PREPARED STATEMENT OF KELLY SHACKELFORD, ADJUNCT PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SCHOOL OF LAW

Honorable Subcommittee:

My name is Kelly Shackelford and I think I offer a unique perspective as both an academician and practitioner who has committed my career to the area of religious liberty. As an academician, I can tell you of the crucial importance of religious liberty to the totality of a nation's freedom. As a practitioner, handling religious liberty cases across the country for The Rutherford Institute, I can tell you what is really happening.

The Rutherford Institute is not affiliated with any church or religious organization, but is the group of attorneys which handles the majority of religious liberty cases across the nation, defending all faiths.

And let me tell you--there is a serious problem. For instance, The

Rutherford Institute alone averages up to 4,000 calls, letters, and requests for help each month for religious liberties violations. Right now, and at any one time, The Institute has 400 to 500 cases ongoing of serious religious liberty violations by government officials.

Some say, I think with their head in the sand, there is no problem. Then again, oppressors rarely see themselves as part of the oppression. Others say this Subcommittee is trying to support government coerced religion. I know of no one in this field advocating such a position. That is a straw man argument. This is about freeing students and others from the shackles of government religious discrimination. We are moving quickly toward a naked public square with religion

being treated as pornography when expressed in public.

While I have hundreds, let me give as many real examples of our cases as I

can in the time allotted:

Like one of our clients, Audrey Pearson testifying today was, Raymond Raines was a young ten-year old boy in elementary school silently bowing his head over his meal when he was "caught" by a school official, physically lifted from his cafeteria seat and severely chastised in front of the other children. He was next taken to the principal's office and then put in detention. Because the school is in court taking a position of denial, no child has ever been told that what the school officials did in front of their eyes was wrong.

In the past two weeks alone, valedictorians all over the country have been censored from giving the address they earned the right to give because they intended to include a religious viewpoint, or in one of the cases, simply a religious

poem.

Students all over the country have also been ordered that they may not pray "In Jesus Name" or mention another specific deity. Numerous parents of such kids have called me asking what can they do. One Federal judge just a few weeks ago (and I have a copy of the transcript) ordered that Federal Marshals would be dispatched to the graduation and any child mentioning Jesus or any other deity would be arrested and placed in jail for six months. He then stated, and I quote, "Anybody who violates these orders, no kidding, is going to wish that he or she had died as a child when this Court gets through with it."

We have numerous show-and-tell cases where children are asked to share something about themselves but are censored when anything religious is mentioned. For example, Kelly Denooyer, a second grader, was asked to share "what is special to her" and brought in a two-minute video of her singing in her church. While video tapes of vacations, stuffed animals, and others were OK, Kelly's was abruptly stopped and banned because of the "J" word and others. What do we tell this crying 8-year old girl? The teacher stated that students' First Amendment rights end at the schoolhouse gate. The Court ruled she had no rights to free speech since it happened during curriculum. The Supreme Court denied certiori.

Students in numerous talent shows are having microphones yanked from their hands when they begin to sing a religious song. Their assignments are often scored "0" when they choose a religious subject or express a religious viewpoint as part of their essay or paper.

A brother and sister in Illinois were censored from handing out valentines because they included a religious message. This is now in Federal District Court. A handicapped young boy who cannot play an instrument but was skilled at memorization wanted to recite the 23rd Psalm in his school talent show. The school prohibited his recital because the passage was religious.

An 8-year old elementary school girl, accomplishing her P.E. class goals, was told she could put up an impression of her shoe on the wall with the others. She, like the others, was allowed to write something personal on her shoe. Her

shoe was, however, ripped off the wall when government officials realized she had written "Jesus loves me." Weeping, she ran home to her father asking what she

had done wrong.

A 5-year old asked her father whether God exists. The reason: She was abruptly stopped by the school from presenting the book she made because it had the word "God" in it.

During Christmas some schools, including a Virginia elementary, have even told the children they were not allowed to say "Merry Christmas" to one another. Most schools no longer refer to the holiday as Christmas but call it the Winter Holidays.

Students meeting before school at the flagpole to pray for their school and country were run off school grounds by angry school officials and names were written down for disciplinary action. We are representing these students and their families in Federal Court. At one school students were arrested for praying at their flagpole.

The cases go on and on. The problem is very real.

The problem is systemic. If Congress does not act, we will simply move further into a system of religious apartheid; and we will all be impacted by this loss of freedom. Eternal vigilance is the price of our freedom. The time to act is

now

June 10, 1995

Mr. CANADY. Thank you, Mr. Shackelford, we appreciate your testimony.

I am particularly interested in the case that you spoke of where the Federal judge made those outrageous comments that you quoted. I would very much like to see

Mr. SHACKELFORD. Sure. I have a copy of the court transcript that I will be glad to leave with the chairman.

Mr. CANADY. I appreciate that very much. I think that shows how badly things have gone awry in this area of the law and I thank you for bringing that to our attention.

Mr. Goodlatte.

Mr. GOODLATTE. I do not have any questions, Mr. Chairman. I do very much appreciate your sharing that with us, that perhaps is the worst example that I have seen of the graduation ceremony type situation, and I hope it does not bode poorly for me in my remarks, but I think everybody should be able to freely express their beliefs at high school graduation, and I think that helps to promote the kind of tolerance that we need to have in this country, and greater understanding, and that was my experience in elementary school before the decision of the courts, that tolerance is promoted when the State does not establish religion, but facilitates the ability of people to be able to learn about other people and yes, we do have the right to have comparative studies and so on, but to me, that is very different from the learning experience of actually hearing what somebody else's beliefs are as they express them, and I think that is what the first amendment is all about. And I wonder if you have any thoughts along that line, because we do want to promote tolerance. I am very concerned about what Professor Gingerich says about the lack of tolerance. My point of view and his is obviously different, but I want to recognize that diversity and I think that the free expression promotes it rather than harms it. Mr. SHACKELFORD. Yes, I certainly agree. My comment with that would be I think it is a policy question. We have got this problem, we have all this diversity, and what is going to promote more tolerance, more harmony. And our choices are do we encourage children or people in certain groups to immediately run to the quickest government official to ask that the other groups be censored or do we encourage and try to teach kids to appreciate other people's expression, other people's ability to express their particular beliefs and to learn from one another and to learn what one another believes and show mutual respect. And I think to simply put people in groups and to say run to your nearest official if you are offended is certainly not a way to increase harmony in the public schools. And I think that is what has been happening all over the country. Mr. CANADY. Thank you very much.

[Applause.]

Mr. CANADY. Earlier I had announced that Mr. Shackelford would be our last witness. We are however going to extend the hearing beyond our originally scheduled conclusion time of 2 to hear from a few additional witnesses at the open mic, people who have signed up. I wish that we could accommodate everyone who signed up, but my own schedule simply does not permit that. I have to get back to Washington this afternoon.