Education Law

The Other Side of the Religion Issue ... Still Unconstitutional

Most of the stories I get to write about on religion have the same basic plot: teacher intentionally or unintentionally injects their own religion, usually Christianity, into classroom, which violates the First Amendment. Well, today, I get to write the opposite story ... teacher goes on anti-religious rant ... violates First Amendment just the same.Flickr: A. Davey

A teacher in California gave an anti-Creationist rant, calling Creationism nonsense, as well as a whole lot of other ridiculous statements. On the anti-creationist rant, the U.S. District Court judge ruled that such a official position against religion is just as unconstitutional as the typical case of teachers promoting religion in the classrooms.

Really, the opinion in C.F. v. Capistrano Unified Sch. Dist. is worth a read. I really don't like it that much as the judge seemed to be going out of his way to find for the teacher and even wrote an afterward where he gave his opinion on the interaction between schools and religion:

This case reflects the tension between the constitutional rights of a student and the demands of higher education as reflected in the Advanced Placement European History course in which Farnan enrolled. It also reflects a tension between Farnan's deeply-held religious beliefs and the need for government, particularly schools, to carry out their duties free of the strictures of any particular religious or philosophical belief system. The Constitution recognizes both sides of the equation. 

AP courses encourage and test critical thinking.  That necessarily involves conflict:historical conflicts of many types, including conflicts between religion and government or competing philosophical belief systems, and conflicts in the classroom as teachers and students work through those historical conflicts, bringing their own thoughts and analysis to bear. Intellectual development requires discussion and critique of a wide range of views. The Court's ruling today reflects the constitutionally-permissible need for expansive discussion even if a given topic may be offensive to a particular religion or if a particular religion takes one side of a historical debate.

Why? This strikes me as totally unnecessary (wholly dicta) and partially wrong. Why does a teacher need to give his or her opinion. Give the historical facts as best you know them, facilitate discussion among students, prod their thinking, ask tough questions, but stay the heck out of it ideologically.  

The simple deal is that teachers need to stay away from giving their own opinions on religion, on both sides of that coin. This was not a close case and much of the stuff the teacher said was clearly beyond the line. The judge in this case was much more friendly to the teacher than he should have been in my opinion. You cannot advance nor attack religion in the classroom. I don't see why that is such a difficult standard. You can be a good teacher and not advance your own opinions on religion. 

h/t Scott McLeod

Full post as published by Edjurist on May 05, 2009 (boomark / email).