Hearing Religious Expression in the Public Schools
In a new issue brief by ACS, Edward Correia offers an examiniation of religious experssion in the public schools and how teachers may, consistent with the First Amendment, acknowledge those religious views.
by Edward Correia, a Washington, D.C. attorney and adjunct professor at the Washington College of Law at American University
There is overwhelming scientific evidence that Darwinian evolution explains the origin of all plants and animals, including human beings. That is why it is taught in American high schools. Nevertheless, a large portion of the American public, particularly religious conservatives, reject evolution and view it as contrary to the Biblical account of creation. As science discovers more and more about the origins of life and the creation of the universe itself, we can expect the same conflicts to emerge with respect to these topics, too.
At various times, the anti-evolution movement has persuaded legislatures to bar the teaching of evolution altogether or to require that Biblical account of creationist be taught alongside it. More recently, religious conservatives have demanded that a less expressly religious theory of “Intelligent Design” be taught -- or at least that students be made aware of it. By and large these approaches have been rejected by the courts. Another possibility is to let every view be presented, in other words, turn the classroom into a public forum. But creating a public forum would push the classroom experience over the edge into incoherence.
Progressives have traditionally favored a separation of church and state and the First Amendment clearly places limits on how far the state can go in endorsing and presenting religious ideas. On the other hand, we should understand that, from many religious conservatives’ point of view, the state is expressly rejecting their religious beliefs when evolution is taught as established fact. Progressives should look for ways to ensure that the state shows tolerance and respect for these beliefs even if it does not and – and cannot – endorse them. Just as a moment of silence in which students can pray if they wish has gone far to diffuse the conflict over prayer in schools, progressives should look for similar solutions about religious viewpoints that are inconsistent with established science curricula. Thus, it is worth asking if there is any place for presenting religious viewpoints in public classrooms? That is the subject of this issue brief.
This article suggests that it is helpful to distinguish among three kinds of activities involving religious viewpoints in the classroom – endorsing them, acknowledging them, and explaining them. The first is never permissible. The second and third are permissible under some circumstances. Identifying when these activities are permissible and providing some guidance to school boards who have to formulate policy in this difficult area, may help diffuse this controversy. Our goals should be to remain faithful to bedrock constitutional principles, to ensure that schools can effectively teach important but controversial topics, and, at the same time, to show tolerance and respects for beliefs that conflict with the ideas that the state feels should be taught.
Written By:Bob Ritter On May 2, 2008 9:37 PM
Quite frankly, I'm shocked that ACS published Edward Correia's is issue brief that purports to exam how teachers may, consistent with the First Amendment, acknowledge those religious views.
Rather than present a road map on how to infuse our public schools with religionist propaganda, in my view as an ACS member and person who adheres to the constitutional principle of separation of church and state, I would have expected a discussion on what is wrong with some of the case law of the last two decades and how we might fix it. I found none of that in the issue brief -- it was a big disappointment.
To Edward's credit, he did a decent job reviewing the case law pertaining to expression of religious viewpoints.
But this effort goes for naught because he bends over backward to accommodate the Christian Right.
Take, for example, his statement that "progressives and conservatives alike should applaud" moments of silence as a wonderful compromise for Christians to say their prayers in public schools (my interpretation of his second paragraph).
I think of myself as a progressive and I strongly believe that the Court erred in holding that moments of silence do not violate the Establishment Clause.
I made a lot of notes when reading Edward's piece and feel he might be better of in the Federalist Society than ACS.
Two more examples might be helpful.
Edward states that "The genius of the Framers is that they left it to future generations to work out these kinds of difficult issues ..." While that may be a common view, that's really not what happened in 1789. The establishment clause (as is law in general) was the result of political compromises -- necessary in order to get enough votes to pass. And that's precisely what Madison had to do in the House and in the House-Senate conference committee. It was left to future generations -- not out of genius. To the contrary, it was left to future generations because the separationists and the religionists thought the wording matched their requirements. In my view, both sides got it wrong because there is no consensus what "an establishment of religion" -- not withstanding that I support the Jefferson-Madison view. So "genius" may be a good sound bite, but it's false description.
Finally, I take exception to Edward saying that "it is consistent with the Establishment Clause for teachers to offer an appropriate acknowledgment of religious beliefs in the presentation of such sensitive subjects as evolution or the origins of life." Edward must have been wearing a pair of soft white gloves when he wrote that. That type of accommodationism is responsible for the dumbing down of our schools. What every happened to critical inquiry and debate (well maybe not debate in the classroom)?
I'm currently representing a college professor who was fired for saying that the biblical story of the talking snake shouldn't be taken literally (and other statements). It's time for schools, be they college or our public schools to quit pandering to the Christian Right and teach based on the best information we have available.