What Happens When Schools Leave Their Lane
- Dewey R. Collier

- Jan 19
- 3 min read
This week, Texans learned that a North Texas public school campus is scheduled to host an event called the “2026 Islamic Games,” reportedly sponsored by outside religious organizations.
Before anyone jumps to conclusions, let’s be clear about what this is — and what it is not.
This is not a debate about Islam. It is not a debate about private religious practice. It is not about journalists, headlines, or motives.
It is about public authority, public schools, and constitutional limits.

The Only Question That Matters
When a public school opens its campus, facilities, and institutional infrastructure to an event, it is no longer acting as a private landlord. It is exercising government authority.
That raises one simple constitutional question:
May a taxpayer-funded public school lend its authority, facilities, and institutional legitimacy to a belief-defined system?
Under the Sword & Shield Acts, the answer would be no — regardless of which belief system is involved.
Why Public Schools are Different
Public schools are not neutral civic centers. They are among the most powerful arms of the State.
They:
Exercise authority over children,
Speak with institutional voice,
Operate on compulsory attendance,
And carry inherent coercive weight.
Because of that, the Constitution draws a hard line between private belief, which is fully protected, and government action, which must remain neutral.
The Sword & Shield Acts exist to enforce that line.
What Neutrality Actually Means
Neutrality does not mean rotating beliefs. Neutrality does not mean equal promotion.
Neutrality means non-endorsement and non-amplification.
A public school may not:
Host belief-identified events as institutional activities,
Provide government platforms for belief-based governance,
Normalize ideological systems through official facilities,
Or expose students and families to belief-based authority under color of law.
That rule applies equally to every religion and every ideology.
“But what if it’s voluntary?”
In public schools, “voluntary” is not the test.
When authority, facilities, branding, and institutional legitimacy are involved, the law looks at structure, not intent.
Students and families cannot be expected to distinguish between:
What the school endorses, and
What the school merely allows,
when the event takes place on campus, under school control, in school space.
That is why constitutional law treats public-school platforms differently from private venues.
What the Sword & Shield Acts Would Do Here
If the Sword & Shield Acts were already law, they would not ban Islamic Games.
They would simply require that:
Belief-defined events occur off campus,
In purely private venues, and
Without any use of public school authority, facilities, or institutional endorsement.
The Acts regulate government power, not belief.
They do not criminalize faith. They do not regulate worship. They do not target any religion.
They enforce one foundational principle:
Public authority belongs to the Constitution — not to belief systems, ideologies, or doctrines of any kind.
Why This Matters to Every Texan
If a public school can lend its authority to one belief-defined system today, it can lend it to another tomorrow.
That is how constitutional lines erode — not through open conquest, but through “just this once” exceptions.
The Sword & Shield Acts are about stopping that erosion before it becomes irreversible.
They protect:
Parents who want schools to instruct, not indoctrinate,
Students who should never be pressured into belief,
And taxpayers who did not fund public schools to serve as platforms for ideology.
The Bottom Line
This issue is not about who believes what.
It is about whether government institutions stay in their constitutional lane.
Private belief is free.
Private worship is protected.
But public schools are not platforms for belief-defined governance.
That is the line the Constitution draws — and the line the Sword & Shield Acts enforce.




Comments