Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SATURDAY, September 16, 1995 TAG: 9509170013
SECTION: VIRGINIA PAGE: A-1 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: JAN VERTEFEUILLE STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
Deloras and Thomas Whitt are apparently the first in Virginia to legally challenge a new law requiring parents to sign a pledge that they have read the student code of conduct for their children's schools and have reviewed it with their children. Parents who do not return the pledge can be taken to court and fined $50.
The pledge also explains that parents are expected to meet with school officials if their child misbehaves. Parents who refuse can be fined $500.
The Whitts are Southern Baptists; their daughter, Tommie], is in the 10th grade. The Whitts say the law violates their religious beliefs because they do not believe in entering a contract with a governmental entity "by which they confess a belief that they must cooperate with governmental officials in managing their child's conduct."
They want the contract, approved by the General Assembly with bipartisan support earlier this year, declared unconstitutional. They are suing under the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which says that, if a law interferes with someone's religious practices, a "compelling" government interest - a public necessity - must exist to do so.
The suit was filed by the Rutherford Institute, a Charlottesville-based advocacy group recently in the news for suing the National Collegiate Athletic Association over player-conduct rules that would have forbidden football players from briefly kneeling in the end zone to pray after a touchdown. The NCAA quickly backed down.
Donald Huffman, a Roanoke attorney representing the Whitts on behalf of the Rutherford Institute, said there are several reasons the parental contract violates their religious beliefs. He said the contract asks that authority over the child be split between parents and school, and it tries to force people to enter into a contract under threat of a fine.
The Whitts believe they have "total parental responsibility" over their daughter, Huffman said. Tommie Whitt has never been a discipline problem in school, he said, but was embarrassed in front of her class when her teacher announced that her parents could be subject to a fine for not signing the pledge.
The lawsuit also alleges the contract, as enforced by the Roanoke County School Board, violates the Whitts' due process rights, civil rights, and free speech rights and that it is "immoral and undemocratic."
Del. Morgan Griffith, R-Salem, a member of the House Education Committee who voted for the pledge, was not prepared for the controversy the new law has prompted.
"It was not our intent to tell people how to raise their children or to violate anyone's religious freedom," he said. "We were trying to provide another tool for schools. All the parents have to do is to meet with school officials after a child has been expelled or suspended. Parents don't have to agree to what has been done. They have the right to appeal."
Robert Patterson, principal of William Byrd High School, said Friday afternoon he was unaware of the lawsuit or the allegation that Tommie Whitt had been embarrassed at school because her parents refused to sign the pledge.
The Whitts will ask U.S. District Judge Jackson Kiser next Friday to issue a temporary restraining order preventing the school from enforcing the contract until a full hearing can be held.
Legal observers are divided over whether the case has merit as a religious freedom argument.
Barry Lynn, executive director for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said, "Discipline in schools is a compelling government interest, which means this lawsuit is a loser. It sounds like one of many lawsuits filed by the religious right each year that are designed to harass public school officials."
The ACLU of Virginia also has concerns about the parental contract law and has received calls from parents all over the state, legal director Steve Pershing said.
"They often can't put a finger on why they're upset," he said.
It's because the law is "out of character with the school-home relationship" and "can be used to haul them into court for refusing to sign a form," he said.
The ACLU is looking at possible constitutional challenges to the law. Pershing said the the Whitts' challenge under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act is "intriguing and not out of the question."
"There is obviously a strong state interest in keeping order in school," he said. "How far, and what means are justified by that, is open to question."
The law is "essentially unprecedented," Pershing said. "The school can sue the parent. This is totally new."
Griffith said he didn't believe the contract violated religious freedom when he voted for it.
"I cannot speak for the letter and information that the school sent to the parents and what it might have said," he said. "But if the courts determine that [the General Assembly] made a mistake, I'm sure we will correct it."
Staff writer Joel Turner contributed information to this story.
by CNB