Teachers take note: Neutrality toward religion cuts both ways
By now, it should be axiomatic that public school teachers can’t take sides in religion.
After all, the Supreme Court has been hammering this point home for more than 60 years: Under the First Amendment’s establishment clause, public schools must be neutral toward religion—meaning neutral among religions and neutral between religion and nonreligion.
But two new court decisions—both from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals—suggest that “neutrality” is viewed by some schools and judges as a one-way street. Teacher promotion of religion was struck down as unconstitutional, but teacher denigration of religion got a pass.
In the “promotion” case, math teacher Bradley Johnson was told by the school district to remove from his classroom walls several huge banners with patriotic one-liners emphasizing references to “God” and “Creator.” School officials were concerned that the displays sent a school-endorsed sectarian message in violation of the establishment clause (Johnson v. Poway Unified School District).
Johnson sued, and won the first round when a federal district court ruled that the school had engaged in viewpoint discrimination by allowing other teachers to put up classroom displays with a variety of messages (some with references to religion), but disallowing Johnson’s banners.
On Sept. 14, however, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit reversed the lower court decision, ruling that public school officials have the authority to determine what gets put on classroom walls. Although Johnson’s school did allow teachers some freedom to decorate their classrooms, the court sided with the school district by concluding that the banners “as organized and displayed by Johnson” conveyed a religious message.
A few weeks earlier, the same appeals court was far less concerned about “neutrality” in deciding a case involving alleged teacher hostility to religion (C.F. v. Capistrano Unified School District). On Aug. 19, the court dismissed a lawsuit against James Corbett, a high school history teacher in Mission Viejo, Calif., accused by a student of repeatedly making derogatory comments about religious faith.
A lower court had singled out only one of the teacher’s statements—that creationism was “superstitious nonsense”—as an establishment-clause violation. The appeals court, however, found no constitutional problem with anything Corbett had said in class about religion, including the creationism put-down.
The 9th Circuit acknowledged that “at some point a teacher’s comments on religion might cross the line and rise to the level of unconstitutional hostility.” But because there haven’t been cases drawing that line, the court “cannot conclude that a reasonable teacher standing in Corbett’s shoes would have been on notice that his actions might be unconstitutional.”
It’s true that few legal precedents define the parameters of teacher hostility to religion in a public school classroom. But the Supreme Court’s insistence on school neutrality between religion and nonreligion should be precedent enough.
Writing for the Court majority in Abington v. Schempp (a 1963 decision striking down school-sponsored religious exercises), Justice Tom Clark made clear that “the State may not establish a ‘religion of secularism’ in the sense of affirmatively opposing or showing hostility to religion.”
Moreover, for almost two decades, education, religious and civil liberties groups, as well as the U.S. Department of Education, have disseminated First Amendment guidelines explaining that although teachers may teach about religion, they may neither inculcate nor denigrate religion.
In my view, the 9th Circuit was right to bar promotion of religion in the classroom. But fair is fair. If religious people are to accept that their faith cannot be privileged in schools, then they need to be assured that hostility to their faith will not be tolerated, either.
Teachers should have more academic freedom than they presently enjoy. But when religion is involved, teachers should not be free to impose either a religious or an anti-religious viewpoint on students.
Apply the First Amendment fairly—and teacher “neutrality” will cut both ways.
Charles C. Haynes is director of the Religious Freedom Education Project at the Newseum, 555 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C., 20001. Web: firstamendmentcenter.org. E-mail: chaynes@freedomforum.org.
Sep 26, 2011 at 4:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
Personally -- I feel that teachers should be nuetral and should present multiple versions. The reality is this is America.... Where Judism, Christains, Atheists, Muslims -- etc exist. The menu presented could be short and held to religious or creationist philosophy and evolutionist philiophies, keeping opinions out of it. To me -- its just as bad to speak against religion as it is to promote it. In our society you should be exposed to both and be allowed to freely choose. But open discussion or exposure -- including banners -- if tied to a class project, where multiple ideas are presented, should be allowed. In this case, it sounds like the teacher was supporting our military and it happened to have a religous reference. I -- personally -- without a complete understanding of the context would not be in a position to comment. Nor should any of you without a complete understanding and this article doesnt provide enough information.
Sep 26, 2011 at 4:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
"Yeah and we also have to pretend that Odin created the world too?"
You don't have to pretend that since everyone knows that his (Odin's) brothers helped. Besides it makes for a good story to think that we live in Ymir's eyebrows (since he didn't need them anymore- being all dismembered and such).
Sep 26, 2011 at 4:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
Those of you having an argument about religion, evolution vs. creation, etc., are missing the point of the article. Back on topic please!
Sep 26, 2011 at 4:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
Evolution is not, a religion it is science,not a belief. If you don't know the difference between fact and fiction I am not surprised you are a believer in religion.
Sep 26, 2011 at 12:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
Funny how the lefties denigrate religious faith routinely, but then turn out to be some of the most religiously blind people on the planet.
For everything from "science": they firmly believe (and in the name of open-mindedness denigrate anyone who disagrees with them) that animals evolve into other species and reproducing life can create itself from nothing even though there is absolutely no proof of either. Most also believe silicone breast implants cause cancer (again, no proof of it)!
To economics: higher taxes do not impair growth and ObamaCare will lower health care costs, (even though there is endless proof to the contrary).
To my Christian friends out there: we just have to get these people into church and they'll be charming snakes in no time!
Sep 26, 2011 at 12:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
What a waste of time and money. This is why they should just ban all religion. All it does is give people stuff to argue and fight about. If you believe in god, jesus, bugs bunny or whatever.. keep it to yourself and shut up. No reason to have a church or any other religious thing period. Keep the stuff behind your closed doors.
Sep 26, 2011 at 11:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
totellthetruth: just because your username has truth in it does not make all your statements believable.
You have an OPINION that evolution is easier to believe than religion. It might be easier for you but not everybody.
Your statement that the theory of evolution "by definition" is a religion needs some evidence before I believe you.
Schools have a responsibility to teach science and not faith. The overwhelming mass of scientifically reproducible fields of study point to evolution as the logical basis for the development of mankind. Has it been "proven"? No. That is why it is still a theory. The leading theory as backed up by science.
Let's say a particular religion happens to believe that the world is flat. I would not have a problem with teachers telling their students that the flat world religion exists as long as they are mandated to show films and photos of our spherical planet and the science that backs it up. Would showing films taken from our orbiting spacecraft make the flat planet world believers look foolish? Probably; but that is not a reason to deny the students the truth.
Sep 26, 2011 at 10:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
@prounion: Part of religion is faith, and one definition might be (your words) "an opinion not based on observable reality". One simply chooses to believe. Anyway, this article is about the constitutionality of religious neutrality, or the lack thereof, not about whether anyone commenting here is a believer, or not.
Sep 26, 2011 at 10:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
http://www.doug-morgan.com/Billboard/
Sep 26, 2011 at 9:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
Oh - sorry Bill - I thought you believed your god to be real and not just an opinion.
Also its a delusion, I guess you could call it an opinion not based on observable reality, and with evidence to the contrary?
Sep 26, 2011 at 9:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
It's called respect for one another's opinion, Prounion. That's a concept you seem oblivious to, isn't it?
Sep 26, 2011 at 9:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
@prounion: "The appeals court, however, found no constitutional problem with anything Corbett had said in class about religion, including the creationism put-down". They let it go, but I think only because it was an isolated statement. If he had a pattern of put-downs of religious beliefs, that would indeed violate religious neutrality. Try putting down Islam repeatedly in the public schools in Dearborn MI and see how far you get.
Sep 26, 2011 at 8:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
Amazing - pointing out that creationism is superstitious nonsense should not be done? Yeah and we also have to pretend that Odin created the world too?
Sep 25, 2011 at 9:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
It is interesting how teachers across the nation are allowed to use Islam and terrorism in the same sentence in the classroom, but when it comes to Christianity....hands off please. So much for the 1st Amendment.
Sep 24, 2011 at 10:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
So where is the "hostility line?"
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.