Legal Clips, [October 2007]A Minnesota federal district court has ruled that a school district violated a gay student club’s rights under the Equal Access Act (EAA) because it denied the club access to school facilities on the same basis as other noncurricular student groups. Under Osseo Area Schools – District No. 279’s (OAS279) Student Group Framework (SGF), student groups are classified as either curricular or noncurricular. Curricular groups may meet before, during, or after instructional time at the discretion of the principal, may use the school PA system and other methods of communication, may receive school funds or engage in fundraising or field trips at the principal’s discretion. Noncurricular groups may meet only before and after school, but not during the school day, may not interfere with school or district operations, may only use a community bulletin board or place a poster outside the meeting place, do not receive school funds and cannot engage in fundraising or field trips. Straights and Gays for Equality (SAGE), a non curricular student club at Maple Grove Senior High School (MGSHS), sued OAS279, alleging that its inability to take advantage of school facilities on the same basis as other student groups constitutes a violation of EAA and the First Amendment. The district court granted SAGE’s motion for a preliminary injunction, and the group sought to make it permanent with a motion for partial summary judgment.
The court pointed out that the EAA prohibits public secondary schools receiving federal funding that maintain a limited open forum from "deny[ing] equal access or a fair opportunity to, or discriminat[ing] against, any students who wish to conduct a meeting within that limited open forum on the basis of the religious, political, philosophical, or other content of the speech at such meetings." Under the EEA "[a] public secondary school has a limited open forum whenever such school grants an offering to or opportunity for one or more noncurriculum related student groups to meet on school premises during noninstructional time." Citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Board of Educ. v. Mergens, 496 U.S. 226, 239 (1990), the district court stated that if a "public secondary school allows only one ‘noncurriculum related student group’ to meet, the [EAA’s] obligations are triggered and the school may not deny other clubs, on the basis of the content of their speech, equal access to meet on school premises during noninstructional time." The court then addressed SAGE’s argument that it was being denied access to school facilities on the same basis of other noncurricular clubs, including Synchronized Swimming, Cheerleading, Spirit Council, and Black Achievers, all of which the school district claimed were curriculum related.
The district court rejected OAS279’s first argument that neither Synchronized Swimming nor Cheerleading is a "student group" within the meaning of the EAA because: 1) the groups do not engage in expressive conduct or speech; and 2) participation in sports or athletics is not speech. It found OAS279’s contention at odds with the Supreme Court application of the EAA in Mergens to student groups, such as the chess and scuba diving clubs. The district court also rejected OAS279’s argument that Synchronized Swimming and Cheerleading are related to the curriculum because participation in the groups may result in academic credit. While some students use the two activities as part of their physical fitness plan required for the Life Fitness course, it concluded that the relationship between academic credit and participation in the clubs too attenuated to satisfy the ‘results in academic credit’ test of Mergens." Regarding the Spirit Council, the court concluded that "no course requires participation in the Spirit Council, and participation does not result in academic credit." It also found none of the Spirit Council’s activities related to topics addressed in the political science curriculum. Lastly, the court examined the goals of Black Achievers, a student group that "provides support to African American students with integration into MGSHS and leadership skills training" and found they did not relate to any credit courses. As a result, the district court found that OAS279 had failed to carry its burden to prove that the student groups identified by SAGE as noncurriculum-related were in fact curriculum-related as asserted by the school district. It, therefore, granted SAGE’s motion for partial summary judgment and made the injunction permanent.
SAGE v. Osseo Area Sch. Dist. No. 279, No. 05-2100 (D. Minn. Sept. 25, 2007)