Religious freedom for all: except teachers?
The State of Oregon’s longtime prohibition against the wearing of religious clothing or adornment by public school teachers while on duty has returned to the spotlight. Why? Because recently passed legislation, the Oregon Workplace Religious Freedom Act (PDF), now guarantees the right of every Oregon state employee to wear religious garb or accessories while on the job, with the notable exception of public school teachers, who will continue to be prohibited from doing so.
There has already been an outcry from a variety of religious organizations against the continuation of the ban for teachers. Organizations including the Council on American-Islamic Relations and the Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund have objected strongly and are asking that the ban be rescinded.
Why would such a ban be necessary? The Oregonian newspaper quotes a spokesperson for the state Department of Education explaining it like this:
“The underlying policy reflects the unique position that teachers occupy,” said Jake Weigler, spokesman for the state Department of Education. “In this case, the concern that a public school teacher would be imparting religious values to their students outweighs that teacher’s right to free expression.”
Is this true? Would students be influenced by a teacher who is wearing a turban, hijab, yarmulke, or a Christian cross while teaching? Is it reasonable for the state to protect students from such influence by prohibiting personal religious expression by teachers?
I don’t believe that it is. While any given student will most likely take note of a teacher’s religious adornment or clothing, this presents an opportunity to learn about religious diversity and pluralism in the United States and around the world. There are right ways and wrong ways to deal with religion in the classroom, and while teachers should always be prohibited from proselytizing to their captive audience of students, nevertheless they do not have an obligation to check their personal identity at the door of the classroom. Indeed, the religious and cultural identity of a teacher can present a learning opportunity for students if it is handled the right way.
I believe that an important part of professional behavior for teachers is ensuring that his or her own personal life does not become too big a part of the discussion in the classroom. But nevertheless, classes are not taught by robots who must present a neutral identity. Religious identity, including personal adornment, is an important part of a person’s identity, and it’s not helpful to make teachers pretend as though their personal religious beliefs don’t exist while they are on duty. This is a far cry from the more reasonable requirement that teachers must always respect the rights of their students by refraining from inappropriate religious content in lessons and activities.
In addition, this prohibition overall doesn’t pass First Amendment muster. State institutions are prohibited from adopting a religious identity or favoring one certain religion over another. However, this prohibition should not extend to the passive religious expression of state employees. This is reflected in the fact that the new legislation reinforces the protection of religious expression for Oregon state employees in every sector other than the public school classroom. But I fail to see how public schools should be a special case.
The Oregon state legislature should rescind this ban and create much less stringent regulations that respect the First Amendment rights of teachers. Having teachers from different religious backgrounds could provide valuable lessons in diversity and pluralism for Oregon students. Otherwise the state is attempting to smooth over religious differences by pretending that they don’t exist.
I worked for GM, lets say I wore a “Honda” T-shirt to work, that would suggest that I’m promoting our competition in a very inappropriate place, it’s not a good policy for me, my fellow workers (who may assume GM promotes Honda by allowing this) or my future employment, but if I’m not at work and wearing the same shirt, it just means that “I” am promoting Honda (which I don’t) I believe it’s the same thing, if a teacher who represents a government funded school system promotes religion in class by wearing religious clothing or adornment, a child would think the school must be promoting religion by allowing this important person to do so, but if the teacher just wore religious clothing or adornment while not at work, that would suggest that “she/he” are religious, without representing the school system or the government they are employed by. You have to keep the “Big Picture” in mind, it affects everyone, not just the adults that notice it, but subconsciously the children who don’t know the difference.
Suppose the teacher wore a Honda shirt? Does that mean the government is supporting Honda?
If the teacher wore an Polo shirt, does that mean the government supports Ralph Lauren over other designers? What if the next day the teacher wore Brooks Brothers or Calvin Klein? Has the teacher flip-flopped? Has the government gone back on its support of Ralph Lauren?
Now for the serious question. If someone works for the government, does he or she give up his or her first amendment rights to free speech? I say not.
A teacher expressing his or her adherence to a religion is not a violation of the establishment clause. Leading a class in prayer, proclaiming one religion superior to another, or disparaging another religion in favor of another are violations.
The problem gets worse when students opine. See if the government fails to prohibit religious speech then it is often seen as condoning it.
The best thing to do? Let them wear crosses, Stars of David, crescents, Happy Humanist pins, Atheist symbols, Unitarian-Universalist pins or any symbol he or she wants. Demand that whatever the religious belief the teachers must teach tolerance and a respect of the plurality of religious beleifs in our society. If they can’t do that, maybe they shouldn’t be public school teachers.
Suppose the Teacher wore a T-shirt in the classroom depicting the Devil and Satan worship, these are also religious icons, do you feel this is also freedom of speech? Do you feel this wouldn’t affect a child’s relationship with the teacher, the school and the school system in general? When a teacher expresses alliance with any religious or non-religious beliefs from a position of authority they are influential because they are “Role Models”, do you want your child’s role model to be a devil worshiper, a god worshiper, a non-worshiper or should a teacher be unbiased so a child can develop his or her own beliefs without undo influences? Freedom of speech is an individuals right, but when you represent others, such as a business or an educational system, your not speaking for yourself, you’re representing others who may not share your beliefs, discussion is one thing, and appropriate, representation is a whole different can of worms.
“Suppose the Teacher wore a T-shirt in the classroom depicting the Devil and Satan worship, these are also religious icons, do you feel this is also freedom of speech?”
Yes!!! It doesn’t matter WHAT a person SAYS he or she has a right to say it. It’s a right protected by the US Constitution.
Do you feel this wouldn
This implies that religion is a competitor to government and public schooling. Just because parochial schools exist as an alternative to public ones does not mean that religion is an alternative to government. Indeed, much of the American political experience has been informed by religious concepts that have, in some instances, secularized over time.
Furthermore, your assumption that a school employing a person wearing a cross is promoting Christianity is flawed. You assume that when a person wears something, they are actively trying to convert the people around them. Thus, if I wear a Harvard shirt to Yale, I am attempting to convince all Yalies to defect and admit that they are inferior to that school in Cambridge. Or if I wear black nail polish, I am a goth who is encouraging others to go home and lead a seance and drink blood. The examples can get more and more ridiculous.
Just because I wear a Yankees cap in Boston doesn’t mean that I want Bostonians to prefer pinstripes over red socks. Being a Yankees’ fan is just another layer of what makes me an individual. I’m not trying to force my beliefs on the person I’m interacting with. The same holds for religious indicators in public schools. Just because I wear a cross or better yet, have a more immutable characteristic, a small cross tattooed on my ankle, does not mean that I am advertising for a parochial school over a public one or a theocratic society over a democratic one. Indeed, the premise of democracy in the states, and its dependence on the Bill of Rights, is that I CAN and SHOULD wear these things. It opens up discourse and allows people to consider different points of view. This should be even more a goal of institutions of learning since schools exist as forums where young minds can engage in a search for truth and knowledge.
I take further issue with your example. How about the guy who wears that Honda shirt to a GM factory because he deals with oil and grease and dirt all day and doesn’t care if that Honda shirt gets positively ruined. What does THAT say about religion in public schools?
Perhaps you should rethink your analogy.
Your description of the potential effects of wearing religious clothing is focused on teachers identifying as members of religions different from most of the students. My concern is the other way around. Imagine, say, a Jewish student in a class where not only do most of the students wear cross jewelry, but the teacher does, too. Does that set up a situation where the Jewish student fears going to the teacher with, say, concerns about religious bullying because of suspected sympathy with the bullies?
On the other hand, I do hope that teachers are prepared to encourage dialog and civility regarding religious pluralism, even if they are not members of minority religions.
If teachers (and students) are, however, permitted to wear religion-themed jewelry, I would hope that some, somewhere, might choose to wear a red “A” pin or a Humanist pin, and that civil dialog regarding truly secular society might ensue.
I share your concern, Brian, and I think ultimately a lot of that depends on the behavior of the teacher — the teacher has to create an atmosphere where all religions (and non-religions!) are welcome. That point is definitely non-negotiable. And it’s something we should expect from all teachers, not just on religion, but also with regard to race, ethnicity, gender, and sexual orientation — that the teacher has to create and maintain an environment where all students feel comfortable and where their rights are respected.
And I agree – teachers should definitely be able to wear the Happy Humanist or the red A!
I disagree, education is there to teach the facts, not rhetoric or personal opinion, as an atheist I also do not agree with wearing a Happy Humanist or a red A pin, these are undue influences, my kids are there to learn reading and writing, adding and subtracting, science and language, it’s not about religious belief or non-belief, it’s not about race, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation, it’s about an education to help one succeed in a financially oriented world, if I want them to learn about religion, I’ll send them to church, if they are confused about race, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation, I’ll send them to a psychologist or a social worker, if I want them to learn about non-belief, I’ll take them to Humanist meetings, OR I can teach MY children these things myself, but teachers are not qualified to teach in every area of life, nor are they expected to, I do agree that it all depends on the behavior of the teacher, is he or she there to teach responsibly or be a representative of rhetoric and misinformation because of personnel opinion or a lack of higher education?
I don’t believe that anybody is talking about the teachers teaching religion. They are talking about them wearing a piece of religious jewelry. Most students could care less what the teacher is wearing. I am a teacher, should I have to take off my wedding ring when I attend school? Isn’t that promoting marriage, not to mention the underlying religious image of the ring.
The early Christian church gave religious meaning to the ring by making it part of the wedding ceremony. The thumb and first two fingers of the hand were to represent the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and the fourth finger stood for the earthly love of man to woman.
(http://family.jrank.org/pages/1752/Wedding-Ring.html#ixzz0Nt3PnwT1)
There are clearly ways our teachers should behave, I don’t think that wearing jewelry crosses any line.
Of course teachers should not be allowed to wear religious symbols at school. The environment they are in is DESIGNED to influence our children. They are in a position of authority over them. The students can only be successful if they follow the teacher
I think it is very interesting that you characterize it as “pressure” on your child. Does your child feel pressured when the kid next to him in the lunch line says “I’ll have the tuna sandwich please, it’s the Lenten season and I can’t eat meat on Fridays”. When a Jewish teacher in the cafeteria asks for the kosher sandiwches? Does your child feel pressured when a kid pipes up in SexEd and says “Well, isn’t abstinence the best form of birth control?” and the teacher responds, “Yes, yes it is.” Does your child feel pressured when a teacher excuses a Jehovah’s Witness from the Martin Luther King, Jr Day celebrations?
Whether they wear these religious indicators or not, the religious opinions will still be there. Are you going to silence all discourse that has a potential to result in religious discourse? Are you going to pull your child out of world history because the curriculum details the developments of the major world religions? Are you going to ask those teachers to take down posters indicating the religious concepts and symbols of the civilizations they will be lecturing about? If so, I think you need to rethink what makes you so uncomfortable with religion and try to be more open to discussion. Just because I disagree with Atheism doesn’t mean I seek to silence its expression. Your goal of silencing that sort of discourse leads to some very dangerous results.
Furthermore, there are mechanisms in each school district for dealing with teachers who expect to be impressed or imitated in unacceptable ways. Why not work on strengthening those procedures rather than eroding the personal rights of the men and women who teach your children? I would also recommend talking to your child about recognizing those unacceptable forms of pressure whether they be religious, political, or academic. You can insulate your child from those pressures in other ways that don’t infringe on the right to self-expression.
Lastly, if your child is discomfited by a teacher wearing a cross, burqa, or a star then your child, with your encouragement, ought be more accepting of other cultures. Your kid is just reflecting, in the public school setting, the same close-mindedness you are teaching her at home.
I apologize if this reads like an attack on your values, however, you’ve made a comment in a public forum and I feel obligated to respond to it. If you don’t like the response, then perhaps the public forum is not for you.
As long as one extends the prohibition of other religious displays to inlcude all religions then I would say you are consistent.
Now would you prevent a Hindu from wearing the dot on the bridge of his or her nose? Would you prohibit an observant Jew from wearing a yamulka?
What about hair styles? In Texas a Native American student won a lawsuit against his school school distirct because the school district’s dress code prevented long hair. The boy’s traditional religion require he wear his hair long. I suppose you wpould make the boy cut his hair as to not influenece your atheist child.
I am an atheist and I am rasing an atheist child. I will teach my 15-month old child to be confident enough in his atheist beliefs that the sudden appearance of a cross, star of David, crescent, Hindu and Buddist or Masonic symbols wetaher worn by a teacher, his grandmother or anyone else will not confuse or trouble him.
You sound like those extreme Christian right parents horrified when their precious child is exposed to a non-Christian religion. Oh my! A child exposed to the pluralistic nature of our society! What horrors!
There is always home schooling you know.
Abruzzo, I completely agree with your analysis and I am glad that you’ve participated in the discussion. Regardless of your or your child’s belief system, the issue is making sure your child is confident enough in who she is and what she believes that alternate religious, political, or ideological beliefs will not make your child feel pressured.
There is an added benefit if your kid is also comfortable discussing her beliefs with others who may have opposing viewpoints. Openmindedness is good and it is only through evaluating counterpoints and other perspectives that we are able to assure that we are correct in our choices.
You’ve gotten off the point, it’s all about subliminal influences, school is about scientific fact, truth, and reality, if religion is taught as the theory that it is, that’s reality, just as history is to learn from the past, it doesn’t matter if your child’s classmates have dots or crosses, they can learn about religious stuff, at an age appropriate level, from each other, it’s the undue, even unintentional influence from an authority figure that has already chosen a “team” (religion) to promote, that’s the problem. When I think of “school teachers,” I’m most concerned about the formative years of the elementary and middle schools, by the time they reach their high school and college years they’ve already been bombarded with so many other opinionated points of view, from movies, television and music, to the point where they can make up their own mind from a more informed perspective, but to subliminally put it into their memory banks at a young age will, without a doubt, influence their adult life, without them even realizing it. You see, it’s not about the teacher, their job is to teach, not influence, it’s about the child, and what that child learns, and what they retain for the rest of their lives, and I can’t see paying someone to teach my child “opinions,” religious or otherwise, personally I think that teachers could soon be replaced by computers, you’d be amazed at how fast a kid can learn just about anything from a computer when it’s presented as a video game, and computers aren’t religious, so no more hidden influences, they can learn to socialize at social events, the rest they can learn at home, in the mean time let’s not be putting “hidden agenda” into the young minds of the future, because that’s what they’re doing when the “teacher” promotes their religion by wearing religious adornment.
“You
The key sentence in this post is “teacher’s right to FREE EXPRESSION”.
If a person’s practice of his or her faith REQUIRES that they wear a cross, then they might have a good case. But if it’s simply a matter of free expression, the employer does have a right to dictate what is appropriate workforce attire and the employee can opt to work elsewhere.
Free expression is not guaranteed in the workforce anywhere. You may be required to wear a uniform, comply with regulations concerning hairstyles, abstain from wearing jewelry (even wedding bands), and follow the employer’s code of dress.
Your point is valid only in private schools. There the employer can set rules disallowing religious expression. This could even include discriminatory practices such as private christian school allowing teachers to wear crosses and talk openly about their faith in god and Jesus Christ but forbid Jewish, Muslim and other non-christians from discussing their religious beliefs openly or practicing their beliefs while at work.
Public school on the other hand is an extension of government and government cannot prohibit religious expression for anyone. It’s in the US Constitution. Government can regulate religious expression in the interest of public safety and/or to protect the rights of students whose religious beleifs would be in teh minority. They could set rules on how students may participate in prayer circles but they cannot forbid prayer circles.