Thursday, August 09, 2007
By Wendy Gragg
Tribune-Herald staff writer
Central Texas students will have the chance to voice their religious beliefs in public schools this year — but then again, they already could.
The new state law protecting students’ religious expression in school isn’t groundbreaking, but it’s causing quakes of concern as school districts try to please parties on all sides of the issue.
|
New legislation
- The Religious Viewpoints Anti-Discrimination Act — Requires school districts to adopt policies allowing a limited public forum for students to express their religious viewpoints. The law also protects students' religious expression in homework and other assignments.
- Bible classes — Requires the State Board of Education to create curriculum for classes on the history and literature of the Bible.
- The Texas Pledge of Allegiance — Adds the words "under God" to the state pledge. "Honor the Texas flag; I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one state under God, one and indivisible."
Church-state cases to remember
- Engle v. Vitale (1962): The Supreme Court ruled in favor of a group of parents who complained that a New York school district policy that mandated a prayer be said each morning violated the establishment clause of the First Amendment, as it was applied to the states through the 14th Amendment. The case did not say prayer in schools was not allowed, simply that the prayer could not be mandated by a government entity, in this case the schools. School-led prayer is not permitted, even if students are given the option not to participate.
- Abington v. Schempp (1963): A school's policy in Pennsylvania that began each day with a Bible reading and a prayer was ruled unconstitutional, because even if it was optional for students, it was still obligatory in nature and schools cannot forbid or aid religious function. This case introduced the secular purpose and primary effect test, in which courts look at the intention of the legislation (which must be secular in nature) and enforcement of the law (which must not prohibit or enhance religion).
Note: In both of the cases above, judges said that a study of comparative religions or the study of any religion based in literature or history that was presented objectively would be consistent with the First Amendment.
- Lee v. Weisman (1992): A family objected to a Rhode Island school's policy in which a clergy member was invited to lead a prayer at the start and end of graduation ceremonies. The court said states may not write a prayer and require it be said at civic occasions (graduations, football games, etc). This was later reinforced in Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, in which a school had a student council representative deliver a prayer at football games. A group of Mormon and Catholic students objected to the election policy, and the court agreed that even if the person leading the prayer is elected by a majority, it is unconstitutional because individual rights are not subject to a majority opinion.
- Widmar v. Vincent (1981): In 1977, the University of Missouri at Kansas City said religious student groups could not use the public university's facilities to meet because it would violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment. A religious organization that previously had been allowed to meet on campus filed suit, and the court ruled that the university had created an open public forum because there were more than 100 groups allowed to meet on campus, and to prohibit a group from doing so based on its content would violate free speech.
Note: Middle schools in Waco report that there are religious clubs that meet on school grounds after school hours. While several area high schools say there were no religious organizations that met last year, to start a club, officials said, students would simply have to have enough interest and submit a proposal to the principal or other administrative officials. The religious nature of a club would pose no reason for it not to be approved, they said.
Waco Independent School District board member David Schleicher said federal guidelines on religion in public schools already were pretty clear. He’s concerned that the new law may muddy the waters for Texas schools.
“In fixing something that’s not already broken, the Legislature risked breaking it,” he said.
In June, Gov. Rick Perry signed House Bill 3678, also known as the Religious Viewpoints Anti-Discrimination Act.
The law requires public school boards to adopt a policy allowing students a limited forum to air their religious viewpoints.
The law would make graduation ceremonies, at the very least, an occasion for religious expression by a student leader, such as the senior class president.
The law also says that students can’t be discriminated against for expressing religious views in their homework or other assignments.
The new law doesn’t vary much from the rules regarding religion in public schools that already have been outlined by the U.S. Department of Education.
Rep. Charlie Howard, R-Fort Bend, who championed the legislation, said it clears up the federal rules.
“This bill leaves no doubt that individual religious expression is permissible in schools in a wide range of contexts,” Howard told the Fort Bend Star. “It is a win-win for students and school officials alike, both of whom are now uncertain how to navigate what has become muddied, constitutional waters.”
An added obligation
The main difference seems to be that the new law doesn’t just give permission for students to express religious viewpoints, it requires districts to provide an outlet for those viewpoints. Joy Baskin, director of legal services for the Texas Association of School Boards, said that mandate and its potential for controversy have some educators on edge.
Baskin wrote an analysis of the law that warns about the challenges districts may face, including litigation from minority-view families who feel the speeches are one-sided, majority-view families offended by hearing a minority view, people who object to the new law and those who think the school district hasn’t implemented it enough.
Laws regarding religion in public schools put school districts between a rock and a hard place because litigious advocacy groups are lined up on both sides ready to sue at a moment’s notice, said Tom Hutton, senior staff attorney with the National School Board Association.
Hutton said Texas is not alone in creating new legislation on the issue of faith in schools.
“We see this all the time. It’s very difficult for school districts, politically as well as legally,” he said. “It’s hard to make everyone happy.”
Rabbi Gordon Fuller of Waco’s Congregation Agudath Jacob is concerned that the forum for religious viewpoints could alienate students of a minority religion.
“As I read this bill, it is both an unwise and unenforceable attempt at allowing public schools to have students voice their religious views, which can only serve to emphasize differences between students and make those of minority religions feel intimidated,” he said.
Schleicher, who said he would fall on his sword to defend religious liberties, also expressed concern for students who are in a school’s religious minority.
“I will do everything to make sure we protect the right of students to express their religious views and the rights of students who don’t share the views being expressed,” he said.
WISD superintendent Dr. Roland Hernandez said he thinks students should be able to express their views on faith as long as the district tries to balance the expression of viewpoints and as long as it isn’t a distraction in school.
“We can’t let it make us lose focus that school is school,” he said.
TASB, which regularly leads Texas school districts through the maze of education policy, is trying to help make districts aware of the new law and the responsibilities that come with it.
TASB sent its members the model policy that accompanied the bill’s text, as well as an alternative policy crafted by TASB.
How schools respond
Baskin said she has heard from several districts that are taking the time to produce their own version of the policy to fit their local needs.
“They don’t want to rush to adopt something that won’t work well,” she said. “It really is going to be an instance of local control.”
WISD officials are working on two drafts of a policy to bring to the school board for approval at a special meeting Aug. 23.
Baskin said many school districts support letting students exercise their freedoms of religion and speech. What has them concerned is the time and money that would be spent to fight off lawsuits stemming from students speaking their minds on faith.
“The problem is it comes at the cost of kids’ education,” Hutton said.
wgragg@wacotrib.com
757-6901
Comments
By Fangrim
Sep 4, 2007 9:00 PM | Link to this
Gary:
Although I wouldn't go so far as to call it an attack from evil, I agree that separation of church and state is an invalid concept past the point of "No State Church."
By Sajoifjre
Aug 29, 2007 9:08 PM | Link to this
HHHHUUUUUHHHHHH
By Sajoifjre
Aug 29, 2007 9:08 PM | Link to this
HHHHUUUUUHHHHHH
By DM
Aug 11, 2007 3:27 AM | Link to this
I'm excited about this law. My hope is that it will lead, unintentionally of course, to Comparative Religion classes for all children. Religion is important in the world, after all people are killing each other over it. To that end, I am writing a series of guides specifically for students on the First Amendment and the practice of specific faiths and religious viewpoints starting with Satanism, but also including Buddhism, Paganism, Wicca, Taoism, Ditheism, Skepticism, Agnosticism, and Atheism.
My hope is that Texas children will try on many different faiths and viewpoints, then confront each other during the school day, putting the conflicts of the worldıs beliefs right into the classroom for all to see. This bill was born of the concerns some people had that Christian viewpoints werenıt getting a fair play in school, so letıs make sure that their kids get an education in what drives the world towards both glory and madness.
By Gary
Aug 10, 2007 11:40 AM | Link to this
I would like to clarify that I don't claim to be a Christian, but I do believe this United States of America became so great BECAUSE it was founded on Christian principals. I also believe that the "Constitution" and the "Bill of Rights" are what has kept this country different from all other countries.
The Constitution forbids our government from sponsoring ANY church, but THAT'S IT! Not one place in either the Constitution or the Bill of Rights does it state that religion must stay separate from even our government itself! READ IT for yourself, AS IT IS, without twisting it into what you WANT it to say!
It is MY CHOICE that I believe in God, and that Yeshua ben Yosef (Jesus Christ, for those of you who don't know His given name) is my savior, but I wouldn't feel offended if even Muslims (a religion of which I don't approve) were to have their prayer at a school event. WHY should anyone be offended by ANYONE of ANY faith holding their prayer, anywhere, including at school events?
The fact is, the attack is toward "CHRISTIANITY", not the other religions. The FEW, the MINORITY, always seem to have their way in our modern society after they scream "OFFENDED" by something! Well, I've got news for all you MINORITY people! The Constitution DOES NOT give you the right to NOT be offended, so shut UP!
By lsb
Aug 10, 2007 6:45 AM | Link to this
How about doing a general "higher power"..this allows students of ALL religions to express their beliefs! I do not want my non-christian child being forced to listen to praising of Jesus all day long..nothing against Christians by any means....just would solve alot if they used the "Higher Power" phrase!
By Fred
Aug 10, 2007 6:19 AM | Link to this
Yes! Bring religion into the schools. But remember; some may choose to worship the Devil or Allah. Fred.
By RichardB
Aug 9, 2007 5:48 PM | Link to this
Generally speaking, this is not a good thing. On the other hand, if the expression of religious views is done fairly and in a moderated forum style, then it might work. Religion is a part of our national scene. My concern here is that Christians who are in the majority will use this new law to indoctrinate young people or to make non-Christians feel like they are less than others in terms of religion and faith. I am particularly wary of teachers who might have a religious agenda here or who might use this law to encourage their own religion/belief system. Of course you might know that this would be happening in the South, a part of our country not particularly famous for its tolerance of people who don't follow the mainstream.
By Chrissy
Aug 9, 2007 2:31 PM | Link to this
Is "an attack from evil" a description you would give to a time honored and sensible practice brought forth from the Founding Fathers? Interesting. I'm a student and an educator. Religious viewpoints have no place in the public classroom. Religious discussion belongs at home and in the church. Public school is a place where students should be learning to open their minds, broaden their horizons, and learn to respect the their peers. I only have one thing to say to those of you on the Christian high horse: This isn't about offending people who aren't Christian. Children know nothing about religion, and from the looks of it, neither do you. You're the one who is offended by every little thing! Again, the public school is not a place to tout religious viewpoints. You people are the reason I turned from the Christian faith. I have no beef with God, it's his followers I can't stand. You're so blind and full of hatred that you can't understand that there are perfectly valid reasons for keeping religion out of school. Last time I checked, Christianity wasn't the only religion kept out of schools. You act as though you're being persecuted. Spend a few months in a concentration camp and then talk to me.
By debi
Aug 9, 2007 10:58 AM | Link to this
I have been an educator in public schools for years. All I can say is it's got to happen.
[1 2] next
Commenting is open from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. M-F, except on Tuesday when it's open until 9 p.m.
Post a comment
*HTML not allowed in comments. Your e-mail address is required.