“No matter how well-intentioned the display creators were, or how lovely people might find the display to be, there can be no doubt that this is a Christmas display consisting of elements of Christian symbolism,” wrote Ritchie.

Ritchie justified his decision to have the decorations removed by citing the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which ensures the separation of church and state, also known as secularism, and no preference of one religion over the other.

The Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause are part of the First Amendment and state that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

“It may seem like a stretch to go from a few pretty lights, wreaths and decorations around a schoolhouse door to the U.S. Constitution, but I think it’s actually only a hop, skip and a jump,” Ritchie wrote.

In an interview, Ritchie posed the question, “What if we bought the biggest Christmas tree and put it out in front of the school and didn’t have anything explicitly religious, would that be okay?”

Ritchie reported that on Thursday 10 people thanked him for his decision, expressing discomfort with the decorations.

Kevin Delaney, whose advisory decorated the entrance of the South Building, was unaware of Ritchie’s conflict with the decorations until after they had been put up Wednesday.

Delaney disagrees with Ritchie’s decision.

Before putting up decorations, Delaney discussed with his advisory the types of decorations they felt would be reasonable, and he got permission from Assistant Principal Allyson Mizoguchi to put up the display.

“There are things that are decidedly more religious than the lights or decorations on a few bushes in the entryway, and I wrote that to Dr. Ritchie,” Delaney said, referring to an email he had sent Wednesday night to Ritchie.

“I think the kids who did it made an absolute effort to make it inclusive and not make it an ‘in your face’ thing. But, it’s hard not to look at that and see Christmas elements. It’s decorated like a Christmas tree. A public school can’t be a place even for subtle promotion of any one religion or even all religions,” Ritchie said.

There have been numerous Supreme Court and lower court cases regarding the constitutionality of holiday displays in public schools and other government-funded places.

“There’s what the courts say, and there’s what the community says,” Ritchie said.

“A whole bunch of the advisory initiatives were Christmas-themed like ours. The language program got gifts, wrapped them and gave them to children in Boston, and a student went in dressed like Santa Claus,” Delaney pointed out. “I just think there’s an inconsistency with this decision and all the other things that we are doing. It just seemed like a weird place for me to draw the line on what is a violation of the Establishment Clause or endorsement of Christmas and what’s not. This just seems kind of trivial.”

Today, Julia Herbordt, a student in Delaney’s advisory, worked out a compromise with Ritchie.

“I thought it was a shame to take the decorations down, but I understand where Dr. Ritchie is coming from. We agreed to make it a ‘winter celebration,’ so the lights are pretty versatile and don’t really represent any religion. We decided to take down the Hanukkah and Christmas themed decorations. I’m not sure about the streamers, because they are green and red, but that was just by coincidence — that’s all we had,” Herbordt said.

Ritchie also commented on the compromise in an email sent to faculty today.

“Watch as, right before your very eyes, the Christmas-oriented display set up in front of the school magically transforms into a Winter Wonderland display, wreaths transforming into snowflakes, and any vaguely religious items turning into snowmen… Thanks, all, for taking this tricky issue seriously, and discussing it earnestly and respectfully.”

[polldaddy poll=7645228]