Yorktown school errs  in denying students their religious symbols

A misinterpretation of the First Amendment has landed the Yorktown school district in federal court, defending a lawsuit that should have been avoided.

The school board had taken several proper steps to achieve a balance between the free-speech rights of members of a high school Bible club and government's responsibility to maintain a separation of church and state. First Priority, the student group, was allowed to meet in school after hours, as other clubs do. Then, heeding the club members' complaint, the district expanded equal treatment by including the group in the year-book and permitting it to advertise itself at freshman orientation. And First Priority posters were permitted to join those of other clubs in the school.

To this point, the district was carefully following the guidelines set out in the Equal Access Act, passed by Congress in 1984 to cover religion-related use of school facilities and later upheld by the Supreme Court. The crux of the law: Schools may not endorse or sponsor activities related to religion, but they must give student led activities the same access as other groups. A district can deny access if it can establish that the student activity would be disruptive.

The board lost the delicate balance it had so far achieved when it denied First Priority a privilege enjoyed by other clubs: displaying a symbol on its posters. Posters displaying the cross and the Christian symbol of a fish were taken down.

That was a mistake. The Equal Access ,, 2&ct that the district had been trying to follow extends to school media outlets. That should mean equal treatment for posters advertising the club and its meetings.

The American Center for Law and Justice, a national law firm that defends religious rights, has made that point in filing suit against the Yorktown district on be-half of a club member and her father.

Yorktown Superintendent Robert Van Zanten sees the board's decision as a proper separation of church and state. The reasoning is hard to follow. The board didn't believe it was violating the First Amendment's insistence on separation by allowing the student club to meet and otherwise take its place among other extra-curricular activities. And it was right. It was the students, not the school, leading the activity. Why, then, would a violation occur if the students — not the school — posted a Christian symbol?

The explanation of the district's thinking may lie in a comment from Van Zan-ten: "A youngster not of a Christian faith may find it offensive if they see a poster with Christian symbols."

It would take an intolerant student to find offense in someone else's expression of faith. But intolerance exists, and Van Zanten maybe right. Offense may be taken.

Does the school have an obligation to bow to one person's intolerance by denying equal treatment to another?

Besides exposing the district to a potentially expensive and damaging lawsuit, the policy sends all kinds of wrong messages to students: That expression must be restricted to those things that the majority, if not everyone, agrees with. That the goal of a school community is homogeneity. That opinion and belief — religious, political, whatever — is best con-fined within some sort of "don't ask, don't tell" cone of silence.

The students and parents of Yorktown High School, and the larger community — regardless of their beliefs — should be challenging the school board. Perhaps the school trustees can be persuaded to regain their First Amendment balance and settle this lawsuit by according First Priority truly equal access.