Following are excerpts from the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Board of Education of the Westside Community Schools v. Mergens.
Justice O’Connor delivered the opinion of the Court, except as to Part III. ...
IIA
In Widmar v. Vincent we invalidated, on free speech grounds, a state university regulation that prohibited student use of school facilities “‘for purposes of religious worship or religious teaching.”’ In doing so, we held that an “equal access” policy would not violate the Establishment Clause under our decision in Lemon v. Kurtzman. In particular, we held that such a policy would have a secular purpose, would not have the primary effect of advancing religion, and would not result in excessive entanglement between government and religion. We noted, however, that "[u]niversity students are, of course, young adults. They are less impressionable than younger students and should be able to appreciate that the university’s policy is one of neutrality toward religion.”
In 1984, Congress extended the reasoning of Widmar to public secondary schools. Under the Equal Access Act, a public secondary school with a “limited open forum” is prohibited from dis4criminating against students who wish to conduct a meeting within that 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 secondary school “grants an offering to or opportunity for one or more noncurriculum related student groups to meet on school premises during noninstructional time.” ...
B
... Unfortunately, the Act does not define the crucial phrase “noncurriculum related student group.” ... The common meaning of the term ''curriculum” is “the whole body of courses offered by an educational institution or one of its branches,” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 557 (1976). Any sensible interpretation of “noncurriculum related student group” must therefore be anchored in the notion that such student groups are those that are not related to the body of courses offered by the school. The difficult question is the degree of “unrelatedness to the curriculum” required for a group to be considered “noncurriculum related.”
The Act’s definition of the sort of “meeting[s]” that must be accommodated under the statute sheds some light on this question. "[T]he term ‘meeting’ includes those activities of student groups which are ... not directly related to the school curriculum” (emphasis added). Congress’s use of the phrase “directly related” implies that student groups directly related to the subject matter of courses offered by the school do not fall within the “noncurriculum related” category and would therefore be considered “curriculum related.”
The logic of the Act also supports this view, namely, that a curriculum-related student group is one that has more than just a tangential or attenuated relationship to courses offered by the school. Because the purpose of granting equal access is to prohibit discrimination between religious or political clubs on the one hand and other noncurriculum-related student groups on the other, the Act is premised on the notion that a religious or political club is itself likely to be a noncurriculum-related student group. It follows, then, that a student group that is “curriculum related” must at least have a more direct relationship to the curriculum than a religious or political club would have. ...
... [W]e think that the term “noncurriculum 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 theel10lgroup concerns the body of courses as a whole; if participation in the group results in academic credit. We think this limited definition of groups that directly relate to the curriculum is a commonsense interpretation of the Act that is consistent with Congress’s intent to provide a low threshold for triggering the Act’s requirements.
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 proposals 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 also 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 “noncurriculum related student groups” for the 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 “noncurriculum 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.
Petitioners contend that our reading of the Act unduly hinders local control over schools and school activities, but we think that schools and school districts nevertheless retain a significant amount of authority over the type of officially recognized activities in which their students participate. First, schools and school districts maintain their traditional latitude to determine appropriate subjects of instruction. To the extent that a school chooses to structure its course offerings and existing student groups to avoid the Act’s obligations, that result is not prohibited by the Act. Second, the Act expressly does not limit a school’s authority to prohibit meetings that would “materially and substantially interfere with the orderly conduct of educational activities within the school.” The Act also preserves “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.” Finally, because the Act applies only to public secondary schools that receive federal financial assistance, a school district seeking to escape the statute’s obligations could simply forgo federal funding. 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 the obligation is the price a federally funded school must pay if it opens its facilities to noncurriculum-related student groups. ...
C
The parties in this case focus their dispute on 10 of Westside’s approximately 30 voluntary student clubs. ... Petitioners contend that all of these student activities are curriculum-related because they further the goals of particular aspects of the school’s curriculum. ...
To the extent that petitioners contend that “curriculum related” means anything remotely related to abstract educational goals, however, we reject that argument. To define “curriculum related” in a way that results in almost no schools having limited open fora, or in a way that permits schools to evade the Act by strategically describing existing student groups, would render the Act merely hortatory. ...
... We therefore conclude that Westside permits “one or more noncurriculum related student groups to meet on school premises during noninstructional time.” Because Westside maintains a “limited open forum” under the Act, it is prohibited from discriminating, based on the content of the students’ speech during noninstructional time.
The remaining statutory question is whether petitioners’ denial of respondents’ request to form a religious group constitutes a denial of ''equal access” to the school’s limited open forum. Although the school apparently permits respondents to meet informally after school, respondents seek equal access in the form of official recognition by the school. Official recognition allows student clubs to be part of the student activities program and carries with it access to the school newspaper, bulletin boards, the public address system, and the annual Club Fair. Given that the Act explicitly prohibits denial of “equal access ... to ... any students who wish to conduct a meeting within [the school’s] limited open forum” on the basis of the religious content of the speech at such meetings, we hold that Westside’s denial of respondents’ request to form a Christian club denies them “equal access” under the Act.
III
Petitioners contend that even if Westside has created a limited open forum within the meaning of the Act, its denial of official recognition to the proposed Christian club must nevertheless stand because the Act violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, as applied to the states through the 14th Amendment. Specifically, petitioners maintain that because the school’s recognized student activities are an integral part of its educational mission, official recognition of respondents’ proposed club would effectively incorporate religious activities into the school’s official program, endorse participation in the religious club, and provide the club with an official platform to proselytize other students.
We disagree. In Widmar, we applied the three-part Lemon test to hold that an “equal access” policy, at the university level, does not violate the Establishment Clause. We concluded that “an open-forum policy, including nondiscrimination against religious speech, would have a secular purpose,” and would in fact avoid entanglement with religion. We also found that although incidental benefits accrued to religious groups who used university facilities, this result did not amount to an establishment of religion. First, we stated that a university’s forum does not “confer any imprimatur of state approval on religious sects or practices.” Indeed, the message is one of neutrality rather than endorsement; if a state refused to let religious groups use facilities open to others, then it would demonstrate not neutrality but hostility toward religion. ... Second, we noted that "[t]he [university’s] provision of benefits to [a] broad ... spectrum of groups"--both nonreligious and religious speakers--was “an important index of secular effect.”
We think the logic of Widmar applies with equal force to the Equal Access Act. As an initial matter, the Act’s prohibition of discrimination on the basis of “political, philosophical, or other” speech as well as religious speech is sufficient basis for meeting the secular purpose prong of the Lemon test. Congress’s avowed purpose--to prevent discrimination against religious and other types of speech--is undeniably secular. Even if some legislators were motivated by a conviction that religious speech in particular was valuable and worthy of protection, that alone would not invalidate the Act, because what is relevant is the legislative purpose of the statute, not the possibly religious motives of the legislators who enacted the law. Because the Act on its face grants equal access to both secular and religious speech, we think it clear that the Act’s purpose was not to “‘endorse or disapprove of religion.”’
Petitioners’ principal contention is that the Act has the primary effect of advancing religion. Specifically, petitioners urge that, because the student religious meetings are held under school aegis, and because the state’s compulsory attendance laws bring the students together (and thereby provide a ready-made audience for student evangelists), an objective observer ... will perceive official school support for such religious meetings.
We disagree. ... [T]here 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 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. The proposition that schools do not endorse everything they fail to censor is not complicated. ...
Second, we note that the Act expressly limits participation by school officials at meetings of student religious groups, and that any such meetings must be held during “noninstructional time.” The Act therefore avoids the problems of “the students’ emulation of teachers as role models” and “mandatory attendance requirements.” To be sure, the possibility of student peer pressure remains, but there is little if any risk of official state endorsement or coercion where no formal classroom activities are involved and no school officials actively participate. Moreover, petitioners’ fear of a mistaken inference of endorsement is largely self-imposed, because the school itself has control over any impressions it gives its students. To the extent a school makes clear that its recognition of respondents’ proposed club is not an endorsement of the views of the club’s participants, students will reasonably understand that the school’s official recognition of the club evinces neutrality toward, rather than endorsement of, religious speech.
Third, the broad spectrum of officially recognized student clubs at Westside, and the fact that Westside students are free to initiate and organize additional student clubs, counteract any possible message of official endorsement of or preference for religion or a particular religious belief. Although a school may not itself lead or direct a religious club, a school that permits a student-initiated and student-led religious club to meet after school, just as it permits any other student group to do, does not convey a message of state approval or endorsement of the particular religion. Under the Act, a school with a limited open forum may not lawfully deny access to a Jewish students’ club, a Young Democrats club, or a philosophy club devoted to the study of Nietzsche. To the extent that a religious club is merely one of many different student-initiated voluntary clubs, students should perceive no message of government endorsement of religion. Thus, we conclude that the Act does not, at least on its face and as applied to Westside, have the primary effect of advancing religion.
Petitioners’ final argument is that by complying with the Act’s requirement, the school risks excessive entanglement between government and religion. The proposed club, petitioners urge, would be required to have a faculty sponsor who would be charged with actively directing the activities of the group, guiding its leaders, and ensuring balance in the presentation of controversial ideas. Petitioners claim that this influence over the club’s religious program would entangle the government in day-to-day surveillance of religion of the type forbidden by the Establishment Clause.
Under the Act, however, faculty monitors may not participate in any religious meetings, and nonschool persons may not direct, control, or regularly attend activities of student groups. Moreover, the Act prohibits school “sponsorship” of any religious meetings, which means that school officials may not promote, lead, or participate in any such meeting. Although the Act permits "[t]he assignment of a teacher, administrator, or other school employee to the meeting for custodial purposes,” such custodial oversight of the student-initiated religious group, merely to ensure order and good behavior, does not impermissibly entangle government in the day-to-day surveillance or administration of religious activities. Indeed, as the Court noted in Widmar, a denial of equal access to religious speech might well create greater entanglement problems in the form of evasive monitoring to prevent religious speech at meetings at which such speech might occur.
Accordingly, we hold that the Equal Access Act does not on its face contravene the Establishment Clause. Because we hold that petitioners have violated the Act, we do not decide respondents’ claims under the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
