I accept the JTA privacy policy.

By submitting the above content, I agree to the privacy policy and terms of use of JTA.org

(J. Northern California Jewish News, via JTA)-For some time, Shel Lyons has been scrutinizing her child’s public elementary school because she believes it is a preference for Christianity over other Religious pattern.

This year, when the school in Carmel, California planned for outdoor tree lighting, the Jewish parent found evidence that she believed was clear. She asked to bring a huge inflatable candlestick to display next to the tree, but the school's administration and parent-teacher organization refused this request.

Three days before the planned lighting of the trees on December 10, Leon took them to court. Attorney Lyons filed a lawsuit in the Northern District of California against the school district, head of the school district Ted Knight, and Carmel River School principal Jay Marden, seeking a temporary restraining order, requiring the school to allow the use of inflatable candlesticks.

Three days later, after the judge found that she did not meet the required "high standards", Lyon-she had a third-year student at the K-5 school and was the parent of two of the graduates-voluntarily withdrew the lawsuit. Restraining order.

This dispute has raised decades-long questions about how to correctly include students of different faiths in public elementary schools, and has also reignited a national debate about what it means to show preference for a particular religion— This is unconstitutional in public schools, according to the establishment clause of the First Amendment.

Officials at Carmel River School argued that tree lighting is non-religious in nature and is only to celebrate the holiday. But Lyons believes that the December 10th incident was not a religiously neutral incident, but a Christian incident.

Judge Beth Rabson Freeman wrote in his ruling against the restraining order that the allegations of “systematic recognition of the Christian faith” are “very serious” and that “the feeling of exclusion experienced by underage children is particularly disturbing. ". But she did not rule on a larger issue raised in Lyon’s lawsuit: whether the school showed a preference for Christianity.

The party on December 10 was hosted by the PTA of Carmel River School and required permission from the administrator to be held on school property. Although described as tree lights, the celebration also includes decorations to decorate the trees planted on campus.

Lyon regarded this event simply as a Christmas tree ceremony, and stated that although Christmas-themed celebrations and symbols can be seen everywhere in the school, other holiday symbols, such as Hanukkah and Kwanzaa, are not.

The school did try to include Hanukkah before and after the holidays. But a few years ago, when her children sang Hanukkah songs in their kindergarten holiday music program, Lyons said that it was introduced as an "Israeli" song, which for her meant that the Christmas song was just an "American" song.

"I have to explain to them that we are not Israelis and my daughter does not speak Hebrew," she said.

Before the tree light event, PTA invited school families to bring an item to decorate the tree, "reflecting their family, tradition and/or beliefs."

Lyons said that she and her husband were “shocked by the ignorance and offense of this suggestion.” They did not want to hang anything related to their family’s Judaism on the tree symbolizing the Christian holiday.

Instead, she asked to bring a Hanukkah object—a 6-foot-tall inflatable Hanukkah, or candlestick—to be displayed next to the tree.

The PTA and the school refused, saying that it was not eligible for decoration: the object could be packed into a paper lunch bag.

"As part of the December holiday celebrations, the school campus has never used large inflatable toys," Madden wrote in a statement submitted to the court.

The school stated that it provided Lyon with the opportunity to display her inflatable candlestick elsewhere, “when the use will not conflict with the scheduled event.” Lyons said the proposal was made after Hanukkah was over, but if Propose it earlier and she will consider it.

For many Jews, the idea of ​​decorating a tree with Jewish objects in December feels strange, if not indecent. Rabbi Bruce Greenbaum of the Beth Israel Congregation in the Carmel Reform Hall said that he usually advises the congregation to oppose it.

Greenbaum sent his children to Carmel River School and said that when he heard about the recent controversy, he called to express his dissatisfaction.

"Don't turn your Hanukkah into Christmas decorations," he said. "This is desecrating Hanukkah."

He does not agree that the lighting ceremony has nothing to do with Christmas, even though this tree is an existing tree on the school playground.

"I told them there is no such thing as a tree light, that's what they call it," he said. "You can call it a tree light, but it's just a Christmas tree light."

The Carmel Unified School District did not respond to a request for comment, citing an ongoing lawsuit.

Legally speaking, Lyon-who had asked the judge to declare the Carmel River School's practices unconstitutional and ordered school administrators to change the curriculum-faced a difficult climb from the beginning. This is the statement of Charles Russo, a law professor at the University of Dayton, who specializes in education law and co-authored a paper on the legal issues of Christmas celebrations in public schools in 2014.

Russo pointed out that in the Supreme Court’s Allegheny County v. American Civil Liberties Union case in 1989, the American Civil Liberties Union sued Pittsburgh County for displaying candlesticks, Christmas trees, and nativity scenes on city property. The court held that the Christmas tree “is not itself a religion. Symbol".

"If school officials don't have some clear Christian symbols," such as baby Jesus or nativity scenes, he said, "I don't think [the lawsuit] will go too far."

Lyons said she did not rule out the possibility of filing a new lawsuit. She also said that she had considered finding a new school for her third grade students, but another elementary school in her area was full. She said that in the end she was frustrated with the school's response to her complaint, regardless of whether the administrators are protected by law.

If the law allows schools to do it, "whether it's right or wrong," she said. "It doesn't matter if the child is injured."

A version of this article was originally published in J. The Jewish News of Northern California and reprinted with permission.

I accept the JTA privacy policy.

By submitting the above content, I agree to the privacy policy and terms of use of JTA.org