The American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky has notified the Kentucky Department of Education of numerous constitutional violations that have occurred under the new "bible literacy" courses. In 2017, the Kentucky general assembly passed House Bill 128 in order to establish a series of optional courses which examine the old testament and the new testament and their impact on literature. The ACLU-KY found many of the courses being offered do not fail to abide by constitutional standards established by the establishment clause of the first amendment. During their investigation they found many practices which indicated teachers were using these new courses to impart religious lessons rather than inform and instruct students on how the bible and its text has influenced more modern literature.
The ACLU-KY has uncovered practices such as the use of online Sunday school courses, worksheets and course material directly taken from Sunday school lessons, and rote memorization of the bible. They claim these practices fail to fall under the objective and academic standards set out by HB-128. The ACLU-KY argues if the law's purpose is truly to educate students about the cultural impact of the bible, it would not include a curriculum full of Christian educational material. They sent requests to all 173 school districts in order to gain a better understanding of the practices being implemented under this new law. ACLU-KY attorney Heather Gatnarek has stated she hopes their, "investigative findings demonstrate the need for clear, concise, and controlled guidance for teachers in addition to a plan for monitoring these course so students' and parent's constitutional rights are not violated." The ACLU has offered to assist the KDE in creating and enforcing these standards to ensure student and parent rights are not violated by this new law.
I believe the constitutionality of the current practice of this law are impacted by the actual religious content of the school, and by the fact these courses are electives. In regards to the first question. I believe the current content of these courses is a clear violation of the establishment clause. The legal precedent sent by Engel v. Vitale would indicate requiring students to perform actions such as wrote memorization of the bible and completion of Sunday school material would be a violation of the establishment clause. As Justice Black indicated in the case, "by using its public school system as a way to encourage recitation of the Regents' prayer, the state of New York has a practice wholly inconsistent with the Establishment Clause." This would indicate using the public school system to encourage overtly religious acts such as rote memorization of holy texts and completion religious school exercises is also a violation of the establishment clause. In this light, if practices continue the way that they have, then the ACLU-KY would have an obligation to bring the KDE to court to protect the religious rights of students and parents of Kentucky.
However, I am still unsure if their case would be as air tight as one would expect. This is due to the optional nature of elective classes. The ACLU's joint statement of current law on religion in public schools indicates teachers and school administrators cannot encourage or solicit religious or anti-religious sentiment or actions from their students. Furthermore, employees of the school system may not engage in religious activities with their students. However, there are no points in the joint statement which clearly address how teachers are interact with students who choose to challenge their religious thoughts and beliefs. The optional nature of the class may allow for some legal leeway which allows Kentucky teachers to continue with their current practices in these courses. However, due to my lack of knowledge on the legal precedent around cases of optional religious classes in public school, I'm not sure if the elective status of the class would create an exception to the establishment clause.
Sunday, February 4, 2018
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
I believe this clearly violates the precedent set out in the establishment clause. For a state run public school, which is financially supported by tax payers money, and is supposed to be a secular institution to offer classes with material taken straight from Sunday schools conflicts with the concept that there should be a wall of separation between church and state. Public schools are not supposed to be partisan or have ties to religious institutions, and offering these courses completely violates these criterion.
I think Josh makes a very interesting point about how difficult this case will be to decide, based on the optional nature of these courses. In description, this course sounds like it has value, and students could potentially learn a lot from it without an establishment of religion. However, in practice, as many things are, there seams to be a clear malfunction in the way the class has been taught. If this class has truly become a bible study or a "Sunday School", that presents a clear establishment of religion, paid for by Uncle Sam. The class treads the establishment line very lightly to begin with, and if they truly have deviated from the original intention of the law, I must agree with Rob that this class is unconstitutional.
The fact that the class is optional does bring the establishment clause issue into question, meaning the school is not making religion a mandatory lesson. As long as the main point of the class, which is supped to be the impact of the bible on literature is the primary message the class seems highly beneficial as others have said yet the use of sunday school materials does make me question the true purpose and message of the class because I do not see the need to use Sunday school materials when teaching about the impact of the bible on literature.
I believe this case violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment. Considering this school is not a religious affiliated, public school is all that needs to be said to require the school, teachers, and courses being taught to be of a secular nature. Understanding that the course is an optional elective could open a new conversation regarding the name of the course, however I still find it wrong to bring in Sunday school material to a secular classroom.
In contrast to what Rob said I do not believe that this is a violation of the establishment clause. I think there is a important distinction to be made between teaching religion and teaching about religion. From what Josh wrote it appears that the intention of the, "Bible literacy," courses is to teach about religion rather than teach religion, or in other words preach religion. Whether that intention is being carried about honestly is unclear. Learning about religion in any aspect is, in my mind, a worthy use of time, and considering the class is not mandatory, I imagine the individuals who choose to take the class would feel similarly. With that being said substantial evidence that the class has turned into a, "Sunday school," would certainly call for an investigation into the course. I don't think that the entire program can be deemed unconstitutional due to individual instances of violation.
Even though I agree that one's education is not complete without a study of comparative religion and I like the idea of a class that examines the Old and New Testament and their impact on literature, I do think that this case is a violation of the Establishment Clause. The ACLU provides a good argument against the Kentucky Department of Education in their "Joint Statement of Current Law on Religion in the Public Schools" link that Josh provided. They make it clear that it is permissible for students to discuss religion privately amongst their peers but since teachers are representatives of the state, they are prohibited from encouraging, engaging in or soliciting religious activities or lessons. I think that giving lessons directly from Sunday school lessons is a clear example of a teacher trying to promote the religion rather than being an objective and critical teacher of the subject.
I think that allowing students to use the Bible as a historical book and to look at it in relation to the writings of Early Europe and Early America is acceptable. I do however think that using the Sunday School curriculum is not acceptable. I agree that the optionality of the course would confound this case even more than if this course was necessary for a student to graduate, that would directly affect a student's right from the establishment of religion. Just as an anecdote, I am from Western Kentucky and went to two different public schools as well as other schools in the area. I attended Paducah Tilghman High School all four years of high school and took many literature courses there. In these literature courses, we did review the Bible as well as many other holy texts from many different religions and their influence on early writings as well. I personally have not encountered any class that has turned into a "Sunday school class" and would say that this curriculum did help give the class a better understanding of the thought process behind the works whether or not the students fully agreed with what holy text was being reviewed.
I agree that the course breaks rules concerning the teaching of religion in schools and in turn, as a public school, violates the establishment clause. In reference to the "optional" nature of the class, I don't see how a class being optional should give it any sort of immunity to the strict scrutiny held for religious education in public schools. Even if a class is optional for students, it is still being given by a public school, funded by taxpayers. Whether optional or not, academic standards are academic standards. Also, to my knowledge no precedent has been set for elective classes.
Although I am in favor of the teachings of religious education within public schools for the application and further education of practices within their selected general curriculum, I would say that this act taken by the ACLU-KY should not be allowed. Because the courses would be paid for with taxpayer dollars, there are many taxpayers that do not share similar beliefs to the material being taught. Although these classes are optional, they would still need to be funded from the same location and thus, as their only motive is promote religious beliefs, should be prohibited. Thus, I would also agree with Josh's inclusion of specific cases and rulings that are very applicable to the prevention of teaching bible memorization within public schools.
The religion classes, optional or not, should not be taught in public schools if they promote any religion. The fact that this classes are optional and that students have the choice to take them doesn't matter as public schools are not the place to promote religion. These classes clearly violate the establishment clause showing preference for one particular religion in a public school system. It could be different if all different religions were taught from an academic perspective rather than a religious one, not utilizing Sunday school lesson plans and rote memorization of the bible. On the contrary, it is not alright when religions are taught in a promotional way. Religion has to be taught objectively and the teaching of one religion by promoting one’s beliefs over another clearly violates the Constitution.
Post a Comment