'Ave Maria' at graduation? Supreme Court declines case.
The US Supreme Court on Monday declined to take up a case charging that a school superintendent in Everett, Wash., went too far when she banned a student鈥檚 instrumental performance of 鈥淎ve Maria鈥� at a public high school graduation ceremony because the title of the selection seemed too religious.
The high court rejected the appeal over the dissent of Justice Samuel Alito, who said the decision of the Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals could provide a basis for 鈥渨ide-ranging censorship of student speech that expresses controversial ideas.鈥�
鈥淎 reasonable reading of the Ninth Circuit鈥檚 decision is that it authorizes school administrators to ban any controversial student expression at any school event,鈥� Justice Alito said. 鈥淎 decision with such potentially broad and troubling implications merits out review.鈥�
The case involved a decision by school officials to bar a student group from performing a piece of music with a religious title because officials feared it might provoke controversy.
Saxophonist Kathryn Nurre filed a lawsuit claiming the school district engaged in unconstitutional censorship, acted with hostility toward religion, and treated her and fellow members of the school鈥檚 wind ensemble differently from others at the school.
The wind ensemble selected an instrumental-only version of 鈥淎ve Maria鈥� to perform at the graduation. But school officials were worried that some local residents might complain about the religious content of the title. Administrators instructed the students to perform a clearly secular piece of music instead.
The students were not seeking to deliver a religious message, according to Ms. Nurre鈥檚 lawyer, W. Theodore Vander Wel. They simply liked the piece and felt they could perform it well.
鈥淭he censorship in this case involves political correctness run [amok],鈥� Mr. Vander Wel wrote in his petition to the high court. Art and student expression, he said, had been 鈥渟acrificed to a heckler鈥檚 veto that seeks to sanitize even the remotest vestige of religion from public life.鈥�
School officials defend their actions. 鈥淭he school district is not seeking to deprive students of learning opportunities, nor is it seeking to purge altogether religious-inspired works from public education,鈥� wrote Seattle lawyer Michael Patterson in his brief on behalf of the school district.
鈥淚t simply sought to provide an atmosphere in which all graduates could celebrate their academic achievements, free from controversial messages, and free from the controversy that plagued its past graduation ceremony,鈥� he said.
A year earlier, the senior choir had sung a piece with religious references during the graduation ceremony. 鈥淭he selected song included 海角大神 lyrics affirming 鈥楾here must be a God somewhere鈥� because 鈥楿p upon my head I hear angels singing,鈥� 鈥� Mr. Patterson wrote in his brief.
School superintendent Carol Whitehead received complaints afterward, and one person wrote a heated letter to the local newspaper denouncing the fact that religious references had been uttered during a school graduation ceremony. Ms. Whitehead was determined to prevent any repetition of the controversy.
When school officials learned that the wind ensemble wanted to play 鈥淎ve Maria,鈥� they considered their options. Because it was an instrumental piece, with no lyrics, the only objection was printing the Latin words 鈥淎ve Maria鈥� (Hail Mary) in the graduation program.
According to Patterson鈥檚 brief, school officials considered listing 鈥渢he name of the piece in the program under a different title.鈥� That option was rejected.
Instead, they ordered the students to play something without any obvious religious connection.
The action surprised the students in the wind ensemble. The group had performed the same piece in a school concert earlier that year.
Nurre performed an alternative musical selection, received her diploma, and then filed a lawsuit.
A federal judge dismissed Nurre鈥檚 suit. The ruling was upheld by a panel of the Ninth Circuit.
Two of the three panel members concluded that the superintendent did not violate Nurre鈥檚 First Amendment rights. A third concurred with the judgment because in his view the superintendent was protected from such lawsuits by qualified immunity.
The appeals court ruled that school officials acted reasonably by excluding the performance of 鈥渁n obviously religious piece鈥� at a public-school graduation ceremony attended by a captive audience.
In a dissent, Circuit Judge Milan Smith warned that the practical effect of the majority鈥檚 holding would be for 鈥減ublic school administrators to chill 鈥� or even kill 鈥� musical and artistic presentations by their students ... where those presentations contain any trace of religious inspiration, for fear of criticism by a member of the public.鈥�
鈥淭he taking of such unnecessary measures by school administrators will only foster the increasingly sterile and hypersensitive way in which students may express themselves,鈥� Judge Smith wrote. He added that it will 鈥渉asten the retrogression of our young into a nation of Philistines, who have little or no understanding of our civic and cultural heritage.鈥�
