1. The public school's responsibility
for neutrality is both across the
various faiths (no faith is to be favored over any other) and between religion and
nonreligion (neither is to be favored over the other).
2. The necessity for public
schools' religious neutrality does not derive from the First Amendment
freedom of speech. Rather, it derives primarily from court interpretations of
a different portion of the First Amendment. Of the two religion-related clauses,
it is most particularly the Establishment Clause that restrains a school from
"establishing" any worldview by way of school policy and practice.
3. Which student freedom
underlies the necessity for a classroom climate that is religiously neutral? --
the right to freedom of conscience
4. Of several listed reasons, these two stand
out best to summarize the school's legal responsibility to be religiously
neutral:
Public schools are governmental institutions with a mandate to protect
rights.
Teachers act on behalf of all citizens to protect children's rights to freedom
of conscience.
5. One would think the following teacher actions
compatible with (even likely to facilitate) a religiously neutral climate:
Teacher responds with sensitivity to all students' questions; expresses interest in learning more about a ritual or
practice (unless it is exaggerated interest that sets apart the
practice; usual academic curiosity to learn is admirable in a teacher); insists on all students behaving respectfully toward the
others; reminds students of their responsibilities to one another.
The following actions will
work against a religiously neutral classroom climate:
Teacher laughs or frowns on learning of unfamiliar religious
custom; permits some students to tease others who are different; depicts the beliefs or practices of certain religions as
weird.
6. These statements are appropriate to a public school:
"Some people believe the world is only about 10,000 years
old." [an academic statement]
"Many Buddhists don’t believe in a God." [an academic statement]
"Humans of different societies seem to have beliefs concerning some common areas,
such as about the origin of the world, morals, and life after death."
[an academic statement]
Note: With certain delivery (vocal intonation and
nonverbal communication) a teacher can state material in ways not
pedagogically neutral. The added "subtext in brackets" below
turns the first two neutral statements into material derogatory toward
"young earth creationists" and Buddhists. Even if bracketed
wording is unspoken, certain nonverbal actions by a teacher (e.g., rolling
eyes, shaking head) could impart the equivalent of:
"[Just imagine!!] Some people believe [the ridiculous notion
that] the world is only about 10,000 years old[!]."
"[It's unthinkable but] Many Buddhists don't [even] believe
in a God [Harrumph]."
These statements are not neutral and should not be
made in a public school (although they could be taught at a private or sectarian
school):
"Evolution is a false doctrine perpetuated by
atheists." [a worldview outlook that privileges a certain
religious viewpoint; it refutes academic understanding and is accusatory toward
one worldview]
"A person can pray to Mary, the mother of Christ." [a
worldview outlook that draws on scriptural rather than historical information in
its depiction and uses the reverential term "Christ"]
7. This "difficult case"--"Hmmm, Kyisha, no one else in our class brings
their [Bible, Koran, etc.--to read
during free time."] is included to present the complex interactions
of rights, respect, and responsibility in a familiar context.
Appropriate? The remark is perhaps innocent* and no one would
bring a legal case on such a thing, but--for a teacher who is sincerely
striving to be neutral--it is unfortunate. *[The
teacher simply may not understand that a student has every right to read
religious material in a free time, as long as she does not infringe on
others (such as by
trying to persuade peers to read her book).]
Explanation: This comment seems perhaps merely a casual observation,
and it is difficult to see what worldview is actually privileged or undermined
here, but there is an implication (to Kyisha) that her action deviates
somehow, or that she should not be reading her sacred literature during free
time. If others (including the teacher) don't like the book and would
prefer not to see the girl reading it, they still must respect her right to do
so. If they were to ridicule Kyisha, then their actions would be the ones
causing a disturbance, not Kyisha's. [Note: The same situation of rights exists
for the student who is reading material that supports a skeptical rather than
religious worldview.]
End of Feedback. Return
to Guide Sheet.
