Ohio House Bill 164: Religion in Public Schools

There should be no doubt that children are heavily influenced by their school environments. For five days a week and about six to seven hours a day, a student is under the academic impact of their teachers and peers. Over the years parents have either supported or protested lessons pertaining to the theory of evolution. While some may believe that the theory is convincing, others strongly feel as though it is insulting to their religion. Ultimately, the task for state legislatures is to decide the balance between religion and non-religion in state academia.

In Ohio, the House of Representatives recently passed House Bill 164 which would be known as the “Student Religious Liberties Act.” If the bill were to be approved by the state senator and governor, the House Bill 164 would “amend sections 3313.601, 3314.03, 3326.11, and 3328.24 and… enact sections 3320.01, 3320.02, and 3320.03” (H.B. 164, 133rd General Assembly, 2019). H.B. 164 would create a significant change in the religious attitudes of public schools. The aim of this legislative bill is to give children the ability to express their religious beliefs and practices in their respective public schools. As stated above the sections 3313.601, 3314.03, and 3326.11 will be edited to permit freedom of religious expression.

Section of 3313.601 has been revised in a form of terminating its last requirement: The board of education may limit the exercise or expression of the pupil's religious beliefs as described in this section to lunch periods or other non-instructional time periods when pupils are free to Associate.” (H.B. 164, 133rd General Assembly, 2019).

With this part of Section 3313.601 erased it would allow children to include religious prayer in the classroom and other places where teacher-to-pupil instruction occurs. The board of education will no longer be permitted to limit the amount of religious expression occurring during school hours.

Included Sections 3320.01, 3320.02, and 3320.03 would have been highly questioned by the Supreme Court justices that ruled in Epperson v. Arkansas (1968) and McCollum v. Board of Education (1971) case. Section 3320.01 makes it so that public schools would allow prayer, religious gatherings, and distribution of written materials or literature of a religious nature. Section 3320.02 would allow the new changes from Section 3320.01 in public schools, STEM schools, and college-preparatory schools. Section 3320.03 would change the grading system of science courses in Ohio. 

Section 3320.03 - “ No school district board of education… shall prohibit a student from engaging in religious expression in the completion of homework, artwork, or other written or oral assignments. Assignment grades and scores shall be calculated using ordinary academic standards of substance and relevance, including any legitimate pedagogical concerns, and shall not penalize or reward a student based on the religious content of a student's work.”

(H.B. 164, 133rd General Assembly, 2019).

What is difficult about this case is that it touches upon the Free Exercise Clause and the Free Establishment Clause. If a student feels that their religious views are being challenged in their science classroom, should they be able to answer exam questions with an explained religious response? Even if this may sound reasonable, the reality of allowing religious answers would create disagreements between public school teachers, parents, and students. If it were to be allowed the next fear would be that the teacher could possibly accept one religious answer over another. Which would then seem as though the teacher is establishing a religion in the classroom and discriminating against a student’s religious belief.

Timothy Ginter, the primary sponsor for House Bill 164, responded to these concerns. Ginter argues that a student who studies a science course must give an answer that is supported by the lessons of their teacher. He believes that the use of religion should not be a “get-out-of-jail-free card” (Mikkelson, 2019).However, this response seems to go against what was stated in Section 3320.03. Ginter argues that a student’s points can still be deducted for their wrong religion-based answers, but Section 3320.03 defends the student’s religious justification.

House Representative Ginter’s response was an aim to debunk the idea that the bill would allow students to give the wrong answer if based on religion. However, his explanation retracts what the bill states. Which then begs to question what the purpose of Section 3320.01 truly is? What should the teacher do with the religious answer? Are they expected to look at the religiously-based student work and ignore it? Speculators of this bill argue that it will require teachers to debate on whether or not the religious answer is correct. This would then open the door for a myriad of concerns.

-->

I am able to wrap my head around the idea of Section 3320.01 and 3320.02. I understand that there are children in public schools who may want to start religious clubs and they should be able to do so. But the religious clubs must include an “open to all” rule and there must be a diversity of religious clubs. If the public school does not provide an abundance of different religious clubs then the school could run the risk of accidentally establishing a religion. I also think that Section 3320.02 is reasonable since college-preparatory schools and STEM schools are also public schools. However, I don’t agree with the striking out of the last sentence of Section 3313.601. Religion can hold a position in public schools through the means of school clubs/electives. But teachers should still be allowed to ask students to leave religion outside of the classroom unless it is a religious class. Everything has its time and place and the school's main purpose is to educate America’s future and not let it get too distracted by religious debates.

Ohio’s House of Representatives has a justified purpose in trying to include religious expression in public schools but the new bill as a whole has its flaws. We must look out for overstepping the free exercise clause to the point where it becomes an establishment of religion in public schools.

References:

Mikkelson, David. “Does Ohio Bill Let Students Give Wrong Answers Based on Religion?” Snopes.com, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ohio-school-religion-answers/.

The Ohio Legislature, House Bill 164.          
https://www.legislature.ohio.gov/legislation/legislation-summary?id=GA133-HB-16