Comment: LifeWise misreads Constitution in suing Everett Schools

Published 1:30 am Saturday, February 7, 2026

By Molly Gaines / For The Herald

Jeremy Dys’ recent commentary in support of LifeWise Academy’s lawsuit against Everett School District rests on a critical but misleading premise: that because released-time religious instruction is constitutionally permitted, public schools are therefore required to accommodate, facilitate or promote it (“Comment: Why LifeWise found it necessary to sue Everett Schools,” The Herald, Jan. 24). That premise is wrong.

The Everett School District has not prohibited religion or interfered with parental rights. Everett families remain fully free to arrange off-campus religious instruction for their children, just as they always have. What the district declined to do is integrate a religious organization into the school day or promote it through district-controlled platforms. That distinction is not hostility. It’s constitutional responsibility.

Released-time programs have existed since the early 20th century and were later addressed by the Supreme Court in 1952, which permitted off-campus religious instruction only under carefully limited circumstances. The court emphasized that public schools must not sponsor, promote or become entangled with religious instruction. The program survived constitutional scrutiny precisely because the school system maintained separation and restraint. The ruling did not require school districts to assist religious programs; it allowed them to step aside.

That nuance is missing from Dys’ argument.

The U.S. Constitution does not require public schools to coordinate schedules for religious programs, track student participation, advertise them at school events, or include them in district-curated materials. Those actions are discretionary, not mandatory; and when religion is involved, discretion must be exercised carefully to avoid endorsement. A school district does not violate the First Amendment by declining to take on administrative or promotional roles for religious organizations.

Everett’s decisions fall squarely within that framework.

School-run resource fairs and information tables are not neutral public forums. They are curated by the district, and inclusion carries the reasonable perception of endorsement. Parents reasonably assume that programs highlighted in school spaces have been vetted and approved by the district. Excluding a religious organization from those spaces is not discrimination; it is a safeguard. Public schools are not constitutionally required to serve as recruitment or marketing channels for religious instruction, particularly when participation occurs during the school day.

Dys repeatedly characterizes these boundaries as “religious animus.” That framing distorts both the facts and the law. Neutrality toward religion does not require identical treatment. The First Amendment often demands different treatment to prevent state endorsement. Courts have long recognized that religion occupies a unique constitutional position, one that requires careful separation, not institutional preference.

Equally important is what Dys omits: the operational responsibilities Everett officials must manage when students leave campus during the school day. Released-time programs require districts to account for attendance, ensure students are properly released and returned, manage supervision gaps, and address instructional disruption. Particularly when students miss scheduled classes, support services or specialized instruction. Those logistical burdens fall on the district, not the religious organization, and they affect every student in the building, not only those who participate.

There is also a student-equity dimension that deserves serious consideration. When religious instruction is embedded into the school day, students who do not participate may experience isolation, stigma or pressure. Especially in small schools, districts or close-knit communities. Public schools have an obligation to ensure that students are not implicitly sorted by religion or made to feel like outsiders because of their beliefs or their families’ choices. Maintaining distance between school operations and religious programming helps protect that neutrality.

These concerns are not abstract. School boards are charged with maintaining safety, continuity of instruction and equity for all students. When a district determines that facilitating a religious program during the school day complicates those obligations or risks crossing constitutional boundaries, it is not acting out of hostility. It is exercising the judgment voters expect.

The claim that LifeWise was “forced” to sue is also misleading. Litigation was a choice. Everett did not revoke an existing right or prohibit religious practice. It declined to extend institutional support beyond what the Constitution requires. Notably, public reporting shows that during early discussions with Everett officials, LifeWise representatives indicated they were willing to operate within the district’s existing policies; before later characterizing those same boundaries as unconstitutional.

The Free Exercise Clause protects religious belief and practice from government interference. It does not compel government participation. That distinction matters most in public schools, where students are a captive audience and the line between accommodation and endorsement must be carefully maintained.

Public schools do not violate the Constitution by refusing to promote religion. They honor it by remaining neutral.

Everett School District’s actions reflect that principle. Framing constitutional restraint as hostility may make for compelling rhetoric, but it does not reflect the law; or the responsibility entrusted to public school districts.

Molly Gaines is executive director of the Secular Education Association.