Tag: john whitehead

Categories
News

Campaign trail: Spy center backs off Trump sign ban

NGIC employee Mike Sienda has gotten the okay to display a smaller Trump sign on his vehicle at work, but the Rutherford Institute still wants clarification on what the spy center means when it calls this one a campaign vehicle. Photo by Eze Amos

Mike Sienda already felt aggrieved when his boss at the National Ground Intelligence Center’s Rivanna Station told him in early September to not show up on grounds with his giant Trump-Pence signs on the side of his box truck.

When he was told he couldn’t park on the federal property with a smaller Trump 2016: Make America Great Again sign in the back window of his Jeep, Sienda contacted the Rutherford Institute, a local civil rights org. And within two days of its attorneys writing NGIC October 12, he was told, uh, never mind, the smaller sign is just fine.

“I think they realized it’s protected speech,” says Sienda.

The spy center had cited the Hatch Act, which prohibits federal employees from engaging in on-the-job campaigning, when it first banned Sienda’s box truck. However, the Rutherford Institute argues that the act says workers can exercise their rights “unless expressly prohibited by law,” and the regs allow bumper stickers on personal vehicles, and do not “expressly prohibit” signs over a certain size.

Sienda still hasn’t gotten the okay to bring back the bigger signs on his truck, which the Rivanna Station called a “campaign vehicle.”

“We’re going to ask them to clarify that,” says Rutherford founder John Whitehead. “If the government uses these terms, they have to define them.”

NGIC did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Sienda is happy with his partial victory. “I’m glad to be able to participate in the political process and not worry about doing anything wrong,” he says.

Categories
News

Interact this way: Albemarle police pocket guide raises concerns

Albemarle’s new police chief, Ron Lantz, wants to foster cooperation during encounters with police. Eze Amos

A just-printed Albemarle County Police Department pamphlet was intended to build trust and cooperation between citizens and law enforcement during interactions that are now under a national spotlight. Its content, however, has alarmed some local attorneys, who say the guide’s instructions are incorrect or even unconstitutional.

“The document is very concerning,” says Legal Aid Justice Center’s Emily Dreyfus, who has held workshops on dealing with the police for kids in low-income neighborhoods. “I am always glad to see increased efforts at building positive relationships, but the pamphlet doesn’t adequately speak to the rights of the public.”

For example, people always have the right to remain silent, but the pamphlet says that right only becomes available when someone is taken into custody, she says. “This document mistakenly implies people are required to reveal their citizenship status,” she says.

The pamphlet, “Building Trust and Cooperation: A Guide to Interacting with Law Enforcement,” encourages people to record information if they have an interaction with a police officer that didn’t go well, but doesn’t say how to file a complaint and what will happen afterward, she says.

Last year Charlottesville police and the Office of Human Rights published its own pocket guide called “Your Rights and Responsibilities.”

Albemarle’s is “not a know-your-rights pamphlet,” says county police Chief Ron Lantz. “Cooperation is the key.” The side of the road is not the place to discuss whether the stop is justified and that’s why the guide provides numbers for citizens to call if they have a complaint, he says. “It’s all about working with the police.”

The project was started by his predecessor, Steve Sellers, and “was one of my first priorities,” says Lantz. Lehman Bates, pastor at Ebenezer Baptist Church and a member of the African American Pastors Council, Commonwealth’s Attorney Robert Tracci and Sin Barreras, a nonprofit that works with mostly Hispanic immigrants, helped create the guide.

lehmanBates-ezeBates wanted to work on a tool for traffic stops, which have become a “flash point” between citizens and police. “As a pastor and as an African-American, because of our history and because of current events, it was important for me to have this type of tool so those types of incidents do not occur,” he says.

For constitutional attorney and Rutherford Institute founder John Whitehead, who just published his latest commentary, “All the Ways You Can Comply and Still Die During An Encounter with Police,” not informing people of their rights is a glaring omission. “You don’t have to stop to talk to police,” he says. “You can walk away. If stopped while driving, you don’t have to automatically open your car for a search.” The pamphlet implies people have to allow pat downs, but police must have “reasonable suspicion” to do so, says Whitehead.

“It stops short of saying: Here are your rights, we can get along as long as you obey the police,” he says. “Case law does not support what is in the brochure.”

And Whitehead wonders why, with nationally known civil liberties groups here, police didn’t ask for some feedback.

Civil rights attorney Jeff Fogel is even more critical. “This is outrageous,” he says. “It should be titled, ‘You Must Be Obedient to the Police.’ Some of it is flatly wrong or deceiving.”

The brochure instructs, “You must not physically resist, obstruct or be abusive toward the police.” According to Fogel, citizens have the right to resist an unlawful arrest or the use of excessive force, and they have the right to curse at a police officer.

Fogel represents plaintiffs alleging racial profiling in three civil lawsuits he filed in February against the county and Albemarle officer Andrew Holmes.

The suits have nothing to do with the pamphlet, the work on which started more than a year ago, according to Lantz.

“Traffic stops are one of the most dangerous things we do,” he says. He’s implementing a “three-minute rule,” in which officers explain why they’re pulling over a driver and that it’s not just about writing tickets, he says.

“It is of vital importance for members of the public to realize that it is both improper and unlawful to resist or obstruct law enforcement in the conduct of their lawful duties,” says Commonwealth’s Attorney Tracci. “The pamphlet also encourages citizens to report any abuse or impropriety that may occur.”    

Currently the department has printed 100 copies of the four-page pocket guide in English and in Spanish, and when there are more, Lantz wants his officers to hand them out.

Critics hope the next printing will have some changes.

“Our community values collaboration, and I hope this pamphlet can be updated through a process that includes people from a range of viewpoints, so that we can make sure information is easily understood and fully explains people’s rights and responsibilities,” says Dreyfus. 

“How about a brochure on how the Albemarle Police Department will respect your constitutional rights?” suggests Fogel. “That would likely foster better cooperation between the PD and the community.”

policebrochure

Categories
News

Bad sign? Trump placards booted from NGIC parking lot

NGIC employee Mike Sienda has gotten the okay to display a smaller Trump sign on his vehicle at work, but the Rutherford Institute still wants clarification on what the spy center means when it calls this one a campaign vehicle. Photo by Eze Amos

Mike Sienda is a retired Army guy who now works as a federal employee at the National Ground Intelligence Center’s Rivanna Station, aka the “spy center.” Sienda is also a Donald Trump supporter, and at a recent rally he purchased two Trump/Pence signs and riveted them to the side of his box truck.

His efforts were not welcomed when he drove into work September 1. “They didn’t like it,” he says. “They said to take the signs down or remove the vehicle.”

Sienda went home, but he’s still fuming about the incident. “Just because I work for the government doesn’t mean I give up my rights,” he says.

Sienda says he was told he violated the Hatch Act, which prohibits federal employees from on-the-job politicking. “I asked what part of the Hatch Act I was in violation of,” he says. “They couldn’t tell me.”

According to NGIC spokesperson Rita McIntosh, an employee with a “large delivery truck with a billboard-sized partisan political banner attached to it” was asked to remove the vehicle because it violated the Hatch Act, based on guidelines from the Office of Special Counsel, which has advised that the display of more than a standard-sized political bumper sticker could be a violation.

Civil libertarian John Whitehead at the Rutherford Institute isn’t so sure.

“The issue here is whether this sign should be treated as a bumper sticker or a sign being displayed at the place of work,” says Whitehead.

He notes that the U.S. Supreme Court twice has upheld the Hatch Act, which says that while an employee “retains the right to vote as he chooses and to express his opinion on political subjects and candidates,” it also provides that a federal employee may not engage in political activity while on duty, in any room or building of a federal agency, while in uniform or using a federal vehicle.

Employees are allowed to run for office in nonpartisan elections, such as the school board, and can work for political parties, but can’t wear partisan buttons on the job.

Whitehead points out that Sienda was in the parking lot, not a building, so the sign could be considered a bumper sticker. “On the other hand, the purpose of the restriction would seem to forbid subjecting federal employees to partisan signs in the workplace, and this sign might well be viewable inside the building and considered not allowable,” he says.

The Supreme Court, he adds, has not ruled that a restriction prohibiting bumper stickers would violate the First Amendment, but it has hinted that such a restriction would go too far.

Other cars in the NGIC parking lot have political bumper stickers, says Sienda. “I suspect many people I work with don’t like Trump,” he says.

Sienda, 54, has contacted the ACLU of Virginia and the Rutherford Institute. “I feel strongly about my views and I understand the Constitution,” he says. “I want to express my right to participate in the political process. This election is the most important one I’ve ever participated in.”

While he’s hesitant to drive his van back to the spy center, Sienda has ordered a Trump bumper sticker and a window decal that he’s going to put on his car.

“If you don’t exercise your rights,” he says, “you give them up.”

Categories
News

Resident won’t take alleged constitutional rights violation lying down

Joe Draego feels he was prevented from exercising his free speech rights when City Council shut him down after he called Muslims “monstrous maniacs” and he was carried out of the June 20 council meeting. Now he's suing.

The man who lay down in front of the dais and was dragged out of a City Council meeting June 20 after calling Muslims “monstrous maniacs” has filed a lawsuit against the city, claiming his constitutional rights were violated.

Albemarle resident Joe Draego, 64, has been a regular at Charlottesville City Council meetings, voicing his concerns about Muslim immigrants. “Every time I’ve been there, I’ve said it’s not all Muslims,” says Draego.

At the June 20 meeting, during which councilors passed a gun control resolution after the Orlando nightclub slayings, Draego spoke again at the end of the meeting and said the Koran instructs Muslims to “kill the sodomites and those who allow themselves to be sodomized,” and described Muslims as “monstrous maniacs.” At that point, Mayor Mike Signer, who implemented new procedures for public comment at the beginning of the year, told Draego that those rules prohibit “group defamation.”

“I have a right to speak,” said Draego. “The Constitution gives me the right to speak.” He then lay on the floor and two police officers removed him.

Attorney Jeff Fogel, another regular at City Council meetings who objected to the new procedures, filed the lawsuit on behalf of Draego. “The suit maintains that there is no such thing as ‘group defamation,’ that the rule is unconstitutional since it allows for praise of a group but not negative comments,” Fogel says in a statement.

John Whitehead, founder of the local civil liberties organization, the Rutherford Institute, predicted the city would be sued. In a March 9 letter to City Council, he expressed concerns about the constitutionality of the new rules.

“What’s an improper comment?” asks Whitehead in an August 1 interview. “That the mayor has a big nose?” he says as an example, adding that he has no idea what size the mayor’s nose is, but that “improper comment” was not clearly defined.

Individuals can sue for defamation, he says, but not groups. The Founding Fathers called the British “tyrants,” says Whitehead, speech that also would be prohibited by City Council rules. “Today Jefferson and Patrick Henry would be thrown out of there,” he says.

In a statement, City Attorney Craig Brown says, “Courts have long recognized that local elected bodies have a significant interest in maintaining civility and orderliness during the public comment portions of a public meeting, and to that end the City Code requires the mayor to preserve the order and decorum of council’s meetings.

“Unfortunately, on June 20 Mr. Draego’s conduct was intimidating and disruptive to the evening’s proceedings and plainly violated City Council’s standards of order and decorum.”

For Draego, the lawsuit is a “small pushback” to maintain free speech. “I see my country disappearing before my eyes,” he says. “We ask questions and [city councilors] will not answer. We are marginalized.”

Draego wants elected officials to engage in conversation with citizens. And he says he’s “not a racist or bigot,” and those who consider his comments hate speech should be speaking out themselves against terrorist atrocities.

“I want City Council to tell the [International Rescue Committee] to not allow unattached Muslim males between 15 and 45,” says Draego. “And for every Muslim family, bring in a Christian family.”

Categories
News

Censorship or civility? Debate about new City Council procedures rages on

Photo by Rammelkamp Foto

City Councilor Bob Fenwick could be in big trouble. He spoke to a C-VILLE reporter recently about his concerns with new council meeting procedures and didn’t “explicitly” state it was his individual opinion and that he was not representing council, as required by the new rules.

“I really objected to this,” says Fenwick, who was the lone dissenter February 16 in the 4-1 vote. That was one clue he was not representing council when he spoke to C-VILLE. Ditto for the letter he wrote headlined “Freedom of speech or controlled speech?” that appeared in the March 6 Daily Progress.

That same issue contained an op-ed from activist Walt Heinecke—“Tightened grip undermines dissent”—criticizing new meeting procedures, as well as a letter from the four other councilors—“Efficiency of meetings will benefit public”—defending the new rules.

On March 9, local civil liberties organization the Rutherford Institute weighed in with a letter to council, challenging the constitutionality of the new rules. Rutherford letter to city council 3-09-2016

Forbidden behaviors such as “improper comments” and “disorderly conduct” are problems for Rutherford founder John Whitehead because of their vagueness. “They’re not defined,” he says. “Civility is another guise for censorship.”

He also notes that telling elected officials they can go to hell is protected speech, although council’s ban against profanity or vulgar language or gestures has been on the books since 2013.

In the section of the new procedures titled “Mayor as presiding officer,” Whitehead finds it particularly egregious that in the case of a disturbance, the mayor can order audio and visual equipment turned off, and he notes that nothing in the rule limits its application to city-owned equipment, “so by its plain terms it could be used by the mayor to stop citizens from using personal recording equipment,” he writes.

He says City Council has approved surveillance cameras on the Downtown Mall. “Why can’t we watch City Council?” asks Whitehead. “Why would the mayor shut down video equipment if there was a disturbance? Who is he protecting?”

City Attorney Craig Brown responded to Rutherford Institute allegations with a letter to City Council, and he disputes any notion that the new procedures are unconstitutional. “As you know, during the deliberation and discussion of this policy, there was never any suggestion that it would be used to restrain members of the media or the public in taking notes or making their own audio or visual recordings,” he says. city response to rutherford

Brown doesn’t address why the mayor needs kill-switch power over city-owned equipment.

When asked, Mayor Mike Signer says in an e-mail, “This was all about Council making our government as fair, accessible and effective for as many folks as possible. As our city attorney has advised, these new procedures are wholly consistent with the First Amendment and Virginia law. With that said, we should always be considering the effectiveness of all our policies, and these procedures, including the section you cite, should be no exception.”

Fenwick points out that the debate on the new policy took place at a Saturday work session attended by one citizen at which no public comment was allowed. “The public had no input on this,” he says.

Most bothersome for Fenwick, he says, are the lack of transparency and the lack of public participation in the new procedures. “Everything was done at once,” he says.

The new procedures nix councilors replying to citizen comments and direct them to defer to City Manager Maurice Jones’ responses, unless, at the discretion of the mayor, a councilor is recognized to respond to an individual public comment.

“I’m being silenced,” says Fenwick. He feels further stifled by another rule that now requires two councilors rather than one to request the removal of consent agenda items and placing them at the end of the meeting for discussion. “If I’m working against a 4-1 majority, it’s pretty clear I’ve got a tough row to hoe,” he says.

One thing Fenwick doesn’t object to: the three-minute limit on councilors’ comments to make the meetings more efficient and end by 11pm.

Brown finds “no compelling reason to recommend any amendments” to the new procedures, and says with the rare exception of those who have attempted to disrupt and hijack the meeting, speakers have enjoyed full exercise of their free speech rights. “The First Amendment does not compel City Council to conduct its meetings in a manner akin to ‘The Jerry Springer Show,’” he writes.

Whitehead disagrees with Brown’s assessment. “I’m a nationwide authority on this,” he says. “If they aren’t going to listen to a constitutional authority, who are they going to listen to?”

He says such policies are a national phenomenon “to keep citizen comment to a minimum,” and he cites James Madison, who said he wrote the First Amendment to protect the minority from the majority.

Asks Whitehead, “Do we want that or do we want a group of bureaucrats who don’t want improper comments?”

The new procedures went into effect March 7.

 Correction: Council will review the lottery sign-up procedure in six months, not the meeting procedures as a whole as originally reported. And Bob Fenwick should have been quoted as having a tough row, not road, to hoe.

Categories
News

SWAT PTSD: Albemarle police sued for false imprisonment

Benjamin Burruss sits in the same truck he was in in 2013 when Albemarle police held him for two hours until a SWAT team exploded a flash grenade and broke his window. staff photo

How many cops does it take to check on a man when his employer is concerned that he hasn’t shown up for work?

At least a dozen, by Benjamin Marshall Burruss’ estimate.

According to his November 19 lawsuit filed in federal court, Albemarle County Police held Burruss for two hours in his truck after he said he was fine, had no intention of harming anyone and didn’t want to talk to police, then used a flash grenade, bashed in his window, hauled him out of the truck and had him committed for psychiatric evaluation for more than 72 hours.

“I didn’t understand why this was taking place,” he says in an interview at the Rutherford Institute, whose attorneys have filed suit against Albemarle County and five police officers. “It was a nightmare.”

Burruss, 58, was born in Charlottesville, graduated from Albemarle High and was employed at Northrop Grumman for 32 years, starting when it was still Sperry Marine. He had a security clearance and worked in logistics, supplying Northrop’s security products to people around the world 24-7, 365 days a year, he says.

“He was an exemplary employee,” says his attorney, Michael Winget-Hernandez. “This event put an end to his career.”

Burruss says he’d missed a few days of work because he was adjusting to medication his doctor had given him for depression. And because of marital problems, he was staying at the Comfort Inn on Pantops.

“I needed some space,” he says. And he decided to go to Montana for some bird hunting.

According to the complaint, Northrop Grumman contacted Albemarle police the morning of November 21, 2013, and asked officers to do a welfare check on Burruss. Police were told he was at the Comfort Inn, was planning to go hunting, may have a firearm but had not made any statements that he wanted to harm himself or others, says the lawsuit.

Burruss checked out of the hotel, and in the parking lot, officers in a police car said they wanted to speak to him. “I said I didn’t want to speak to them,” he says. “I knew I hadn’t done anything wrong.”

The officers kept saying they wanted him to get out of the truck and talk to them, according to the complaint. Burruss kept saying he didn’t want to talk to them unless they had a warrant, and that he wanted to leave.

“I didn’t want to get out with all these police around me,” says Burruss. “I said, ‘I can hear you through the window.’”

Burruss had a 12-gauge shotgun in the backseat for bird hunting “in plain view with the action open,” says his attorney. “Any police would know it couldn’t be fired. That’s the safety position.”

For two hours, Burruss refused to get out of his truck and Albemarle police refused to let him leave and put a stinger under his tires, according to the lawsuit. Officer Garnett “Chip” Riley, who talked to Burruss throughout the stand-off, at one point said, “We got nothin,’” and “I got no reason to hold him,” claims
the suit.

Officer Jatana Rigsby then contacted Burruss’ wife, who also said he’d made no statements that he intended to harm anyone, according to the complaint. Kelly Burruss was told to get an emergency custody order because her husband was “acting irrationally,” says Winget-Hernandez. After seeing a magistrate and getting an ECO, she also brought police an extra key to Burruss’ truck.

Winget-Hernandez notes that the sworn petition Kelly Burruss filed has never come to light, although it’s the legal grounds for detaining Burruss. “Either it never existed or it disappeared,” he says.

Burruss told police he was tired and was going to take a nap, says Winget-Hernandez. That’s when the SWAT team exploded the flash grenade, busted his driver’s side window and yanked him out of the car, says Burruss.

“I saw four to six SWAT guys coming at me with assault rifles,” he says. “I thought I was going to die.”

Burruss was handcuffed, relieved of his pocketknife and put in a police car, still not knowing why police were detaining him and thinking it was a case of mistaken identity and that he was headed to jail, he says.

Instead, he was taken to UVA Medical Center and held for more than 72 hours.

It was afterward that his health problems began. “I started seeing counselors and was diagnosed with [post-traumatic stress disorder],” says Burruss. He struggled to sleep and with flashbacks. “I couldn’t get any of this out of my mind,” he says two years later.

“I was battered,” he says. “I was robbed. I was stripped of my family, my home, my dignity”—here his voice breaks—“and my self worth.”

Says Burruss: “To this day I don’t understand why they took the approach they did.”

He says his suit against officers Riley, Rigsby, Kanie Richardson, Robert Warfel, Captain Pete Mainzer and the county is to hold them accountable. “I hope this never happens to anybody else,” says Burruss. “I wish it hadn’t happened to me. I wish they’d been better informed and better trained. They made some terrible decisions.”

Albemarle officers receive 40 hours a year of crisis intervention training to learn to de-escalate non-violent situations, says police spokesperson Madeline Curott. They may also elect to take other mental health training. Curott says the department has not been served with Burruss’ lawsuit.

“This is just one more example of how a relatively benign situation—a routine welfare check—gets escalated into something far more violent and dangerous through the use of militarized police armed to the teeth and trained to act combatively,” says John Whitehead, president of the Rutherford Institute and author of Battlefield America: The War on the American People.

For Burruss, along with the emotional trauma and financial impact on his family stemming from the encounter, he also had to pay for his involuntary stay at UVA Medical Center. And he has to deal with people wondering what’s wrong with him. “It’s unjust,” he says. “I’ve never hurt anyone. I’ve been violated.”

Categories
News

Wyld thing: Parents at Buford concerned about recruiting tactics

Word of fliers about a Christian group party caused consternation among some parents at Buford Middle School. Staff photo

When Manuel Lerdau heard from his seventh-grader a couple of weeks ago that a Christian youth organization was recruiting at Buford Middle School under the guise of a party, he became concerned.

“Representatives from WyldLife were at Buford during lunch recruiting students to attend WyldLife events, and doing it in a way that was not making it clear the religious nature of the group, while emphasizing the social nature of the event,” says Lerdau.

While his own kids participate in religious youth events, he says, “My response is this is not something that should happen on school grounds during school hours.”

Pam DeGuzman’s daughter came home in October and said she wanted to go to a WyldLife party—until her mom told her it was a religious group. “It seems like they don’t completely expose they’re a Christian organization,” says DeGuzman.

WyldLife group leaders were passing out fliers in the lunchroom, according to DeGuzman. Her concern? “You mean other than it’s against the law?” she asks. “My concern is it’s illegal and they’re doing it when parents are not involved.”

DeGuzman says she has friends who are in Young Life, a worldwide Christian youth organization dedicated to helping teens, “and they’re lovely. It’s just that they’re recruiting at school.”

Buford Principal Eric Johnson says he doesn’t know anything about the fliers. He is aware of students involved with WyldLife, the younger-brother arm of Young Life. The local chapter is a UVA-funded student group.

A couple of Young Life volunteers are mentors for Buford students and have permission to stop by and say hi to their kids, says Johnson. He believes the incident that riled some Buford parents was when a student overheard news about the party and told the Young Life volunteer he wanted to go. The volunteer wrote a phone number on a card and gave it to the student, urging the student to talk to his or her parents, says Johnson. And while he calls it “an innocent mistake,” he says, “I don’t condone any adult coming in and giving their number to a child.”

Johnson says he met with the Young Life representatives about what can and cannot happen on school grounds. And, for now, they’re stepping back.

“I do not allow organizations to come in and recruit,” he says. And if anyone wants to distribute a flier, it has to be approved through his office.

City schools spokesperson Beth Cheuk says the school division welcomes mentors from organizations such as Young Life and 100 Black Men of Central Virginia, and that Johnson screened the Young Lifers. “These students are super nice,” she says. “It seems a shame to turn away mentors.” The Young Life volunteers were not there to proselytize, says Cheuk, but to reach out to students with whom they already have a relationship.

Cheuk, too, had heard nothing about flier distribution. “If there really is a flier, we need to know about it because we have a strict policy on fliers on school property,” she says.

Heather Beam, Young Life area director, confirms that her members have passed out fliers at Buford, although in an e-mail to Johnson, she says they were given to kids who were involved in WyldLife and she apologizes for not knowing that was a no-no on school grounds.

She says in an e-mail to C-VILLE that many Buford students attend WyldLife programs, such as weekly meetings, weekend events and summer camping trips, and that Young Life volunteers are actively involved with adolescents, teen moms and students with special needs in a dozen local schools.

To parents who claim Young Life is trying to recruit kids to Christianity under the guise of social events, Beam responds, “We are a Christian organization. Our gatherings give students a chance to have fun in a safe, socially neutral space off campus and all students are welcome. Club meetings often include a simple discussion of the life of Jesus and His example.”

For now, Young Lifers will not be lunching at Buford. “They don’t want to come while people feel uncomfortable,” says Cheuk.

Civil libertarian John Whitehead, president of the Rutherford Institute, says his organization took a case to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2001 in which the court ruled that if a public school allows other groups, it can’t practice viewpoint discrimination.

“If I were a principal, I’d be very careful about letting any group in,” says Whitehead. “I think it’s a little troublesome to have adults giving kids phone numbers.” Whitehead also advises that schools have clear, written guidelines.

“We have and always will comply with any requirements set by the school administration,” says Beam.

Lerdau says he was satisfied with the quick action Johnson took at Buford. “It was too suggestive of the government endorsing that particular religion or religious group,” he says. “I don’t think there should be any religious activity during school hours.”