Chaudhuri v. State of Tenn.
Decision Date | 18 November 1997 |
Docket Number | No. 96-5538,96-5538 |
Citation | 130 F.3d 232 |
Parties | 122 Ed. Law Rep. 573 Dr. Dilip K. CHAUDHURI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE OF TENNESSEE, Tennessee State University; Dr. Annie Neal; Dr. Decatur Rogers; Dr. James A. Hefner; and Dr. Arthur C. Washington, Defendants-Appellees. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Joseph H. Johnston (argued and briefed), Nashville, TN, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Linda A. Ross, Asst. Attorney Gen. (argued and briefed), Michael E. Moore (briefed), Office of the Attorney General, Nashville, TN, for State of Tenn., Tennessee State Univ., and Annie Neal.
Leslie A. Bridges (briefed), Office of the Attorney General, Criminal Justice Division, Nashville, TN, Linda A. Ross, Asst. Attorney Gen., Michael E. Moore, Office of the Attorney General, Nashville, TN, for Decatur Rogers, James A. Hefner, and Arthur C. Washington.
Marshall Beil (argued and briefed), Ross & Hardies, New York City, for Amicus Curiae.
Before: JONES, NELSON, and RYAN, Circuit Judges.
NELSON, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which RYAN, J., joined. JONES, (pp. 240-41), delivered a separate opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.
The question presented here is whether a nonsectarian prayer or moment of silence at a public university function violates the First Amendment. We answer the question "no."
Tennessee State University formerly made it a practice to include invocations and benedictions at certain university events. The plaintiff, Dilip K. Chaudhuri, Ph.D., brought the present lawsuit to contest the constitutionality of this practice. The university then discontinued the prayers and adopted a moment of silence instead. Dr. Chaudhuri challenged the moment of silence as well, alleging that the intent behind the change was to allow the continuation of prayers.
Finding no violation of either the Establishment Clause or the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, the district court entered summary judgment for the defendants. We agree that the practices in question are not unconstitutional. The judgment will be affirmed.
Dr. Chaudhuri came to this country from India in 1971, and in due course he became a naturalized United States citizen. He is a tenured professor of mechanical engineering at Tennessee State University in Nashville. An adherent of the Hindu religion, he repeatedly expressed his unhappiness over TSU's custom of having prayers offered at university functions such as graduation exercises, faculty meetings, dedication ceremonies, and guest lectures.
Responding to a complaint from Dr. Chaudhuri, the general counsel of the State University and Community College System of Tennessee issued an opinion letter to its member institutions in May of 1988. The letter stated that prayers at university events are not unconstitutional if they do not appear to favor or endorse any particular religious view. The letter went on to suggest that a moment of silence would be an "appropriate vehicle for allowing the tradition of prayer without running afoul of the Constitution."
Based on this opinion letter, perhaps, TSU officials decided that prayers at university events should be of a "generic," nonsectarian nature. Many of the newly genericized prayers were delivered by Dr. James Haney, a clergyman and associate professor of history. Such prayers were also offered by local religious leaders at the invitation of TSU. The university did not review the prayers in advance and did not provide any guidelines for content, other than to request that the prayers be nonsectarian and that references to Jesus Christ be omitted.
The following prayer, delivered by Dr. Haney at commencement exercises in May of 1991, was typical:
Dr. Chaudhuri filed his civil rights action against the State of Tennessee, TSU, and several TSU administrators in January of 1991. The complaint alleged that the defendants had violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by twice failing to promote Dr. Chaudhuri on account of his religion and national origin. 1 The complaint also alleged that the practice of offering prayers at TSU functions violated rights protected by the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment. The complaint included a prayer for compensatory damages, as well as declaratory and injunctive relief.
Dr. Chaudhuri asserted that as a TSU faculty member he was required to attend university functions at which prayers were offered. His performance evaluations were based in part on a "university service" component and he maintained that this included participation in university events.
The defendants responded that Dr. Chaudhuri was not required to attend the functions in question and did not receive lower scores for absenting himself. Faculty members were encouraged to attend certain university-wide events, according to the defendants, but were not required to do so. Attendance was not monitored. The defendants represent that no employee of TSU--including Dr. Chaudhuri--has suffered any adverse consequences for failing to attend a university function of the sort with which we are concerned in this case.
In April of 1993 Dr. Chaudhuri moved for a preliminary injunction that would have prevented the offering of a prayer at commencement exercises scheduled for the next month. At about the same time that the motion was filed, TSU President James Hefner issued a policy statement announcing that there would be no verbal prayers at the exercises. He informed graduation planners that a moment of silence would be acceptable to "afford dignity and formality to the event ... and to solemnize the occasion." On the strength of the new TSU policy, the district court denied Dr. Chaudhuri's request for injunctive relief.
The program for the May graduation exercises included a moment of silence. On reaching that point in the program, the speaker asked everyone to rise and remain silent. The moment that followed proved less than silent. Someone, or a group of people, began to recite the Lord's Prayer aloud. Many audience members joined in--spontaneously, by all accounts--and loud applause followed. TSU officials say they had no advance knowledge of what was going to happen.
Dr. Chaudhuri filed a second motion for a preliminary injunction, pointing out that prayers were still being delivered at university functions other than graduation ceremonies. In light of the incident at the graduation ceremony, he asked that moments of silence be enjoined as well. President Hefner responded with an affidavit stating that moments of silence would replace prayers at all university functions where prayers had been offered in the past. Dr. Hefner also attested that he had instructed his staff to clarify that faculty attendance at university events, while encouraged, was not mandatory. The district court denied the injunction.
Summer graduation exercises were scheduled for early August of 1993. The keynote speaker was Dr. David Jones, Jr., a prominent educator and administrator in the Nashville public school system. As noted in the commencement program, Dr. Jones was also the pastor at a local church. When Dr. Jones asked the audience to stand for a moment of silence, a portion of the audience again recited the Lord's Prayer. TSU officials denied complicity in this incident as well.
The defendants eventually moved for summary judgment on all of Dr. Chaudhuri's claims. In January of 1995 the district court granted the motion on the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause claims. Chaudhuri v. State of Tennessee, 886 F.Supp. 1374 (M.D.Tenn.1995). After a final judgment had been entered, Dr. Chaudhuri appealed the disposition of his First Amendment claims.
The Establishment Clause provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...." U.S. Const. amend. I. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment makes the Establishment Clause applicable to the states. Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263, 271 n. 8, 102 S.Ct. 269, 275 n. 8, 70 L.Ed.2d 440 (1981); Pinette v. Capitol Square Review & Advisory Bd., 30 F.3d 675, 677 (6th Cir.1994), aff'd, 515 U.S. 753, 115 S.Ct. 2440, 132...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Khatri v. Ohio State Univ.
...do not contest that these qualify as protected); Chaudhuri v. State of Tenn., 886 F. Supp. 1374, 1381 (M.D. Tenn. 1995), aff'd, 130 F.3d 232 (6th Cir. 1997) (Defendants did not dispute that plaintiff who is Hindu and from India established a prima facie case of discrimination). Regarding el......
-
Doe v. Santa Fe Independent School Dist.
..."Father" instead of "God," will we intervene? (Must the invocation be gender-neutral?) See Chaudhuri v. Tennessee, 130 F.3d 232, 241 n. 2 (6th Cir.1997) (Jones, J., concurring and dissenting) (noting that the supplication to " 'Heavenly Father' contains a package of religious bias"), cert. ......
-
Adler v. Duval County School Bd.
... ... Clause, and instead found that the following "dominant facts" controlled their decision: (1) state officials directed the performance of a formal religious exercise at graduation ceremonies; and ... See Chaudhuri v. Tennessee, 130 F.3d 232, 236 ... Page 1267 ... (6th Cir.1997); Tanford v. Brand, 104 F.3d ... ...
-
Aclu of Ohio Foundation, Inc. v. Ashbrook
...secular purpose is entitled to deference." Brooks v. City of Oak Ridge, 222 F.3d 259, 265 (6th Cir. 2000); Chaudhuri v. Tennessee, 130 F.3d 232, 236 (6th Cir.1997). The district court should defer to the government's assertion of a legitimate secular purpose unless the assertion is a "sham.......
-
Religion in the military: navigating the channel between the religion clauses.
...Lee, 505 U.S. at 642 (Scalia, J., dissenting). But this view is not shared by a majority of the Court. (70) See Chaudhuri v. Tennessee, 130 F.3d 232, 238-39 (6th Cir. (71) Mellen v. Bunting, 327 F.3d 355, 371-72 (4th Cir. 2003). (72) See, e.g., Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of the Un......
-
Varied Carols: Legislative Prayer in a Pluralist Polity
...Zandt v. Thompson, 839 F.2d 1215, 1221 (7th Cir. 1988) (permitting reference to "God" in legislative resolution); Chaudhuri v. Tennessee, 130 F.3d 232 (6th Cir. 1997) (allowing reference in challenged prayer to God, but indicating that explicit or implicit references to Jesus Christ would m......
-
Sistema educativo universitario
...por determinar si existía una vulneración o no de la establisment 337 466 F.2d 283 (D.C. Cir. 1972). 338 104 F.3d982 (7th Cir. 1997). 339 130 F.3d 232 (6th Cir. 1997). Libertad de conciencia y escuela en Estados Unidos 153 clause utilizando el lemon test , en virtud del cual las normas del ......