Off-campus Bible program reps threaten legal action against Everett schools – Everett Herald

Report on Legal Dispute Between LifeWise Academy and Everett Public Schools

Introduction: A Conflict of Rights and Institutional Policy

A legal conflict has emerged between LifeWise Academy, a provider of off-campus Bible education, and Everett Public Schools. Attorneys for LifeWise Academy have issued a formal demand letter to the school district, alleging unfair treatment and infringement of First Amendment rights. This dispute highlights critical tensions between religious freedom, public education policy, and the commitment to fostering inclusive and equitable learning environments, issues that directly intersect with several United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

Analysis through the Lens of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions

This conflict is fundamentally a matter of institutional governance and access to justice. The actions of both parties can be analyzed against the targets of SDG 16.

• Target 16.3 (Promote the rule of law and ensure equal access to justice): LifeWise Academy’s threat of legal action is a direct invocation of the legal system to seek remedy and protect its constitutional rights, demonstrating a reliance on the rule of law to address grievances.
• Target 16.6 (Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions): The dispute calls into question the policies and administrative procedures of Everett Public Schools. LifeWise’s demands for policy changes are an effort to make the institution’s rules, in their view, more accountable and transparently fair to all community groups.
• Target 16.B (Promote and enforce non-discriminatory laws and policies): The core of LifeWise’s claim is that the district’s policies are discriminatory based on religious viewpoint. Conversely, the district’s stance, as articulated by board members, aims to enforce policies that protect vulnerable student groups from potential discrimination and exclusion.

SDG 4: Quality Education

The provision of quality education requires creating learning environments that are inclusive and respectful of diversity, a key component of SDG 4.

• Target 4.7 (Education for sustainable development and global citizenship): This case touches upon the goal of ensuring learners acquire knowledge and skills for the appreciation of cultural diversity. The school board’s expressed concerns about protecting non-Christian and LGBTQ students reflect an effort to maintain an inclusive learning environment for all, which is essential for fostering global citizenship and respect for human rights.

SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

The dispute presents competing perspectives on equality and non-discrimination, central to SDG 10.

• Target 10.3 (Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome): LifeWise argues for equal opportunity, demanding the same access to school facilities and communication channels as secular organizations. From another perspective, school board member Charles Adkins’ statements highlight a commitment to reducing inequalities by protecting historically marginalized groups—including students of color, native students, and LGBTQ youth—from practices he views as potentially harmful and exclusionary.

Summary of the Dispute

Legal Framework and Background

While Washington state lacks specific laws on off-site religious instruction, a 1956 U.S. Supreme Court ruling permits such programs. State guidance allows schools to dismiss students for this purpose, provided the school does not encourage or discourage participation. LifeWise Academy initiated a chapter at Emerson Elementary School, with subsequent approvals in Edmonds, Mukilteo, and Northshore districts.

LifeWise Academy’s Allegations and Demands

The legal letter sent to the district outlines several grievances and makes specific demands for policy changes.

1. Retract Online Guidelines: The district is asked to remove its website guidelines concerning religious-related activities.
2. Amend District Policies: Three policy sections covering school resources, material distribution, and religious services must be amended to apply neutrally, without regard to viewpoint.
3. Cease Alleged Censorship: The letter demands the district stop what it terms “censoring and violating the free speech and free exercise rights” of religious groups.

Specific Instances of Alleged Unfair Treatment

• Exclusion from the district’s annual community resource fair.
• Prohibition of LifeWise flyers in the school lobby.
• A requirement that students keep LifeWise materials in a sealed envelope upon returning to school.
• A “needlessly complicated” policy requiring parents to submit a new permission note each week for their child’s attendance.

Position of Everett Public Schools

Official Response

The district has confirmed receipt of the correspondence from LifeWise’s legal representation. A spokesperson stated the letter is currently under review by legal counsel and declined further comment.

School Board Stance

Members of the Everett school board have publicly stated their position on the program.

• Board President Traci Mitchell: Clarified that while the board does not endorse off-campus religious instruction during school hours, it recognizes the right of parents to request their child’s release for such purposes.
• Board Member Charles Adkins: Voiced strong opposition, citing LifeWise’s affiliation with the Heritage Foundation and Project 2025. He raised concerns based on the history of religious education’s impact on children of color, native children, and LGBTQ youth, framing the program as a potential source of “religious brainwashing and bullying.”

Conclusion and Impending Deadline

LifeWise Academy has set a deadline of December 5 for the district to provide written assurance of policy changes. Failure to meet this deadline may result in litigation. The attorneys for LifeWise contend that the school board’s opposition is motivated by “animus” and is unconstitutional. The next school board meeting is scheduled for December 9, four days after the deadline, setting the stage for a potential escalation of this legal and ideological conflict.

Analysis of the Article in Relation to Sustainable Development Goals

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 4: Quality Education

  The article is centered on a conflict within the Everett Public Schools system. The debate over the LifeWise program’s presence and the school’s policies directly impacts the learning environment. A school board member’s concerns about potential “bullying of non-Christian and LGBT kids” and creating a safe space for all students connect the issue to the goal of ensuring inclusive and equitable quality education.

• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

  This goal is relevant from two perspectives. First, LifeWise Academy alleges “unfair treatment” and claims the school district’s policies are discriminatory by not giving them the “same access to public facilities as it does to secular organizations.” Second, a school board member raises concerns about the program’s potential to create inequality and harm for minority groups, including “kids of color, of native kids, of LGBT kids,” citing a “dark history that religious education has in this country.”

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

  The core of the article revolves around a legal dispute concerning First Amendment rights, institutional policies, and access to justice. LifeWise Academy has threatened legal action, demanding that the school district, a public institution, change its policies. This engages with the principles of developing effective, accountable institutions, ensuring equal access to justice, and promoting non-discriminatory laws and policies.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. Target 4.a: Build and upgrade education facilities that are child, disability and gender sensitive and provide safe, non-violent, inclusive and effective learning environments for all.

   This target is implicated by the school board member’s statement expressing fear of “religious brainwashing and bullying of non-Christian and LGBT kids.” The debate is fundamentally about what constitutes a safe and inclusive learning environment for every student in the district.

2. Target 10.3: Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome, including by eliminating discriminatory laws, policies and practices and promoting appropriate legislation, policies and action in this regard.

   LifeWise’s demand that the district “amend three sections of its policy” to eliminate what they perceive as discriminatory practices directly relates to this target. They are arguing that the current policies create an inequality of opportunity for their religious organization compared to secular ones.

3. Target 16.3: Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all.

   The letter from LifeWise’s attorneys threatening to “advise LifeWise of all available legal remedies to protect its First Amendment rights” is a clear invocation of this target. The organization is seeking to use the legal system to ensure what it considers to be equal access and justice.

4. Target 16.7: Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels.

   This target is highlighted by the article’s mention that LifeWise’s requests to “work with the district to change the policy” were met with delays. The statement that the “district responded by offering dates months into the future” for a meeting suggests a breakdown in responsive and participatory decision-making processes.

5. Target 16.b: Promote and enforce non-discriminatory laws and policies for sustainable development.

   The entire conflict is centered on this target. LifeWise claims the district’s policies are discriminatory. The attorneys’ letter asks the district to “cease censoring and violating the free speech and free exercise rights of religious community groups,” which is a direct challenge to the enforcement of what they see as discriminatory policies.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

• Policies on Inclusive Learning Environments

  The existence and content of the school district’s policies regarding religious activities and student safety serve as an indicator. The demand to “retract guidelines published on its website” and “amend three sections of its policy” implies that the number and nature of policies reviewed or changed can measure progress toward creating an inclusive environment (Target 4.a).

• Reports of Discrimination and Legal Challenges

  The letter from the attorneys threatening legal action is a direct indicator of perceived discrimination and a lack of equal access to justice. The number of legal challenges or formal complaints filed against the school district’s policies would be a quantifiable measure of progress (or lack thereof) toward Targets 10.3, 16.3, and 16.b.

• Stakeholder Engagement and Responsiveness

  The article implies an indicator for Target 16.7 by noting the district’s delayed response to a meeting request. The frequency and timeliness of meetings between the school district and community groups like LifeWise can be used to measure the responsiveness and inclusivity of the institution’s decision-making process.

SDGs, Targets, and Indicators Summary

Source: heraldnet.com