School SafeRides program stalls due to religion

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

 

Please note that the BSA refused to allow an atheist to join this program run & paid for by a public school, even when the school superintendent specifically requested that the student be admitted.

 

http://www.acorn-online.com/news/publish/lewisboro/19159.shtml

 

After 23 years, the future of John Jay High School's SafeRides program

is in doubt. Because a parent complained several months ago that

SafeRides members were required to sign a "declaration of religious

principles," Superintendent of Schools Dr. Robert Lichtenfeld has been

examining a new way to run the program without the school's financial

backing. Since 1984, it has been a joint project with the Boy Scouts

of America.

...

The SafeRides program is owned by the Venturers, a coeducational

branch of the Boy Scouts of America, and chartered by the school

district. The Scouts provide secondary insurance for the program,

insuring the vehicles and the drivers in case of accidents. The

district provides the space for the group to meet and a dedicated

telephone line, and pays the stipends for the two teachers who act as

faculty advisers, who received $1,226.50 each this year.

 

Because the Scouts could provide insurance only for members, all

SafeRides volunteers were required to join the Venturers. Included in

the application was the Boy Scouts of America's Declaration of

Religious Principle, which the organization requires all members to

sign. The declaration, without endorsing any specific religion,

states, in part, "The BSA maintains that no member can grow into the

best kind of citizen without recognizing an obligation to God." For

the complete text of the declaration, see sidebar.

 

"Even though the activity is extracurricular, it is supported by

public funds," said Dr. Lichtenfeld. "It's a nondenominational

statement, but nevertheless they objected."

 

Dr. Lichtenfeld told The Ledger that he had tried to obtain a waiver

from the Scouts for the one student who objected, but that the Scouts

had refused, and so the district is now looking into finding a sponsor

organization to replace the district as the program's chartering

organization.

 

"At worst, what's ending might be the district sponsorship, not the

program," said Dr. Lichtenfeld. He said that the district would

probably be looking for the new sponsor over the summer.

Should a new sponsor be found, it would pay for costs such as the

teacher stipends that had previously been borne by the district. But

the group would remain a club and would still be allowed to meet at

the school and use school facilities, said Dr. Lichtenfeld. According

to the Boy Scouts of America Equal Access Act, part of the No Child

Left Behind Act of 2001, the school is legally required to allow

groups affiliated with the Scouts to meet in school facilities.

...

[TheScout]

A salute to the BSA for sticking up for their principles. Somebody in this society has to do it.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

 

"Sticking up for their principles" by dishonestly chartering a discriminatory program to a public school? You realize both the school and the BSA could be sued over this, right?

 

By the way, the council wasn't even following the BSA's own rules:

http://www.scouting.org/relationships/34196/01.html

...

Public schools and government organizations do not serve as chartered organizations

...

[TheScout]

Sticking up for principles by not endorsing immorality. I would be hard pressed to call this dishonest. The agreement was not a secret.(This message has been edited by TheScout)

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

The agreement was illegal, and even against official BSA requirements. I've said before that I consider the BSA to be a dishonest organization, and this story is a good example of why. It's clearly a school program paid for with public funds, and atheists cannot be excluded. Yet the local council continued to renew the charter every year. It's fine until you get caught, I guess.

[TheScout]

Merlyn, we all know you have a warped view of legality, different from most of the American public.

 

I would be interested to know the BSA policy on schools as CO's. I do not know if it is officially banned. I saw your link, but those seem to be more of guides to local councils than an official policy. I do not know.

 

So is the federal government dishonest then for its national charter of the BSA?

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

You'll have to explain how my view is "warped"; public schools can't own, operate, and pay for a school program that excludes atheists, agreed?

 

The BSA agreed to stop chartering public schools and other government agencies over two years ago. The ACLU threatened to sue if they continued:

www.aclu-il.org/news/press/2005/03/national_boy_scout_organizatio.shtml

[scoutingagain]

Seems like the simple answer to this would be to turn this program over to Learning for Life.

 

"Learning for Life offers seven programs designed to support schools and community-based organizations in their efforts to prepare youth to successfully handle the complexities of contemporary society and to enhance their self-confidence, motivation, and self-esteem. The seven programs focus on character development and career education. Learning for Life programs help youth develop social and life skills, assist in character and career development, and help youth formulate positive personal values. It prepares youth to make ethical decisions that will help them achieve their full potential."

 

This program is heaquartered at 1325 West Walnut Hill Lane, P.O. Box 152079, Irving, Texas 75015-2079, telephone 972-580-2433 and is open to all.

 

SA

 

 

 

 

[TheScout]

Merlyn, You are wrong. If you read the link your provided and the actual letter to the ACLU, you will learn that the national council "advised" local councils to no longer charter to schools.

 

Your view of legality is warped because it is out of touch with that of most Americans.

 

So I ask again, is the federal government dishonest then for its national charter of the BSA?

[SSScout]

I am unsure about what the SafeRides is about. Were the Scouts providing a service to the school, or sponsoring a "club" for boys and girls to join? If the former, how can the Scouts deny any student use of the service? If the later, how did they get away for so long with such a requirement for any students membership? No other "club" in a public school can deny membership because of religious affiliation or lack thereof, can it?

 

It wasn't a religiously based school (read "private") was it?

 

BSAs motives are admirable, and I agree with them, but the means often leaves alot to be desired.

 

Reverent, yes. But Trustworthy is the first point.

 

YiS

 

 

[epalmer84]

Some of the points that stick out here:

 

> The SafeRides program is owned by the Venturers, a coeducational

branch of the Boy Scouts of America, and chartered by the school

district.

 

You can read this several ways, but it does not explicitly state that the school district is the chartered organization for the crew. The BSA program is "chartered to" an organization, not "chartered by"; this is probably a technicality that would escape a reporter not familiar with these aspects of the program.

 

> Public schools and government organizations do not serve as chartered organizations

 

True, as stated on the BSA web site. This came about as a result of an agreement in 2005 to stop granting charters to governmental type organizations. I have some opinions on that, but that is beyond the scope of this discussion.

 

> The agreement was illegal, and even against official BSA requirements.

 

The article is rather vague on the details to make a definitive statement like that. We really have no good idea who the chartered organization actually is; it could be a PTA or similar group which is open to a charter.

 

Ed

 

[evmori]

"Sticking up for their principles" by dishonestly chartering a discriminatory program to a public school? You realize both the school and the BSA could be sued over this, right?

 

A program that discriminates legally. Not breaking any laws. Sue away! Then after you lose, please put that old nag back in the stall. It's getting tired.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[Hunt]

I think it's worth noting that it was the Scouts, not the school district that actually ran this program. They provided the volunteers and the insurance, and actually did the work. The school district provided space and a phone line, and paid (modest) stipends to the teacher sponsors. Now the school thinks it will find a new sponsor that will pick up the stipends, too. Maybe they will.

I think there may be a problem with the school district chartering the Venturing Crew, but I'm not sure there is any legal problem with the school partnering with the Crew to provide the SafeRides program. The service that is being provided--rides--is a secular purpose, and the level of entanglement with religion is minimal. I suspect that the provision of funds for that limited purpose would not be deemed unconstitutional if it went to court. But who needs the aggravation? Let the school district find somebody else to pay for it, if they can. If they can't, the people using the service can find their own rides.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Well, real lawyers advising the school sure seem to think this is a problem:

lohud.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070609/NEWS02/706090353/1018/NEWS02

...

Schools Superintendent Robert Lichtenfeld said the district's lawyers

had advised him that the school's support of any religious pledge runs

contrary to the requirement for separation of church and state in

public education.

 

As a result, the district yesterday announced it is searching for a

parent organization or community group to take over the program. The

district pays for the program's faculty advisers and the Boy Scouts of

America pays for the insurance and publicity.

 

School officials do not anticipate any changes in the implementation

of the program if another group steps up to run it.

 

"If you have a family -even if it's one family - that feels

uncomfortable signing this pledge, and it bars their child from

participating, and they have a legal right not to sign it, then their

legal right has to be respected just like that of the majority,"

Lichtenfeld said.

 

"Whether we like it or not, minorities do have legal rights in the

country under the Constitution."

...

 

Like he says, atheists have rights whether you like it or not.

[epalmer84]

In all of this, the article never tells us what SafeRides actually is.

 

Ed

 

OK- it is in the last section that was not posted here:

 

SafeRides

 

SafeRides, created at John Jay 23 years ago, is a program that offers rides home to students on Friday nights. It was created to help cut down on drunk driving and car accidents caused by inexperienced drivers.

 

I participate in SafeRides because I know kids whove gotten home and have had no memory of getting there, said John Jay senior Katie Hamren, vice president of SafeRides. Anyone in the world can tell you thats a dangerous thing.

 

On any given Friday on which SafeRides is running, from 10 p.m. to 2 a.m., between four and eight students and an adult supervisor will gather in the teachers lounge at John Jay High School. Some students monitor the phones, while others handle the driving.

 

We dont just pick up drunk kids at parties, we pick up the completely sober sophomore whos keeping a friend company while an older sibling has a party, or the kid who got stuck at a train station, said Katie. It gives kids a safe ride home, it prevents accidents and it prevents kids from being in a place where its unsafe for them to be.

 

The cars each contain two students, a male and a female. The driver must have a senior drivers license, while the passenger must have at least a junior license.

 

Between them, theyve handled about two to three calls per night this year, according to Katie.

 

SafeRides doesnt do anything bad, Katie said. Its purely a community service organization.(This message has been edited by epalmer84)