The Equal Access Act And Mergens Decision

The Equal Access was Passed by congress in 1984 and was signed into law by President Ronald Reagan. The equal access act created a uniform standard for dealing with Christian campus clubs. But in democracy based on court review, the law had to tested in court. In 1990, the supreme court settled the issue in the Mergens case.

The Equal Access Act

Sec. 801. This title may 176 cited as The Equal Access Act.
Sec. 802. (a) It shall 176 unlawful for any public secondary school which receives Federal financial assistance and which has a limited open -forum to deny equal access or a fair opportunity to, or discriminate against, any students who wish to conduct a meeting within that limited open forum on the basis of the religious, political, philosophical, or other content of the speech at such meetings.
(b) A public secondary school has a limited open forum whenever such school grants an offering to or opportunity for one or more non-curriculum related student groups to meet on school premises during non-instructional time.
(c) Schools shall be deemed to offer a fair opportunity to students who wish to conduct a meeting within its limited open forum if such school uniformly provides that— (1) the meeting is voluntary and student-initiated; (2) there is no sponsorship of the meeting by the school, the government, or its agents or employees; (5) employees or agents of the school or government are present at religious meetings only in non-participatory capacity; (4) the meeting does not materially and substantially interfere with the orderly conduct of educational activities within the school; and (5) non-school persons may not direct, conduct, control, or regularly attend activities of student groups.
(d) Nothing in this title shall be construed to authorize the United States or any State or political subdivision thereof— (1) to influence the form or content of any prayer or other religious activity; (2) to require any person to participate in prayer or other religious activity; (5) to expend public funds beyond the incidental cost of providing the space for student initiated meetings; (4) to compel any school agent or employee to attend a school meeting if the content of the speech at the meeting is contrary to the beliefs of the agent or employee; (5) to sanction meetings that arc otherwise unlawful; (6) to limit the rights of groups of students which are not of a specified numerical size; or
(7) to abridge the constitutional rights of any person.
(e) Notwithstanding the availability of any other remedy under the Constitution or the laws of the United States, nothing in this title shall be construed to authorize the United States to deny or withhold Federal financial assistance to any school.
(f) Nothing in this title shall be construed to limit the authority of the school, its agents or employees, to maintain order and discipline on school premises, to protect the well being of students and faculty, and to assure that attendance of students at meetings is voluntary.
Sec. 805. As used in this title— (1) The term "secondary school" means a public school which provides secondary education as determined by State law.
(2) The term "sponsorship" includes the act of promoting, leading, or participating in a meeting. The assignment of a teacher, administrator, or other school employee to a meeting for custodial purposes docs not constitute sponsorship of the meeting.
(3) The term "meeting" includes those activities of student groups which are permitted under a school's limited open forum and are not directly related to the school curriculum. (4) The term "non-instructional time" means time set aside by the school before actual classroom instruction begins or after actual classroom instruction ends.
Sec. 806. If any provision of this title or the application thereof to any person or circumstances is judicially determined to be invalid, the provisions of the remainder or the title and the application to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

Sec. 805. The provisions of this title shall supersede all other provisions of Federal law that are inconsistent with the provisions of this title.
Approved August 11, 1984

Testing The Equal Access Act - The Mergens Case

May a public high school that allows a variety of student groups to meet on school property before or after regular classroom hours deny the same privilege to a student group wanting to meet for prayer and Bible study? That was the issue in the Mergens case.
Westside High School is a public high school in Omaha, Nebraska, with a student enrollment of nearly 2,000. Students are permitted to join various student groups and clubs, all of which meet after school hours on school property. Students may choose from among 50 recognized groups on a voluntary basis. The groups include the school band, chess club, cheerleaders, choir, junior Rotarians, debate, drill squad, future business leaders of America, photography, and scuba diving. A school board policy recognizes these groups as a "vital part of the total education" of high school students, and it also forbids "political or religious" clubs.
In 1985, a student met with the school principal and requested permission to form a bible study and prayer group. The principal denied this request on the ground that allowing a religious club to meet on school property would violate the first amendment's "non-establishment of religion" clause. The school board later upheld the principal's decision, and the student filed a lawsuit in federal court seeking a court order requiring the school to recognize the religious club. The lawsuit claimed that the school's policy of outlawing religious groups violated The Equal Access Act, which provides:
It shall be unlawful for any public secondary school which receives federal financial assistance and which has a limited open forum to deny equal access or a fair opportunity to, or discriminate against, any students who wish to conduct a meeting within that limited open forum on the basis of the religious, political, philosophical, or other content of the speech at such meetings.
A "limited open forum" exists whenever a public high school "grants an offering to or opportunity for one or more non-curriculum related student- groups to meet on school premises during non-instructional time."
The school argued that The Equal Access Act did not apply in this case, since all of its student groups were "curriculum related" and therefore the school had not created a "limited open forum" that would be available to religious groups. Further, the school maintained that if the Act required religious groups to meet, then it was unconstitutional.
A trial court agreed with the school and upheld the ban on student groups. It concluded that the school did not have a "limited open forum" since all of its student groups were curriculum related. A federal appeals court reversed the trial court's decision, and ruled in favor of the student. The appeals court rejected the trial court's conclusion that all student groups were "curriculum related." If the scuba diving club and chess club are "curriculum related" because they are related to logic and physical education (as the school and trial court claimed), then "The Equal Access Act [would be] meaningless" and schools could "arbitrarily deny access to school facilities to any unflavored student club on the basis of its speech." The appeals court concluded that many of the school's student groups were non-curriculum related, and accordingly that The Equal Access Act prohibited the school from banning the proposed Bible club on the basis of the religious content of its speech. The United States Supreme Court agreed to review the decision of the appeals court.
The Supreme Court began its opinion by noting that the critical question was whether or not any of the school's student groups were "non-curriculum related." If they were, as the student maintained, then the school had created a "limited open forum" and the Equal Access Act required the school to allow the Bible club to meet. On the other hand, if all of the school's student groups were curriculum related, as the school claimed, then there was no limited open forum and the Act would not require the school to recognize the Bible club. The Court observed that "since the Act does not define the crucial phrase 'non curriculum related student group' our immediate task is therefore one of statutory interpretation." It concluded:
"We think that the term 'non-curriculum related student group' is best interpreted broadly to mean any student group that does not directly relate to the body of courses offered by the school. In our view, a student group directly relates to a school's curriculum if the subject matter of the group is actually taught, or will soon be taught, in a regularly offered course; if the subject matter of the group concerns the body of courses as a whole; if participation in the group is required for a particular course; of if participation in the group results in academic credit. We think this limited definition of groups that directly relate to the curriculum is a common sense interpretation of the Act that is consistent with Congress' intent. For example, a French club would directly relate to the curriculum if a school taught French in a regularly offered course or planned to teach the subject in the near future. A school's student government would generally relate directly to the curriculum to the extent that it addresses concerns, solicits opinions, and formulates proposal pertaining to the body of courses offered by the school. If participation in a school's band or orchestra were required for the band or orchestra classes, or resulted in academic credit, then those groups would directly relate to the curriculum. The existence of such groups at a school would not trigger the Act's obligations.
On the other hand, unless a school could show that groups such as a chess club, a stamp collecting club, or a community service club fell within our description of groups that directly relate to the curriculum, such groups would be 'non-curriculum related student groups' for purposes of the Act. The existence of such groups would create a limited open forum' under the Act and would prohibit the school from denying equal access to any other student group on the basis of the content of that group's speech. Whether a specific student group is a 'non-curriculum related student group' will therefore depend on a particular school's curriculum, but such determinations would be subject to factual findings well within the competence of trial courts to make."
Was any of the school's student groups non-curriculum related under this test? The school contended that all of the 50 student groups were curriculum related because they furthered the general educational goals of the school. For example the student government club "advances the goals of the school's political science classes," the scuba club "furthers the essential goals of the physical education department," the chess club "supplements math and science courses," and the junior Rotarians "promote effective citizenship—a critical goal of the social sciences department." The Court rejected this analysis, noting that—
"allowing such a broad interpretation of 'curriculum related' would make the Act meaningless. A school's administration could simply declare that it maintains a closed forum and choose which student clubs it wanted to allow by tying the purpose of those clubs to some broadly defined educational goal. At the same time, the administration could arbitrarily deny access to school facilities to any unfavored student club on the basis of its speech content. This is exactly the result that Congress sought to prohibit by enacting the Act. A public secondary school cannot simply declare that it maintains a closed forum and then discriminate against a particular student group on the basis of the content of the speech of that group.
The Court concluded that the school had a number of non-curriculum related student groups under the test that it announced. Examples cited by the Court included the scuba club and chess club. It did not evaluate any other clubs, but hinted that a number of the other groups also would be non-curriculum related. Because the school clearly allowed one or more non-curriculum related student- groups to meet during non-instructional hours, it had created a limited open forum and could not discriminate against students wanting to meet for religious purposes.
The Court acknowledged that a school wishing to avoid the obligations of The Equal Access Act could do so by "structuring its course offerings and existing student groups to avoid the Act's obligations." In other words, a school could eliminate all student groups that are not directly related to courses offered at the school. A school that took such action would avoid creating a limited open forum and accordingly it would have no legal obligation to permit student religious groups to meet. The Court refused to decide whether student groups have a constitutionally protected right to meet on public high school property.
Finally, the Court rejected the school's argument that The Equal Access Act violated the first amendment's non-establishment of religion clause. It applied its 20-year-old "three-part test" for evaluating the constitutionality of a law challenged under the non-establishment of religion clause—(1) does it have a clearly secular purpose, (2) does it have a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion, and (5) does it avoid an "excessive entanglement" between church and state? All three of these tests must be satisfied for a challenged law to be constitutional. The Court concluded that all three tests were met—the Act had a "secular purpose" of demonstrating neutrality rather than hostility toward religion, and it did not create an excessive entanglement between church and state. The second test—the primary effect of the law does not advance religion—was the most difficult to answer, but the Court unequivocally ruled this test was satisfied as well. The school argued that the Act failed this test since it required public schools to "endorse" religious clubs and provide them with an official platform to proselytize other students. The Court rejected this claim, noting that the message of the Act "is one of neutrality rather than endorsement--the [Constitution] does not license government to treat religion and those who teach or practice it...as subversive of American ideals and therefore subject to unique disabilities." Further, the Court observed, "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 [of religion] clauses protect. We think that secondary school students are mature enough and are likely to understand that a school does not endorse or support student speech that it merely permits on a nondiscriminatory basis . . . schools do not endorse everything they fail to censor."
Only Justice Stevens (appointed by President Ford in 1975) dissented from the Court's decision.
What is the practical significance of the Court's ruling? Consider the following:
1. Public High Schools that permit "non-curriculum related student groups" to meet on school premises before or after regular classroom hours cannot deny the same privilege to student groups wanting to meet for religious purposes. The term "non-curriculum related" is defined broadly, and includes any student group not directly related to specific courses offered at the school.
2. A public high school can avoid the application of The Equal Access Act by banning all non-curriculum related student groups from meeting on school premises. Such a practice might violate the constitutional rights of students wanting to meet for religious purposes, but the Court declined to address this issue in its ruling.
3. The Court's decision not only benefits Christian students wanting to meet for prayer and Bible study. It also opens the schoolhouse doors to any other religious group or cult.
4. The Act does not apply to student groups that meet during regular classroom hours, it only applies to schools that permit student groups to meet before or after regular classroom hours.
5. The Court suggested that a public high school wanting to avoid the application of the Act without abolishing its non-curriculum related student groups could do so at the price of losing its federal financial assistance. This is the penalty prescribed by the Act for a violation. The Court observed in this regard that "although we do not doubt that in some cases this may be an unrealistic option, Congress clearly sought to prohibit schools from discriminating on the basis of the content of a student group's speech, and that obligation is the price a federally funded school must pay if it opens its facilities to non-curriculum related student groups."
6. Finally, note that even if The Equal Access Act applies to a public secondary school, it only requires that the school provide religious groups with a "fair opportunity" to meet during non-instructional hours. A school is deemed to offer student groups a "fair opportunity" to conduct meetings if it uniformly provides that (1) the meetings are voluntary and student-initiated; (2) there is no sponsorship of the meetings by the school; (5) employees or agents of the school are present at religious meetings only in a "non-participatory" capacity; (4) the meetings do not materially interfere with the orderly conduct of educational activities within the school; and (5) "non-school" personnel (i.e., youth pastors of local churches) may not direct, conduct, control, or regularly attend activities of student groups.
What happens now?
Now the battle begins. The Court has given Christians the right to gather together in public schools. We must begin to use the right we have been given. If the Supreme Court allows us to meet and we fail to meet, what good comes of the right? Like a muscle, our rights must be exercised or they will disappear again, God has opened up a huge mission field. The missionaries to this field are Christian high school students. They can reach their generation for Jesus. God has opened a door. We must walk through it!



The Equal Access Act And Mergens Decision The Equal Access was Passed by congress in 1984 and was signed into law by President Ronald Reagan. The equal access act created a uniform standard for dealing with Christian campus clubs. But in democracy based on court review, the law had to tested in court. In 1990, the supreme court settled the issue in the Mergens case. The Equal Access Act Sec. 801. This title may 176 cited as The Equal Access Act. Sec. 802. (a) It shall 176 unlawful for any public secondary school which receives Federal financial assistance and which has a limited open -forum to deny equal access or a fair opportunity to, or discriminate against, any students who wish to conduct a meeting within that limited open forum on the basis of the religious, political, philosophical, or other content of the speech at such meetings. (b) A public secondary school has a limited open forum whenever such school grants an offering to or opportunity for one or more non-curriculum related student groups to meet on school premises during non-instructional time. (c) Schools shall be deemed to offer a fair opportunity to students who wish to conduct a meeting within its limited open forum if such school uniformly provides that— (1) the meeting is voluntary and student-initiated; (2) there is no sponsorship of the meeting by the school, the government, or its agents or employees; (5) employees or agents of the school or government are present at religious meetings only in non-participatory capacity; (4) the meeting does not materially and substantially interfere with the orderly conduct of educational activities within the school; and (5) non-school persons may not direct, conduct, control, or regularly attend activities of student groups. (d) Nothing in this title shall be construed to authorize the United States or any State or political subdivision thereof— (1) to influence the form or content of any prayer or other religious activity; (2) to require any person to participate in prayer or other religious activity; (5) to expend public funds beyond the incidental cost of providing the space for student initiated meetings; (4) to compel any school agent or employee to attend a school meeting if the content of the speech at the meeting is contrary to the beliefs of the agent or employee; (5) to sanction meetings that arc otherwise unlawful; (6) to limit the rights of groups of students which are not of a specified numerical size; or (7) to abridge the constitutional rights of any person. (e) Notwithstanding the availability of any other remedy under the Constitution or the laws of the United States, nothing in this title shall be construed to authorize the United States to deny or withhold Federal financial assistance to any school. (f) Nothing in this title shall be construed to limit the authority of the school, its agents or employees, to maintain order and discipline on school premises, to protect the well being of students and faculty, and to assure that attendance of students at meetings is voluntary. Sec. 805. As used in this title— (1) The term "secondary school" means a public school which provides secondary education as determined by State law. (2) The term "sponsorship" includes the act of promoting, leading, or participating in a meeting. The assignment of a teacher, administrator, or other school employee to a meeting for custodial purposes docs not constitute sponsorship of the meeting. (3) The term "meeting" includes those activities of student groups which are permitted under a school's limited open forum and are not directly related to the school curriculum. (4) The term "non-instructional time" means time set aside by the school before actual classroom instruction begins or after actual classroom instruction ends. Sec. 806. If any provision of this title or the application thereof to any person or circumstances is judicially determined to be invalid, the provisions of the remainder or the title and the application to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby. Sec. 805. The provisions of this title shall supersede all other provisions of Federal law that are inconsistent with the provisions of this title. Approved August 11, 1984 Testing The Equal Access Act - The Mergens Case May a public high school that allows a variety of student groups to meet on school property before or after regular classroom hours deny the same privilege to a student group wanting to meet for prayer and Bible study? That was the issue in the Mergens case. Westside High School is a public high school in Omaha, Nebraska, with a student enrollment of nearly 2,000. Students are permitted to join various student groups and clubs, all of which meet after school hours on school property. Students may choose from among 50 recognized groups on a voluntary basis. The groups include the school band, chess club, cheerleaders, choir, junior Rotarians, debate, drill squad, future business leaders of America, photography, and scuba diving. A school board policy recognizes these groups as a "vital part of the total education" of high school students, and it also forbids "political or religious" clubs. In 1985, a student met with the school principal and requested permission to form a bible study and prayer group. The principal denied this request on the ground that allowing a religious club to meet on school property would violate the first amendment's "non-establishment of religion" clause. The school board later upheld the principal's decision, and the student filed a lawsuit in federal court seeking a court order requiring the school to recognize the religious club. The lawsuit claimed that the school's policy of outlawing religious groups violated The Equal Access Act, which provides: It shall be unlawful for any public secondary school which receives federal financial assistance and which has a limited open forum to deny equal access or a fair opportunity to, or discriminate against, any students who wish to conduct a meeting within that limited open forum on the basis of the religious, political, philosophical, or other content of the speech at such meetings. A "limited open forum" exists whenever a public high school "grants an offering to or opportunity for one or more non-curriculum related student- groups to meet on school premises during non-instructional time." The school argued that The Equal Access Act did not apply in this case, since all of its student groups were "curriculum related" and therefore the school had not created a "limited open forum" that would be available to religious groups. Further, the school maintained that if the Act required religious groups to meet, then it was unconstitutional. A trial court agreed with the school and upheld the ban on student groups. It concluded that the school did not have a "limited open forum" since all of its student groups were curriculum related. A federal appeals court reversed the trial court's decision, and ruled in favor of the student. The appeals court rejected the trial court's conclusion that all student groups were "curriculum related." If the scuba diving club and chess club are "curriculum related" because they are related to logic and physical education (as the school and trial court claimed), then "The Equal Access Act [would be] meaningless" and schools could "arbitrarily deny access to school facilities to any unflavored student club on the basis of its speech." The appeals court concluded that many of the school's student groups were non-curriculum related, and accordingly that The Equal Access Act prohibited the school from banning the proposed Bible club on the basis of the religious content of its speech. The United States Supreme Court agreed to review the decision of the appeals court. The Supreme Court began its opinion by noting that the critical question was whether or not any of the school's student groups were "non-curriculum related." If they were, as the student maintained, then the school had created a "limited open forum" and the Equal Access Act required the school to allow the Bible club to meet. On the other hand, if all of the school's student groups were curriculum related, as the school claimed, then there was no limited open forum and the Act would not require the school to recognize the Bible club. The Court observed that "since the Act does not define the crucial phrase 'non curriculum related student group' our immediate task is therefore one of statutory interpretation." It concluded: "We think that the term 'non-curriculum related student group' is best interpreted broadly to mean any student group that does not directly relate to the body of courses offered by the school. In our view, a student group directly relates to a school's curriculum if the subject matter of the group is actually taught, or will soon be taught, in a regularly offered course; if the subject matter of the group concerns the body of courses as a whole; if participation in the group is required for a particular course; of if participation in the group results in academic credit. We think this limited definition of groups that directly relate to the curriculum is a common sense interpretation of the Act that is consistent with Congress' intent. For example, a French club would directly relate to the curriculum if a school taught French in a regularly offered course or planned to teach the subject in the near future. A school's student government would generally relate directly to the curriculum to the extent that it addresses concerns, solicits opinions, and formulates proposal pertaining to the body of courses offered by the school. If participation in a school's band or orchestra were required for the band or orchestra classes, or resulted in academic credit, then those groups would directly relate to the curriculum. The existence of such groups at a school would not trigger the Act's obligations. On the other hand, unless a school could show that groups such as a chess club, a stamp collecting club, or a community service club fell within our description of groups that directly relate to the curriculum, such groups would be 'non-curriculum related student groups' for purposes of the Act. The existence of such groups would create a limited open forum' under the Act and would prohibit the school from denying equal access to any other student group on the basis of the content of that group's speech. Whether a specific student group is a 'non-curriculum related student group' will therefore depend on a particular school's curriculum, but such determinations would be subject to factual findings well within the competence of trial courts to make." Was any of the school's student groups non-curriculum related under this test? The school contended that all of the 50 student groups were curriculum related because they furthered the general educational goals of the school. For example the student government club "advances the goals of the school's political science classes," the scuba club "furthers the essential goals of the physical education department," the chess club "supplements math and science courses," and the junior Rotarians "promote effective citizenship—a critical goal of the social sciences department." The Court rejected this analysis, noting that— "allowing such a broad interpretation of 'curriculum related' would make the Act meaningless. A school's administration could simply declare that it maintains a closed forum and choose which student clubs it wanted to allow by tying the purpose of those clubs to some broadly defined educational goal. At the same time, the administration could arbitrarily deny access to school facilities to any unfavored student club on the basis of its speech content. This is exactly the result that Congress sought to prohibit by enacting the Act. A public secondary school cannot simply declare that it maintains a closed forum and then discriminate against a particular student group on the basis of the content of the speech of that group. The Court concluded that the school had a number of non-curriculum related student groups under the test that it announced. Examples cited by the Court included the scuba club and chess club. It did not evaluate any other clubs, but hinted that a number of the other groups also would be non-curriculum related. Because the school clearly allowed one or more non-curriculum related student- groups to meet during non-instructional hours, it had created a limited open forum and could not discriminate against students wanting to meet for religious purposes. The Court acknowledged that a school wishing to avoid the obligations of The Equal Access Act could do so by "structuring its course offerings and existing student groups to avoid the Act's obligations." In other words, a school could eliminate all student groups that are not directly related to courses offered at the school. A school that took such action would avoid creating a limited open forum and accordingly it would have no legal obligation to permit student religious groups to meet. The Court refused to decide whether student groups have a constitutionally protected right to meet on public high school property. Finally, the Court rejected the school's argument that The Equal Access Act violated the first amendment's non-establishment of religion clause. It applied its 20-year-old "three-part test" for evaluating the constitutionality of a law challenged under the non-establishment of religion clause—(1) does it have a clearly secular purpose, (2) does it have a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion, and (5) does it avoid an "excessive entanglement" between church and state? All three of these tests must be satisfied for a challenged law to be constitutional. The Court concluded that all three tests were met—the Act had a "secular purpose" of demonstrating neutrality rather than hostility toward religion, and it did not create an excessive entanglement between church and state. The second test—the primary effect of the law does not advance religion—was the most difficult to answer, but the Court unequivocally ruled this test was satisfied as well. The school argued that the Act failed this test since it required public schools to "endorse" religious clubs and provide them with an official platform to proselytize other students. The Court rejected this claim, noting that the message of the Act "is one of neutrality rather than endorsement--the [Constitution] does not license government to treat religion and those who teach or practice it...as subversive of American ideals and therefore subject to unique disabilities." Further, the Court observed, "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 [of religion] clauses protect. We think that secondary school students are mature enough and are likely to understand that a school does not endorse or support student speech that it merely permits on a nondiscriminatory basis . . . schools do not endorse everything they fail to censor." Only Justice Stevens (appointed by President Ford in 1975) dissented from the Court's decision. What is the practical significance of the Court's ruling? Consider the following: 1. Public High Schools that permit "non-curriculum related student groups" to meet on school premises before or after regular classroom hours cannot deny the same privilege to student groups wanting to meet for religious purposes. The term "non-curriculum related" is defined broadly, and includes any student group not directly related to specific courses offered at the school. 2. A public high school can avoid the application of The Equal Access Act by banning all non-curriculum related student groups from meeting on school premises. Such a practice might violate the constitutional rights of students wanting to meet for religious purposes, but the Court declined to address this issue in its ruling. 3. The Court's decision not only benefits Christian students wanting to meet for prayer and Bible study. It also opens the schoolhouse doors to any other religious group or cult. 4. The Act does not apply to student groups that meet during regular classroom hours, it only applies to schools that permit student groups to meet before or after regular classroom hours. 5. The Court suggested that a public high school wanting to avoid the application of the Act without abolishing its non-curriculum related student groups could do so at the price of losing its federal financial assistance. This is the penalty prescribed by the Act for a violation. The Court observed in this regard that "although we do not doubt that in some cases this may be an unrealistic option, Congress clearly sought to prohibit schools from discriminating on the basis of the content of a student group's speech, and that obligation is the price a federally funded school must pay if it opens its facilities to non-curriculum related student groups." 6. Finally, note that even if The Equal Access Act applies to a public secondary school, it only requires that the school provide religious groups with a "fair opportunity" to meet during non-instructional hours. A school is deemed to offer student groups a "fair opportunity" to conduct meetings if it uniformly provides that (1) the meetings are voluntary and student-initiated; (2) there is no sponsorship of the meetings by the school; (5) employees or agents of the school are present at religious meetings only in a "non-participatory" capacity; (4) the meetings do not materially interfere with the orderly conduct of educational activities within the school; and (5) "non-school" personnel (i.e., youth pastors of local churches) may not direct, conduct, control, or regularly attend activities of student groups. What happens now? Now the battle begins. The Court has given Christians the right to gather together in public schools. We must begin to use the right we have been given. If the Supreme Court allows us to meet and we fail to meet, what good comes of the right? Like a muscle, our rights must be exercised or they will disappear again, God has opened up a huge mission field. The missionaries to this field are Christian high school students. They can reach their generation for Jesus. God has opened a door. We must walk through it!

The Equal Access Act And Mergens Decision

Content on this page requires a newer version of Adobe Flash Player.