Establishment Clause

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/28/us/battling-anew-over-the-place-of-religion-in-public-schools.html?_r=3&ref=todayspaper&

After reading the article, the scenario which I found to be the most clearly unconstitutional was the public middle school assembly in Jefferson, South Carolina in which a preacher and a rapper were sermonizing, rousing their audience to "step forward to pledge themselves to Christ". Those that stayed in their seats must have felt horribly uncomfortable, and it almost certainly interfered with their ability to learn, which is what they were in school for. And since it was organized by the principal, it's a blatant violation of the Supreme Court decisions in the early 1960s which forbid "official promotion of religion in schools". This public school is also decorated with the Ten Commandments, pictures of Jesus, crosses, and bibles, and the principal often starts off school programs with a prayer. It all creates an environment which is highly discomforting for a student who does not identify himself or herself as a Christian. Mr. Tanner said that when something impedes a student from learning it is encroaching on his or her rights, it is unconstitutional, and it cannot be allowed in school. The aggressive pushing of religion at this South Carolina middle school is out of control, and certainly unconstitutional. 
The case in which students were "banned from writing Merry Christmas to the soldiers" is the least troubling to me. I do think it's a little harsh, and it would have been better to advise the students to respect the unknown religious beliefs of the soldier who would be receiving their card rather than outright ban the phrase of Merry Christmas. But I also think that nobody's free speech is being silenced in this situation and it's nothing to get upset over. 
After watching the video about the elementary school in Texas in which students were prohibited from passing out candy canes with Christian messages on them to their entire class, I have to agree with the school administration's reasoning. The distribution of these candy canes was most certainly disruptive to learning, and that in itself gave them a reason to shit it down. I found the woman's argument far more convincing, and would even say that I thought the man's argument was terribly unconvincing. He based his case off the assertion that the reason the kids could't hand out the candy canes was because they were in first grade. He said that the Constitution guarantees free speech for all, regardless of age--yet i find this information useless when students in a public high school would not have been allowed to pass out these candy canes either. It was not a question of age, but a question of pushing religion on all the other students in their class, and creating a tension-filled environment which disrupted learning.
I definitely agree with the boy who filed that lawsuit over the valedictorian's school-wide prayer. That graduation belonged to everyone, and was supposed to be special for everyone, not just the valedictorian and the other Christians of the school. And as the boy's mother said, the school was promoting not only religion over no religion, but Christianity over any other religion. If the CHS valedictorian of 2012 wanted to include a prayer in the speech, I would not file a lawsuit, but I would be uncomfortable with the idea--it's just an unnecessary addition that would cause more trouble than it's worth. It could offend scores of family members in the audience, and would generally create an atmosphere of anxiety on a day that's supposed to be filled with nothing but joy, celebration and nostalgia.