Should Florida Public Schools Be Forced to Offer a Religion Elective?

           In October of this year, Florida Representative Kimberly Daniels proposed a bill that would require public schools to offer Bible classes. According to The Hill, the bill would require all public school districts in Florida to “offer elective courses relating to religion, Hebrew Scriptures, and the Bible to students in grades nine through 12.” The bill states that there is “an objective study of religion,” “an objective study of the Bible, including but not limited to, a course on the Hebrew Scriptures and Old Testament of the Bible; and a course on the Hebrew Scriptures, the Old Testament of the Bible, and the New Testament of the Bible.” Students are not required to use a specific Hebrew translation, and the Bible does not have to be the only text used for the course.

Passing this bill would require Florida State school districts to add these courses to the Course Code Directory (CCD) & Instructional Personnel Assignments. The main issue here is not that Florida public schools would be forced to advertise teaching such courses, but that “the specific certification coverages listed for these job code assignments are mandatory for all school-based and instructional personnel” as defined in 1012.01 and 1012.55 Florida Statutes defined in Title XLVIII of the K-20 Education Code. Therefore, all public school teachers in Florida could be subjected to teaching a religion course. This is currently not the case: it is not currently mandatory for Florida public schools to offer a religion elective. Although passing the statute at hand would not coerce students in any way (they are not required to take these classes) employee coercion is a separate issue. The instructor, who is considered a government employee, is being paid by taxpayer funds.

It is already permitted for public schools in Florida to offer these religion courses, however, passing this statute would make it mandatory and not optional for such classes to be offered. The question stands: does requiring public school districts in Florida to offer electives that teach the about Bible violate the Establishment Clause?

These classes would be taught as electives, and would be optional to take. While students are not required to take any of these religion instruction classes, and there is no apparent coercion on the students’ end, I do foresee some issues if this statute is to be passed by the Supreme Court. Based on School District of Abingdon Township, Pennsylvania v. Schempp, public schools are not permitted to sponsor Bible readings or recite the Lord’s Prayer. Requiring a religion class based on the Bible to be taught is slightly different in nature: the bill at hand does not necessarily promote religious activity. Taking a religion class is not equivalent to attending a religious service. However, it would be impossible for the government to monitor such courses without excessive entanglement.

These public schools are also funded through taxpayer funds. Allowing students to take religion classes as electives is different from forcing schools to offer such classes. The presence of religion classes provides an open forum for the exchange of ideas. On July 1, 2017 the “Florida Student and School Personnel Religious Liberties Act” was passed which “prohibit[s the] school district from discriminat[ing] against students, parents, or personnel on basis of religious views or expression.” It also “Require[s] the Department of Education to develop a model policy regarding the limited public forum and voluntary expression of religious viewpoints and by students and school personnel in public schools pursuant to this section.” Passing the statute forcing a religion elective to be taught does more than provide students to access to a public forum. The school risks establishing a religion because these classes are ostensibly teaching solely about the Bible, as opposed to any other religious texts.

Also, as it currently stands, if there is no teacher employed that wants to teach the class, it is not necessary for the class to be taught at all. However, forcing all public schools in Florida to offer a religion elective means that a government employee will be teaching religion, which may or may not be their choice. Passing this bill would mean that if the school district needs an instructor for the religion course, the school must hire an employee that would be willing to teach such a course. In some cases, this could be seen as indirectly aiding religion: the teacher is the vehicle through which a religious message is conveyed.  

If this statute is passed, is Florida’s Public School District establishing a religion? For this, I will consult the often-undermined Lemon Test. There is indeed a secular purpose for teaching these texts, as they are an important aspect of American history. Regarding the question as to whether the primary effect is to advance religion: it is evident that the class could advance Judaism and Christianity. However, the bill clearly states that there would be an “objective study” of both the Bible and religion. A study of religion does not necessarily lead to the endorsement of these religions. I see an issue less with the fact that students have the opportunity to learn about the Bible than I do with the fact that the Bible is not being taught as a literary text to further understand other texts, or even as an influential historical text; it appears to be taught through a religious lens. It is possible that there would be excessive entanglement of government and religion because the schools would be forced to hire teachers qualified to teach such subjects. This is a slippery slope: a teacher’s freedom of speech may be in jeopardy if they are forced to teach a topic which contravenes their own religious convictions.

It is also likely students of these public schools would acquire the Bibles for their classes through receiving public funds, which would indirectly aid religion. However, due to the fact that public schools in Florida are permitted to teach religion courses, this is likely already occurring. Board of Education v. Allen allows students to loan such textbooks since the benefit goes to the student, rather than the institution directly.

Due to the fact that both Florida and Tennessee public schools were required to display the United States motto “In God We Trust,” and that there has not appeared to be a strict wall of separation between Church and State recently in Florida, I conjecture that the Supreme Court will make it mandatory for Florida Public Schools to offer a religious elective conforming to the standards of the aforementioned bill. If the bill is passed, it will go into effect in July.