We are talking about a public school. Reasonable restrictions apply.
You have to read a little more history on the First Amendment. In Europe there was much the same attitude that you have, that they could restrict people practicing their religion in public. They would say that they were not actually restricting it totally just imposing "reasonable restrictions."
So if you were Catholic you might not be able to wear a rosary, or if you were Baptist you might not be able to read your Bible or if you were Jewish you might not be able to wear your yamaka but it was all "reasonable" because these people were not part of the state religion.
You could still practice in private. Just not in public.
This was why the First Amendment was written. To prevent the government from imposing "reasonable restrictions" that were actually persecution.
And this is exactly what is happening in this case.
> Sorry but equal protection before the law does not mean that you can tell someone they may not practice their religion. <
Agreed! My point (perhaps not very well said) is that if you allow Christian symbols in a public school, you must also allow Muslim symbols. Equal protection. Same set of rules for all. So allow all, or prohibit all? I think the latter choice is better.
As a side point, I never would have made this rather unpopular argument 20 years ago. But I’m seeing the U.S. slide more and more into Balkanization. Public schools - as imperfect as they are - do function as melting pots. And that’s something worth protecting.