"does [free speech] also allow a school administration to express a preference for a certain race...?"

Commentor RickK has some good questions about Constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion and freedom of speech. To what extent do they apply to school administrators?

RickK:

If your definition of free speech includes allowing a school adminstration to express a preference for a particular religion, does it also allow a school administration to express a preference for a certain race, gender, sexual orientation, culture, ancestry or other personal attribute?

Heck, RickK, let's not waste our time on school administrators. Let's consider the bigger government officials-- presidents, senators, congressmen. And remember that we're talking about Constitutional rights, not about whether it's morally right to do something, or whether it's legal under statutory law, or whether it's permitted by regulatory diktat.

So let's consider:

Does the Constitution allow a president/senator/congressman/school administrator to express a preference for a certain race...

Hmmm...

Have you ever heard, RickK, of affirmative action?

Does the Constitution allow a president/senator/congressman/school administrator to express a preference for a gender...

Have you ever heard, RickK, of the Department of Health and Human Services' support of the Women's Health Initiative?

Does the Constitution allow a president/senator/congressman/school administrator to express a preference for a sexual orientation... 

Have you ever heard, RickK, of innumerable municipalities' sponsorship for Gay Pride Parades and of health clinics provided for gay men?

Does the Constitution allow a president/senator/congressman/school administrator to express a preference for a culture...

 Have you ever heard, RickK, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus?

You get the point, RickK. "Expression of preference for _________" is one of the most common things that the government does, from the president down to the homeroom teacher. It's inevitable in a huge pluralistic society.

And countless government officials express preference for religion: "God Bless America", which every politician says at the end of every speech, expresses preference for religions that call the Deity "God" rather than Allah, Thor, Nature, Me (atheism), etc.

And ya' know, RickK, it's all perfectly Constitutional. The purpose of the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause is not to separate government from religion. The Framers were smart enough to understand that the government can't be separated from religion, because in our country We the People are the government and We the People are a diverse mostly religious people.

So the purpose of the First Amendment religion clauses is to get government out of the business of censoring religion. That's the obvious purpose of the Free Exercise Clause, and it is the purpose of the Establishment Clause as well, because an official national Church would tend to suppress the expression of religious beliefs.

The purpose of the First Amendment is freedom, not censorship.

RickK:

If the school can post a prayer, does a teacher have the right, by your rules, to post the 10 Commandments in their classroom?

Yep. The Supreme Court has the Decalogue on its frieze. Why can't Ms. Perry's 3rd grade class have it on their wall?

Does a science teacher have the right to post the Genesis creation story on the wall behind their desk?

Sure. Unless I missed the "Congress shall make no law allowing a science teacher to post Genesis... " clause to the First Amendment.

Do that teacher have the right to jot under the text of Genesis "This is the TRUE story of human origins, whatever we may discuss in class."

Probably, yes. What the teacher may not do is mandate assent to Genesis. The teacher may not take points off on the final exam if the student contradicts Genesis. The reason is that compulsory assent to a religious doctrine is a hallmark of an Establishment of Religion, which is the one aspect of religious expression-- and Establishment is the only one-- that the Constitution prohibits.

Just how far does your noble defense of free speech in public schools extend?

Good question. I hate censorship. Let me elaborate: I hate censorship. I don't like being told to 'shut up or else', and I don't tell other people to 'shut up or else'. Fortunately, the Founders hated censorship as much as I do, so they wrote the First Amendment. It got the federal government out of the censorship business. That was the whole point.

This is how school administrators' "expression of preference" should be handled:

It almost never has anything to do with the Constitution. It's simply a matter of local decisions made by local school boards elected by local people. The normal process of curriculum development and school administration are the appropriate processes for determining such matters. Not federal judges and federal lawsuits that financially devastate schools and harm kids and fill the coffers of the ACLU with taxpayers' money that parents paid to educate their kids not pay @*!##!! lawyers.

There should be a spectrum of expression in schools. Schools in San Francisco probably wouldn't have any prayers. Schools in Atlanta probably would. Schools in a heavily Orthodox Jewish community might have a prayer that has a bit of a Jewish spin. Schools in Louisville might have a tiny Catholic spin. Schools in Dearborn might have a little Islamic spin.

Fine with me. As long as there's no compulsion. As long as there's no Establishment.

I'm not afraid of a little prayer, mine or someone else's. I like freedom, and I don't mind other people's freedom. And I really like the First Amendment.

And I think it's execrable to use that succinct work of wisdom and genius-- the charter of our freedom-- as a pretext for censorship.