Constitutional Law

Hearing Religious Expression in the Public Schools

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.  

Full post as published by ACS Blog on April 29, 2008 (boomark / email).