On The Front Lines
Rutherford Institute Attorneys Ask U.S. Supreme Court to Defend Religious Freedom and Free Speech Rights of Columbine Families
High Court Asked to Overturn Lower Court Decision Allowing Censorship of Religious Memorial TilesWASHINGTON, D.C.--Attorneys for The Rutherford Institute have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case of three Columbine families prohibited from placing decorative tiles containing religious content in the corridors of Columbine High School as memorials for their children slain in the 1999 shootings. U.S. District Court Judge Wiley Daniel ruled in October 2001 that by inviting community members to "help the healing process and express themselves" by creating the tiles, school officials created a limited public forum in which religious expression must be allowed. Judge Daniel stated that Columbine school officials violated the First Amendment when they refused to install the painted tiles and removed those that had already been placed. However, in August 2002, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed Judge Daniel's decision, holding that the tile project was "school sponsored" and that therefore Columbine officials had the authority to censor the tiles they found "objectionable"--including those that had religious content.
Institute attorneys argue that the circuit court's decision ignores numerous Supreme Court cases upholding the right of religious students to express their faith on campus free from school control. If the court's decision is allowed to stand, Institute attorneys argue, school officials will have virtually unlimited power to censor speech at graduation ceremonies, assemblies, and other school-related functions, simply because the speech may be "offensive" to some hearers.
On April 20, 1999, two students at Columbine High School (CHS) in Littleton, Colo., shot and killed 12 students and one teacher, injuring numerous others, before turning their guns on themselves. After the tragedy, it was proposed that tile-painting sessions be held at CHS and that students and others connected to the tragedy be allowed to participate. The tile project, started several years earlier by a CHS art teacher, gave students a forum in which they could express themselves by painting ceramic tiles and affixing them above lockers in the hallways. However, school officials informed family members and friends associated with the April 20 shootings that tiles with religious symbols or "inappropriate" content could not be displayed. On behalf of the families, Brian Rohrbough objected. His son Daniel had been a devout Christian. Other families, upset that memorials to their children would be censored, also voiced their objections. School officials then relented and allowed them to include religious messages. But after the tiles were affixed to the walls, another screening process took place. Citing a fear of violating what they thought to be the separation of church and state, school officials chiseled approximately 50 tiles out of the hallways. Among the tiles torn down was one painted by Nicole Petrone, Daniel Rohrbough's stepsister. It showed a red heart with a red rose, a smaller yellow cross and her brother's name.
"The appeals court has said, in essence, that the Constitution allows public officials to search out and censor religious speech simply because it is religious," said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute. "This is hostility toward religion, not tolerance and inclusion of all."
The Rutherford Institute is an international, nonprofit civil liberties organization committed to defending constitutional and human rights.
Press Contact
Nisha N. MohammedPh: (434) 978-3888, ext. 604; Pager: 800-946-4646, Pin #: 1478257
Email: Nisha N. Mohammed
