Griffith v. Butte School District No. 1
358 Mont. 193, 2010 MT 246, 244 P.3d 321 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A public school district engages in impermissible viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment's free speech clause when it censors a valedictorian's graduation speech to remove brief, personal, non-proselytizing religious references, particularly when the school has disclaimed any endorsement of the student's views.
Facts:
- Renee Griffith, a valedictorian at Butte High School, was invited to deliver a speech at her 2008 graduation ceremony.
- Griffith prepared a speech that included a passage explaining how her Christian faith motivated her, which contained references to 'Christ' and 'God'.
- The School District had two conflicting policies: Policy No. 2333, which prohibited censorship and allowed for religious expression, and Policy No. 2332, which stated the District retained control over speech content to avoid endorsing religion.
- Pursuant to Policy No. 2333, the School District printed a disclaimer in the graduation program stating that student speeches were the private expressions of the individuals and did not reflect the school's official position.
- Superintendent Charles Uggetti and Principal John Metz informed Griffith that she must remove the specific references to 'God' and 'Christ' from her speech.
- Uggetti proposed alternative wording that replaced specific religious terms with more general phrases like 'my faith' and 'love of mankind'.
- Griffith refused to alter her speech, believing the proposed edits would not accurately convey her high school experience and personal convictions.
- Because Griffith would not remove the religious references, Metz prohibited her from speaking at the graduation ceremony.
Procedural Posture:
- Renee Griffith filed a complaint with the Montana Human Rights Bureau (HRB), alleging the School District discriminated against her based on religion.
- The HRB investigated and issued a 'Notice of Dismissal and Notice of Right to File Civil Action in District Court'.
- Griffith filed a complaint in the Thirteenth Judicial District Court of Montana, Yellowstone County, against the School District, Uggetti, and Metz.
- The complaint alleged violations of the Montana Human Rights Act and state and federal constitutional rights to free speech and freedom of religion.
- On cross-motions for summary judgment, the District Court (trial court) granted summary judgment in favor of the School District.
- The District Court ruled that Griffith's constitutional claims were barred by the Montana Human Rights Act and that the School District's actions did not violate the First Amendment.
- Griffith, as appellant, appealed the District Court's grant of summary judgment to the Supreme Court of Montana.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a public school district's refusal to permit a valedictorian to include brief, personal religious references in her graduation speech violate her First Amendment right to freedom of speech?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Cotter
Yes, the School District's refusal to permit Griffith to deliver her speech as written violates her First Amendment right to freedom of speech. The school's action constitutes impermissible viewpoint discrimination, as it censored her speech based on the specific religious ideology she expressed. Student speech may only be restricted in a school setting under narrow exceptions, such as if it would cause a substantial disruption, could reasonably be perceived as bearing the school's imprimatur, or promotes illegal drug use. Here, it was unreasonable for the school to conclude that Griffith's brief, personal, and non-proselytizing references to her faith would be perceived as a school endorsement, especially since the school printed an explicit disclaimer in the program dissociating itself from the content of student speeches. The school's censorship, which also violated its own written non-censorship policy, was not a necessary action to avoid an Establishment Clause violation.
Dissenting - Justice Leaphart
No, the School District's action does not violate Griffith's free speech rights. The District acted reasonably to comply with its constitutional obligation to avoid violating the Establishment Clause. Griffith's statement that she wanted to 'share Christ and His Joy with those around me' constituted proselytizing speech directed at a captive audience of students who were required to attend the graduation ceremony. This creates a coercive environment for dissenting students, who might feel pressured to participate or approve of the religious message. The disclaimer in the program is insufficient to negate this coercive effect. The proper test is not whether the speech was actually unconstitutional, but whether the school acted reasonably to avoid an Establishment Clause violation, which it did by imposing a content-based restriction on sectarian religious speech.
Analysis:
This decision refines the application of the Hazelwood standard for school-sponsored speech by clarifying the limits on a school's ability to censor student expression based on religious content. The court establishes that a school's fear of an Establishment Clause violation is not, by itself, sufficient justification to engage in viewpoint discrimination against a student's personal religious speech. By emphasizing the non-proselytizing nature of the speech and the presence of a disclaimer, the ruling creates a significant hurdle for schools seeking to restrict similar student expression, requiring a more concrete and reasonable basis to believe the school would be perceived as endorsing religion.
Unlock the full brief for Griffith v. Butte School District No. 1