|
|
 |
Religious Freedom
Religion in Schools
Compliance with the separation of church and state and the Free Exercise Clause must be vigorously enforced in the nation's public schools. Not endorsing or appearing to endorse religion is especially important in the public school setting due to a number of considerations unique to the public schools: the specific sensitivities of school-age children, the fact that public schools are public institutions, and the profound influence of school officials and teachers over students. This last point bears special examination. Most children view their teachers and other school officials as important authority figures. Moreover, children are highly susceptible to coercion and pressure to conform both from adults and from their peers. These factors create a significant danger when religion is introduced into the public schools in circumstances evincing the apparent endorsement of teachers.
Moreover, the student body in America's public schools is growing increasingly diverse. Schools must give special consideration to the fact that many school children belong to minority religions or are raised in non-religious environments. The nation's public schools must be hospitable to students from a variety of backgrounds - students of all faiths or no faith. Public schools should inculcate students with understanding and respect for diversity, as well as a spirit of tolerance, acceptance and inclusion.
In Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe, the Supreme Court nicely summed up the difficulty with school-sponsored religion:
School sponsorship of a religious message is impermissible because it sends the ancillary message to members of the audience who are nonadherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community.
This statement brilliantly expresses the difficulties that arise when government makes religion its aim.
(1) Vouchers for Private and Parochial Schools
Summary of Policy and Recommendations
- Vouchers pose a serious threat to values that are vital to the health of American democracy. Most often, vouchers would be used in schools whose central mission is religious training. These programs subvert the constitutional principle of separation of church and state and threaten to undermine our system of public education.
- When offered the opportunity to vote on voucher-like programs, the public has consistently rejected them.
Background
Like most Americans, the Anti-Defamation League believes that improving our system of education should be a top priority for government at the local, state, and federal levels. ADL does not believe, however, that vouchers for private and religious schools are the antidote to the ills of the American education system.
School vouchers might seem a relatively benign way to increase the options poor parents have for educating their children. In fact, however, vouchers pose a serious threat to values that are vital to the health of American democracy. Most often, vouchers would be used in schools whose central mission is religious training. These programs subvert the constitutional principle of separation of church and state and threaten to undermine our system of public education.
While the Supreme Court upheld a specific school voucher program in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 536 U.S. 639 (2002), this decision did not disturb the bedrock constitutional idea that no government program may be designed to advance religious institutions over non-religious institutions.
Implementation of voucher programs sends a clear message that we are giving up on public education. Undoubtedly, vouchers would help some students. However, other students may be effectively barred from voucher programs because private schools are permitted to discriminate on a variety of grounds including academic achievement and disciplinary issues. The glory of the American system of public education is that it is for all children, regardless of their religion, their academic talents, their mental or physical disabilities, or their ability to pay a fee. This policy of inclusiveness has made public schools the backbone of American democracy.
These facts help explain why, when offered the opportunity to vote on voucher-like programs, the public has consistently rejected them. ADL urges the rejection of all voucher initiatives.
(2) Charter and “Identity” Schools
Summary of Policy and Recommendations
- ADL does not generally oppose charter schools.
- Some charter schools, which are sometimes referred to as “identity-based” schools, focus their study and/or their student body based on a certain classification, and can include same-language/culture schools, single-sex schools, same-race schools and same-sexual orientation schools.
- Americans should have full and equal access to public education by ensuring that these schools do not become segregated enclaves and do not violate church-state separation principles.
Background
Proponents of charter schools and other alternative forms of public education believe such choice options can provide educational benefits to students who may otherwise be under-served by traditional public schools. Some schools, which are sometimes referred to as “identity-based” schools, focus their study and/or their student body based on a certain classification, and can include same-language/culture schools, single-sex schools, same-race schools and same-sexual orientation schools. Supporters of these customized schools believe they are able to focus learning, provide certain needs and empower students.
The Anti-Defamation League affirms its strong commitment to improving public education, and therefore does not oppose generally the concept of either charter schools or “identity-based” schools. However, the League is concerned that the misuse of these schools could lead to further erosion of the wall of separation between church and state or may become a vehicle for discrimination on the basis of race, religion, creed, national origin, gender, or sexual orientation. These schools will require rigorous evaluation prior to approval, as well as diligent monitoring.
This evaluation should take into account ADL's concerns about the potential segregation of public school students and the potential for discrimination or church-state violations. Factors to consider include - but are not limited to - the school's educational purpose, the context in which the school was created, the declared and perceived aims of the school's supporters, the composition of the school's faculty and the student population it seeks to serve, and the nature of the school’s curriculum.
(3) Creationism & “Intelligent Design”
Summary of Policy and Recommendations
- Creationism, creation science and “intelligent design” theory are all religious theories of creation offered to explain the origins of the universe and are based on varying interpretations of the Bible.
- ADL has consistently opposed these troubling initiatives – including so-called “Academic Freedom Acts,” which support the teaching and consideration of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution.
- Advocating the right of students to learn science independently of religious doctrine honors the purpose and the promise of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Background
In recent years, we have seen several efforts to remove the instruction of evolution from public school curriculum and/or introduce the teaching of creationism, creation science or “intelligent design” into the classroom. Recognizing that they clearly violate the First Amendment, ADL has consistently opposed these troubling initiatives – including so-called “Academic Freedom Acts,” which support the teaching and consideration of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution.
Creationism, creation science and “intelligent design” theory are three religious theories of creation offered to explain the origins of the universe and are based on varying interpretations of the Bible. Any attempt to supplant or supplement the teaching of evolution – a theory supported by overwhelming scientific evidence – in public schools in order to accommodate students’ beliefs in creationism, creation science or “intelligent design” would have a religious purpose. Advocating the right of students to learn science independently of religious doctrine honors the purpose and the promise of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
(4) Bible in the Curriculum
Summary of Policy and Recommendations
- A public school may teach about the Bible when it is presented objectively as part of a secular program of education.
- A constitutionally permissible Bible curriculum requires exacting detail and consideration of (1) what books and materials are used; (2) what specific texts and materials are covered; and (3) how these covered texts and materials are presented and tested.
- Any efforts to teach the Bible in the public schools must be coupled with a requirement that it be done in a constitutionally appropriate and religiously sensitive manner.
Background
Over 40 years ago the US. Supreme Court determined that a public school may teach about the Bible “... when presented objectively as part of a secular program of education." See School Dist. Of Abington Township v. Schempp, 374 US. 203, 225 (1963). But a public school cannot teach the Bible as doctrine or in a devotional manner. Id. Although the general principle is clear, putting this standard into practice has proven difficult. Teaching religion amounts to religious indoctrination and practice and is clearly prohibited in public schools. A public school curriculum may not be devotional or doctrinal. Nor may it have the effect of promoting or inhibiting religion. A teacher must not promote or denigrate any particular religion, religion in general, or lack of religious belief. A teacher must not interject personal views or advocate those of certain students. Teachers must be extremely sensitive to respect, and not interfere with, a student's religious beliefs and practices. Students must not be encouraged to accept or conform to specific religious beliefs or practices.
A constitutionally permissible Bible curriculum requires exacting detail and consideration of (1) what books and materials are used; (2) what specific texts and materials are covered; and (3) how these covered texts and materials are presented and tested.
Any efforts to teach the Bible in the public schools must be coupled with a requirement that it be done in a constitutionally appropriate and religiously sensitive manner.
|
|
|
|
