of prayer at the beginning of its school board meetings.
In other words, without a ruling from Judge Farnan, the board members would be left with two options: (1) voluntarily abandon their traditional practice, even though they may not be legally required to do so, or (2) continue their traditional practice, and risk another lawsuit.