SHARE THIS SHOW:
RELATED CONVERSATIONS:
RECENTLY ON TOL:
The TOL Blog
TAGS:
Religious Clothing in the Classroom
Oregon is one of three states that does not allow teachers to wear religious clothing in public schools. Speaker of the House Dave Hunt wants to change that before the end of the special legislative session. In 2009, the legislature made a specific exemption for schools when it passed a new law protecting religious expression in the workplace. Now, Hunt is championing a bill that would revoke the 87-year-old ban on religious garb such as head scarves, yarmulkes, turbans and crosses*.
While many religious groups applaud the effort to lift the ban, opponents argue that doing so would blur the line between church and state in Oregon public schools.
Are you a teacher or school administrator in Oregon? What's your experience with religious dress in the classroom? If you're a parent or a student, how do you think religious clothing affects education?
*Editor's Note: A 1986 Oregon Supreme Court Case (Cooper v. Eugene School Dist. No. 4J) decision narrowed the ban on religious apparel and essentially exempted small jewelry such as crosses.
GUESTS:
- Steven Green: Professor of law and director of the Center for Religion, Law and Democracy at Willamette University
- David Fidanque: Executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon
Tagged as: religion · special session · teacher
Photo credit: CharlesFred / Creative Commons
-
The failure rate of common sense is exponentially proportional to the complexity of the issue.
Freedom of Religion is not a 100%, across the board restriction on Congress. Courts have frequently upheld the Constitutionality of restricting the expression of religion in public institutions (government, courts, schools, etc.).
If you want to go to the intent of a founding father, read the words of my hero Thomas Jefferson, a zealous advocate of public schools and religious freedom, and an equally zealous advocate of keeping religion far removed from public schools and the government at large.
Anyway, restricting public school teachers in no way infringes on their rights. Those teachers can teach at private religious schools. Similarly, you can send your children to private religious schools.
-
Sorry, but if practicing the faith one's choice or of one's heritage includes wearing certain garments, or wearing their hair a certain way (or not cutting their hair), such as Sikhs (for example) who wear turbans and their hair uncut, then requiring them to NOT wear their turban, or to cut their hair DOES infringe on their right to practice their faith.
Would you tell someone who is an observant Jew NOT to wear their prayer shawl, or NOT to wear their yarmulke at Passover and Hannukah? I certainly wouldn't. Nor would I want any body to tell me that I would not be allowed to wear clothing or jewelry that symbolized my faith.
Teachers who wish to be observant of their respective faiths should not be limited to teaching at private religious schools. Indeed, we need the very best teachers we can find in ALL our schools, because as it is, the system is failing too many of our citizens.
Don't get me wrong, slakr007, I value your comment as well, because it gives me a different perspective to view the issue from, and I do honor the contributions and accomplishments of the Founding Fathers of this, Our Great Nation. Let us not forget, however, that they were human, too, and made some choices that we would consider politically incorrect these days (owning slaves, for example). But I do agree that it took many great men (and great women) to found and build this, Our Great Nation, that I have no doubt that we all love, even if we get perturbed by the current government from time to time.
-
Penny,
First, while you did not say anything about it, I realize my statement about "common sense" is kind of harsh. It was not really meant to deride you any way. It was just a shotgun response to my general anger over how people apply that phrase to just about every complex issue we face.
Anyway... My basic point was that I believe your reading of the Constitution is too liberal (lowercase L) and the courts tend to agree with me.
The Oregon Supreme Court decision to which the summary links has a really interesting section in which they recognize the inherent conflicts teachers present as "...[individuals] entitled to express [their] individual beliefs and [agents] of the state who [represent] its authority to [their] students."
Basically, they recognize the conflict that arises because of a teacher's right to Freedom OF Religion and a student's right to Freedom FROM Religion.
The Court had to address the constitutionality of the Oregon statute and upheld it because they actually felt that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment compelled the school district to remove her from the classroom for wearing religious clothing. They did decide that revoking her teaching license was unconstitutionally harsh, though.
Children are compelled to attend public school if they do not attend a private school or home school. That, together with the nature of the classroom, gives teachers, in their role as agents of the state NOT individuals, a captive (and very impressionable) audience.
This means the state and federal governments are well within their constitutional bounds to limit the freedom of religion of a teacher.
Now, is banning head scarves, turbans, prayer shawls, etc. overboard? Probably. But, it is not unconstitutional. It is just a standard of secularity on which the state decided.
-
Slackr007: Now, is banning head scarves, turbans, prayer shawls, etc. overboard? Probably. But, it is not unconstitutional. It is just a standard of secularity on which the state decided.
So then how would you create that standard of secularity? If a ban on head scarves et al is overboard, where do you draw the line?
-
Hi again, slakr007...no worries...i didn't feel as though your response to my original comment was derisive or otherwise insulting. I do welcome thoughtful debate from others who have well-considered opinions (and not-so-well thought out ideas) as we both (or all) get the chance to see the question from a different point of view.
I like to remember that minds, as with parachutes and condoms, only work when open.
Be Well!
-
@ David
Good question, because Penny and I are probably going to start agreeing...
The line is drawn at the students' right to freedom from religion since teachers have no right to free exercise in the classroom as agents of the state.
As long as the laws meet that requirement, I am satisfied.
I do support the voting public's right to go further and completely ban any religious expression by teachers if they really want to, but...
Doing that probably becomes counter productive. As Penny said, we need every good teacher we can get.
But, also, I see educational value in allowing teachers and students to engage in a back and forth discussion about their faiths in the classroom when appropriate. Obviously, as soon as a teacher says something like "Islam is evil," then the teacher violated the Establishment Clause and should be punished. But, in general, a balanced discussion exposes teachers and students to valuable perspective on other cultures.
Fundamentally, this is what the Oregon Supreme Court wanted to preserve. By making the punishment for wearing religious clothing so harsh, the Court feared the state was causing a chilling effect where teachers would avoid anything religious because they feared for their jobs.
-
@Slackr007 Good question, because Penny and I are probably going to start agreeing...
We can't have that!
-
@ David Miller, OPB...
I don't think either one of us intended for this to be a one-on-one discussion...it just sorta wound up like that.
Lively, respectful, well-considered debate is always a good thing.
-
As a Pagan, I find it hard to believe that any person of faith would let me teach their children while wearing my pentagram.
-
Your forgetting States Rights are also in the Constitution. Seperation of State and Religion have always but a part of our Constitution.
To adverties ones religion or culture in front of our children is not in our constitution.
-
In my 30 years teaching in the public school system, I have seen teachers wear everything from nylon workout pants to cleavage-exposing silk cocktail dresses with spike heels, to hip-hugging pants that expose thong underwear, to ragged sweatshirts and dirty hiking boots, to sparkly garb giving them the appearance of an American flag. One of the things I have always loved about the profession is that there really is no dress code.
I have seen students encouraged to come to school wearing their clothing backwards, or dressed as pirates, or in pajamas and slippers, or wearing Cat in the Hat 2-foot-tall striped headgear, all in the name of promoting school spirit.
Given all this, I cannot imagine how the daily, routine wearing of traditional/religious clothing by teachers could be called "disruptive".
-
The problem is not with teachers of minority religions wearing headscarfs, Sikh headresses etc. The problem is that teachers wearing symbols of the majority religion will make students of minority faiths or no faith at all feel marginalized. For this reason, I think the ban should be kept and extended to jewelry. Visible crosses or lapel pins saying "Jesus loves me"should also be banned.
barbgl
-
That is a great point barbgl.
-
Does anyone know if teachers are allowed to wear political paraphernalia, or garments displaying other ideological messages? If not, then I would have to say 'no' to religious getup. Because, where religious articles of clothing differ, it is in their symbolism of a chosen ideology, and that ideology is usually fairly clear-cut. Considering many religions discriminate against gays and well non-believers, then the outward display, by the wearing of these garments, sends a negative and uncomfortable message to certain students. No other type of clothing, no matter how sloppy, generally has a definitive ideological component.
-
Teachers are not suppose to wear political paraphernalia. Although they can were things that are in reference to their right or actions around organizing.
-
While teachers (and many other professions) are not SUPPOSED to wear political paraphernalia, there have been a number of times (more than I can count) that I have seen teachers wearing their OEA/AFT t-shirts, University classified employees wearng their purple SEIU t-shirts, and bus drivers wearing their ATU pins.
Don't tell me that Unions are not political organizations... candidates are always courting the Union Vote.
-
Penny From Eugene,
Gotcha, huh? Just kidding, sorta. So the answer was 'yes.' But instead of saying, hum, what do we do now? Is there another way of looking at this? A way to break the impasse? You decide to say how people always break the rules anyway. And, then mention unions. I don't think this is a strong argument.
I assume unions relate to the job of teaching itself?
-
@ scottmil
Someone else posted a link to a US Supreme Court decision that allowed teachers and students to make certain political statements. The case specifically dealt with students wearing black arm bands to protest the Vietnam War.
The Supreme Court decision ultimately allowed that students and teachers have (limited) free speech in the classroom. ...which is not at odds with this issue.
-
Under the new law, would an atheist be allowed to wear a necktie saying 'God is Dead'?
I say keep the ban. Public school should be a secular institution where education trumps proselytizing.
-
I would also love to see a Pastafarian show up in full pirate regalia.
Praise his noodly apendage.
Ramen. -
The more I think about Cooper v. Eugene School Dist No. 4J, the line it walks seems even more fine.
The Oregon statute prohibits religious dress, so the Court did not even address the issue of jewelry since the statute does not address jewelry. That kind of seems lazy to me.
The problem is, a Muslim headscarf is essentially equivalent to a cross. As far as I know, Muslims do not have equivalent iconic jewelry, so Muslims are limited in ways Christians are not. ...which, of course, is not constitutional and is contrary to the spirit of the rest of the Court's decision.
Then again, I could be wrong.
-
NOTE that this issue reared its ugly head last year when a different part of the law was being revised. The legislators made it clear then that no employee should suffer discrimination if they wear religious clothing at work.
At the same time, they oddly voted to make the law stronger *against* the teachers. Their law provided that a school that took action against teachers for "religious clothing" could not be sued--were immune.
This law started in the 1920's when the KKK was active in Oregon.
The whole thing reeks. What's worse is that there has been no problem with "religious clothing."
Lift the immunity; lift the ban.
Rain2Fall
-
As an atheist, I find it offensive that we would think that simply exposing our children to people of religion, and the fact that they have different conventions and observances is somehow harmful to them. If it is that dangerous for them to even see, then why are you letting your children out in public at all? Who knows what they might come in contact with!
I have never thought that the separation of church and state means erasing all evidence of religion no matter how obscure. How can you teach effectively without acknowledging the profound effect that religion has had on society and history?
By denying these simple observances, we are, in fact, imposing our own religious/social mores on them. The one part I struggle with is the face veil, since it does not allow you to identify or "read" the the person you are speaking with. But that is probably more for me than today's children who live on the internet and with remote communication.
-
There are occupations where a uniform is expected. Consider neat, neutral clothing to be the uniform of a teacher.
There are plenty of opportunities for proselytism outside of school. Most communities allow churches to be built right next to schools, for example.
-
Religion is a lot like Project Runway:"Either you're in or you're out." I want my students to know that they are all "in" and that my objective is only to help them learn. That's the only one of my beliefs that matters.
-
This law would prohibit the married Old Believer women in Woodburn from teaching in public schools.
-
Sorry, as 'a gay', I would feel pretty uncomfortable having a teacher dressed in an orthodox religious manner, when that religion believes 'god' will kill me, or send me to a very hot oven for eternity. A child or teenager can generally not choose a school, they are required to go, and they should not be subjected to the outward display of symbols of hatred. Are teachers allowed to wear swastikas? I admit there is a degree of separation, but not enough of one.
-
While I would not want any of MY teachers (or my child's, if my partner and I had had children) to wear a swastika, especially with the baggage it was saddled with in the 20th century, we need to remember that it was a symbol linked to Eastern belief systems for centuries before that.
-
No, we don't need to remember that. Which is entirely beside the point of my comment.
-
This is a really good point, but most religions also believe that people of other faiths will suffer similar fates.
Of course, that's kind of like you being a circle of people where every person, except you, has a gun pointed at every other person's head.
-
Yes, slakr007, but if you happen to be a kid that is of the same religion as the teacher, then I suppose you will feel endorsed. This is exactly where the problem is, religions at there core are about who is good and who is bad. They differ from just about everything else in this matter-of-fact or inherent way. They are divisive and exclusionary, just in their multiple existence. They are vessels of separation.
-
Yeah, definitely agree with that.
David asked me where I would draw the line earlier. My basic response is that the Establishment clause trumps the Free Expression clause for teachers in the classroom.
I did said that there can be value to a balanced discussion about faith between students and teachers where appropriate in the classroom.
But, yeah, you are convincing me that the teachers need to be strictly neutral.
-
slakr007,
I only realized this was the topic when the show started, I didn't have much time to think about it, so maybe there are holes in what I said. But, I think the issue is that the symbols are not cultural, that they represent something more, a way of believing a life should be led---and, not just as a matter of preference, like apple pie, but religious ideology generally holds that it is the correct way of life, and that other ways of life are not equivalent, and are not only not equivalent, but, can end in death. I admit the line could be blurred with certain more secular faiths, but generally the secular folks don't wear religious symbols.
I am generally weary to ban things, even those I don't agree with. And, I didn't start knowing if they should be banned. To be honest I wanted them to be, but I wasn't sure why, exactly. But, I feel if other commensurate or even less intrusive ideology and endorsements are not allowed to be worn by teachers, then certainly the religious symbols should not be allowed either. Plus, it makes sense, because it truly could alienate children, and alienate them in an irreconcilable way. Because, through discussion between the teacher and student you can't exactly undo or reconcile their faith-based beliefs. And, that is not something that should be introduced into the classroom.
-
The wearing of headscraves is done as an advertiment that, "I AM MUSLIN". This is what the Christian Science Monitor say in a recently.
To Adverties ones Religion or culture in front of our school children is JUST PLAIN WRONG.
Keep the law as it is.
Kathie
-
The Bill of Rights Article I - does not apply to schools, they are considered exempt, if you do more research you will find that schools have suspended the right of self expression for children, and schools limit what kids and teachers can wear.
Of course clothing carries a message, that is why some school district do not allow certain type of clothing or colors, because they identify a gang.
So if that is the case why should religious clothing be allowed?
-
I think that it is great that the teacher you interviewed is able to express her culture and beliefs openly. However, you didn't mention (or perhaps I missed it) where in Oregon she teaches. I imagine that in more liberal areas of Oregon this would be less noted than other areas of the state.
-
I think it is an interesting paradox that someone who in one part of their life is illogical and irrational and believes in a Supernatural Being, believes in a "God", is also a math teacher, math being a logical and rational science.
Strange, isn't it?
-
This isn't just about proselytizing, that is a component, yes, but it is more importantly about (as I mentioned in my other comment), the ideology behind these symbols, and that is entirely where the controversy lies. These symbols are not just a meaningless representation of faith, they also represent a set of specific beliefs, and these beliefs are often discriminatory and exclusionary.
-
So, if I am on the bus, going to the doctor's office, and someone else on the bus is wearing a hijab, or a yarmulke, or a crucifix, then they're proselytizing me?
I'm sorry, I don't see how just being in the same space as someone of another faith who is an observant individual, and is proud of their faith (none should be ashamed to be faithful) could be considered proselytizing.
Further, if memory serves, the only religion that truly proclaims itself the "One, True Religion" is the Catholic Church, which saw fit to send missionaries to the New World to convert the "heathen natives" as well as all across Europe, Asia, and Africa, to attempt to convert the Jews, the Hindus, and others.
-
Penny From Eugene,
Did you read my comment? Maybe the writing wasn't clear? I don't care about the 'proselytizing' component, which is why I said "this isn't just about proselytizing, that is a component, yes, but it is more importantly about..."
And, now, an attempt to defend something I didn't even suggest: if you are 'proud' to be something, then you must not be proud to be that other thing, it indicates a choice, a preference of one thing over another. But, the issue isn't about this either. Although, pride is dangerous.
As I said, multiple times, it is about the ideological components that the symbols represent. And to me that is the only truly relevant issue.
-
It troubles me that the Legislature amended the law to PROTECT employees from being discriminated against for their religious clothing, but gave the schools the right to DISCRIMINATE against teachers, and get away with it without the teacher having a chance to test their action in court.
It seems clear to me that the legislature intended to keep Muslim women out of the schools.
-
As I understand it, this law was enacted under the influence of the KKK to prevent Roman Catholic sisters from wearing their habits when teaching in public schools. Is this a heritage we want to be continuing?
-
Religion is a unique prejudice. Those who are intolerant often believe the "offender" to be in league with "evil." Is it reasonable to ask people to just lay aside their deepest fear? We seem to be in a place similar to the intolerance manifested during the very beginnings of our nation, except at that time it was Puritans intolerant of non-puritans; the only solution that ultimately worked was separation. The states were actually formed for just such principle differences. Can we see it as a non-failure, if we must simply allow faiths to have their own schools recognized by the government?
-
The argument that is made by the ACLU and Charlie Hinkle are the same arguments made against gay and lesbian teachers by the OCA in 2000.
Where is our acceptance? Why do we restrict that which is different. I think the fear of the unknown is the heart of this issue. Many teachers visibly wear the cross and yet nothing is said to them.
-
In some ways, religious garb is speech, and in our country we have a right to free speech. There are restrictions on speech in the classroom, and those are based on the concept that the teacher is an authority figure. That's why political speech by a teacher is not allowed. It is OK for teachers to talk about candidates or issues in the classroom, but not to advocate a position. I think the same things apply for religious garb. Wearing a cross or a head scarf isn't imposing authority on students, but trying to convert them is.
In the end, I think we need to examine closely what free speech means in the classroom setting, and how religious speech and religious expression fit. When a student asks a teacher about clothing and the teacher must refuse to comment, that sounds to me that it is a restriction of the right to free speech.
I'm glad we live in a country where this teacher could at least share these realities on the air and that her students, hopefully, will hear what she said on the topic. There is clearly a disconnect in the law, and I hope that our government will eventually remedy that.
-
Wanted to make several points:
- First of all, I have no problem with keeping religion out of the class-room. But what does “keeping religion out of class-room” mean? In my opinion, it means that teachers don’t preach at children or try to impose their religious views on the students. It does not mean that a teacher’s right to obey the rules of his/her religion is taken away. I.e., if a teacher wears a turban or a head-scarf because a teacher’s religion says they must, that should in no way be considered preaching or crossing the line. School districts and DOE can impose clear guidelines as to what is acceptable and non-intrusive clothing. I.e., districts can impose rules that prohibit teachers from wearing T-shirts that proclaim a message.
- It takes a lot of work to become a teacher – college degrees, practical training, licensing, etc. It’s a long multi-year process. People who go through all that work should be judged by their qualifications and how well they do in the classroom, not by whether they wear a turban or a head-scarf. For example, a teacher should be viewed as a teacher who happens to be a muslim, not as a muslim who happens to be a teacher.
- There is a large number of young men and women who want to go into the teaching profession, and who can make great contributions to our schools, but who are being kept from it by this law. Do we want to disqualify prospective teachers simply because they wear non-intrusive clothing that their religion requires them to do that, and completely disregard their actual qualifications to teach?
- Kids are much more likely to snicker at a teacher's religious clothing behind the teacher's back, than they are to fall over and become muslims, sikhs or jews because their teacher wears a head-scarf, turban or yarmulke.
In response to the ACLU gentleman, I'd like to add that 47 states have no problems with allowing teacher to wear non-intrusive religious clothing and there have been no problems reported about teachers preaching to their captive audience of students. House bill already envisions almost 18 months to allow for careful drafting of rules to prevent proselytizing.
-
I agree with David Fidanque - I don't think that clothing has the ability to proselytize.
In addition, I think that our public schools are microcosms in which our children learn how to get along and socialize in a very complex and diverse world. They are the space in which children are allowed to practice their social skills. If we strip that microcosm of all signs of religion, we our doing our children a disservice by eliminating something that very much exists in the outside world. While I strongly believe that schools should not be used in anyway to proselytize, I do believe that children should be exposed to the variety of religious beliefs that exist in this world.
-
I feel that we can fairly safely separate symbols (as in Crosses, political symbols, other religious symbols) from clothing.
I think teachers should be allowed to cover their bodies in whatever way they choose within reasonable and modest norms. I think headscarves, turbans, long dresses, yarmulkes etc, have many cultural meanings also associated with them and may not necessarily be obviously religious.
A giant gold cross, a star of david, 'allah' or a jesus fish has only one message, one of faith and should probably be banned simply on proselytizing grounds.
-
Not every religious person subscribes to all of the sanctions and beliefs, both cultural and scriptoral, of their faith. There's a wide gulf between Mother Theresa and Jerry Falwell. And those nuances are important. It's ridiculous to assume that a person of faith must naturally be full of hatred or prejudice, and I think a homogenous, culturally-exclusive education could be expected to foster just such a prejudice.
Prohibition on signs of faith, I believe, prevents the very thing schools should be fostering: a safe place for discourse and a greater comprehension of the multicultural world our children will inherit. Do Oregon's legislators really want our children to be educated in a completely homogenous environment?
How can we expect our children to express tolerance, maturity, or respect for other persons and cultures unless we teach them that our communities contain many, unique and diverse citizens - including their own teachers?
-
The part that troubles me the most about this issue is that the headscarf worn by Muslim women implies a woman's inferiority to men. If it can be proved to me without a doubt that women are equal to men in the eyes of Muslims in the US, then I fully support a Muslim's right to wear whatever she chooses. This is an issue of civil rights-- but civil rights about the equality of gender, not freedom of expression.
-
Hi Ellipsis914,
You need to distinguish between Islam and local traditions. Unfortunately, in many muslim countries, local non-religiious traditions have kept women inferior to men. However, if you look at Islam as a religion, it emphasised women's rights to inherit, to own property, and to keep their property separate from their husbands about 12 or 13 centuries before these rights came into existence for women in the west. For example, until well into the nineteenth century (maybe even the twentieth), women in Britain did not automatically inherit from their parents, had no vote, and had rights greatly abridged when compared to men's rights.So in that sense, Islam as a religion was way ahead of western societies in giving women full rights.
-
The techer mentioned that is unacceptable to go out to the street without unerwear. Well... in the jungle where i come from there are tribes that walk around without underwear. Now I would not like my familiy to walka round like that, and that is why I DO NOT GO TO LIVE WITH THOSE TRIBES.
You have to accept the culture of the place where you live, and in this culture it is not acceptable to hide your face.
-
But she's not hiding her face. She's wearing a non-intrusive head-scarf that keeps her face completely free. All it covers is her hair. There's a picture of the teacher interviewed on TOL on last Sunday's Oregonian front-page (at the top).
-
RE: Religious dress in public schools. I realize this is an extreme, but nudity is not illegal in Oregon as long as arrousal is not evident. If religious dress is liberalized and all forms of dress are allowed, should the devout, practicing nudist have the right to practice their religion in the classroom? Be careful of liberalization of the law.
-
Whatever the decision on this matter is I think that the wearing of a necklace with a cross should be treated the same way as wearing a yarmulke or a headscarf.
-
I am an atheist and I would like my child to be exposed to as many of the worlds faiths and cultures as possible. The only problem I have is when people of faith insist that their belief is absolute truth. As long as they start with "I believe" They should be able to say or wear whatever they like.
-
I am the father of a seven year old girl. I would be shocked and saddened to ever discover her being taught by a woman in a burka or other form of repressive dress. As a culture, Americans of all stripes should resist temptations to appease minority concerns (from all faiths) when they would result in a step backwards for the rights of women and girls in the public sphere. Here is a test. If the faith dictates behavior along gendered lines, we don’t want it. Express yourself in your private life not in our children’s.
Atheist Father.
-
A teacher is a person in a position of authority and if that position carries with it the symbols of Religionism it makes the kids vulnerable to manipulation towards nefarious beliefs.
There are religious schools for that type of indoctrination and manipulation and so it ought to be kept out of public schools in order to protect children.
If a teacher wants to wear Religionist garb they ought to apply to teach in a Religionist school. Public schools ought to be neutral, to be free of Religionism.
-
I understand why many people worry about religeous garb for young children's viewpoint. I believe that a constant dialogue from parent to child is necessary though as a learning moment in the case that the child's teacher wears a religeous garb or says something psudo religious as well. In my own family, as an athiest, I don't let my daughter say, "oh my god," but she came home from school saying it. I had to tell her about how dad doesn't believe in a god and not to say that in this house, but if later in life she does believe that is her choice. A young child is easily persuaded this way or that way, but I DO like that they are brought up with experience. The parental dialogue, again, is the most important part though
-
I am a huge believer of the separation of church and state. When I'm in my sons' classrooms during the pledge of allegiance, I always leave out the "under god" section of the pledge. However, I person wearing a religious symbol that is important to him/her should absolutely be allowed. The line should be firmly drawn at clothing that expresses written moralizing statements. Allowing people to wear religious objects would (or could) encourage respect and learning between people.
-
What about instructors that wear crosses or wedding rings? These are, more often than not, very overt Christian symbols to some degree. I find that after a while you really don't see these things. I never really notice, or think someone is trying to convert me to their faith because they wear this. It is the same with religious clothing. Once you get to know someone, you really do not notice their religious clothing anymore. I do not identify with any faith, but I used to tutor a muslim family, at first, I did notice their head scarfs because I wasn't used to seeing people in head scarfs, but after a while I didn't notice. They were just kids, and very American at that.
-
The problem with this head scarf topic is [religion] and the rules for religions which were made by men whom made the rules for women. We don't need head scarfs or other religious items that tells everyone that I have religion....that perhaps I am special. Children don't know if said person is making a statement concerning religion and the supreme court is wrong on this issue. The other part of these religions is that these religious rules are beat into you from the time you are able to learn and when you finally grow into adulthood, one tends to believe that these rules are set in stone. And last, there are more important topics to resolve in this country than head scarf issues. It would be interesting to discuss how Muhammad returned to Mecca and slaughtered over ten thousand people (his people) to enforce his regulations for his new religion. Religions are bloody instruments so [men] may have their way throughout history and to control others, especially women.
-
Re: Burquas. You CAN draw a line by saying that a teacher cannot cover their face unless for medical reasons.
-
How about people who want to dress up as the Flying Spaghetti Monster "God"?
Or a practioner of the Kama Sutra, all naked and sexually aroused?
-
Or a practioner of the Kama Sutra, all naked and sexually aroused?
Come on Tom, that's just silly. No one can stay aroused all day long.
-
Point, well, unmade.
-
I think there is too much of an assumption that if a teacher wears a symbol, sometimes required of them by their faith, that that amounts to proselytization. The fact is, a teacher is just as capable of bringing in religion, without any outward symbols at all.
I attended a school where 2 teachers were also the Christian Youth Group leaders and they would advertise participation in youth group in class. I had a teacher bring in members of his church who go on missions to discuss the importance of bringing god into the third world to save the people.
I would much rather have preferred to have a teacher wear a head scarf as a Muslim or Russian Orthodox, or someone wearing a yarmulke...these symbols don't offend me. What offends me is a teacher who is a participant in a religious organization that they try to recruit for in a public school. There is a huge difference!
-
The US Supreme Court has ruled on this:
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/firstamendment/tinker.html
"First Amendment rights, applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment, are available to teachers and students."
-
That case is different in a subtle way. That case deals with students and teachers having First Amendment rights in general... Is it OK for a student or teacher to wear an armband protesting a war?
This situation deals with the First Amendment rights of the teachers coming in direct conflict with the First Amendment rights of the students. ...Is it OK for a teacher to express religious faith?
In this case, courts recognize the First Amendment rights of the students at the expense of the First Amendment right's of the teacher since the teacher is an agent of the state and expressing religious faith violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
Teachers taking a position on a war does not violate anyone's rights as long as it does not disrupt the educational process.
Thanks for the link. The federal Depart of Education opens their guidelines regarding religion in schools with the quote: "It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." I was wondering where that came from.
-
I do not think burkas should be disallowed based on religion but because of security.
As a society, we are obsessive about protecting children in school. How do you do that if you cannot identify individual teachers? How do you tell, every day, that the person coming in is the teacher you hired? We are not a culture that can identify people easily by more subtle clues
But I am offended by singling out religion as a point of exclusion. If a muslim woman cannot wear a head scarf, then a chemotherapy patient should not be allowed to either. Or would you REQUIRE the chemo patient to wear a head scarf or wig, or stay away all together, so that your children are not exposed to the reality of cancer?
Our children need to live in the world.
-
In discussing this subject, people give examples of minor dress variations such as turbans or headscrarves but any change in this law would also probably make it open to full burkas or other extreme dress. It would be hard to learn from someone when you couldn't even see their eyes.
-
In ever increasing numbers, students receive education on-line; there is no eye contact in that situation. Would you say these students are not learning? Would you say that students in the Middle East are not learning simply because their teachers wear burkas?
-
Great discussion. I'm sure many Oregonians didn't know this law existed. I would repeal the law. For those against repealing, I'd ask why... what are you afraid of? If you think your child will be converted to a religion simply because your child's teacher wears religious clothing, perhaps you should examine your relationship with your child and your engagement with his/her school. If you are appropriately engaged with your child's learning environment, and with your child, then a teacher whose identity includes a turban or a headscarf (or other) would be an opportunity for discussion, for conversation, for research and exploration. How do we think our children will become respectful, involved, aware, educated and capable world citizens if we sheild them from exposure to different ideas, different people, different cultures? I expect my children's public school education to expose them to a wide range of unfamiliar symbols, modes of dress, icons, historical and present day -- this is what I hope for, this is part of what will enrich them and our family. We don't want to keep them in a santized bubble.
I don't fear that seeing a teacher dressed in a turban will cause our children to become Sikhs any more than having a gay teacher would cause our children to become gay, or a republican teacher would cause them to become republican, or a teacher who sings beautifully would cause them to develop operatic abilities... I hope that they might want to learn about Sikhs and understand sexuality and develop their own political direction and want to know what Opera is.
Our children will become who they will based on our relationships with them, their own inner strengths and abilities, and providing them with support in seeking knowledge.
Julianna Verboort
preschool teacher
mom to two well rounded and self assured 9 year old children
-
Okay, suppose someone wants to wear the Islamic headscarf but they aren't Islamic. She just thinks it looks "cool." So, she's wearing the headscarf, she'd NOT proselytizing, she's NOT making any sort of religious statement, it has NO religious significance. I guess as long as it's simply clothing and not religious clothing it'd be okay to wear it then? That doesn't make sense.
Now, I'm starting a religion in which shirts and pants are required attire for boys. Now, I guess boys won't be allowed to wear shirts and pants to school. They'll be coming to school in swimsuits and bathrobes.
If you want REAL separation of church and state then the state should stay out of this, neither recommending nor forbidding any sort of attire on religious grounds.
-
Not allowing teachers to have religiouse expression is sending a falitic message that organized religion and secular curriculums, i.e. natural sciences, do not coincide. THEY CAN and do.... Laws that force teachers to hide their religion will only divide our communities . Its like using negative reinforcment when it is not necessary. We should be enableing these teachers, even rewarding them for sending a message that religion does not always end with extremeism...
There is no problem with religiously expressive teachers sending a message that teaaching secular curriculums are not at odds with their religious practices.
Diversity is a healthy message!
-
That doesn't seem true, you make the same mistake people often make about religion and its relation to other things. Religion is ideology, it is more then a simple preference, like Chinese food or Italian for dinner. It has hard and fast consequences. It is also more complicated then an aesthetic preference that really doesn't need to be justified, largely because it inherently can't. Religion isn't just like being part of a culture, because culture is superficial and generally doesn't carry or contain an ideology, culture is based more on tradition. And religions (most, if not all) are inherently exclusive and intolerant. Generally they exist at all, because they believe their way is the only way. So this, really, all boils down to tolerating the intolerant. Saying, I accept the 'diversity' of your right to hate me, isn't really saying much at all. It also isn't being gracious or worldly, or hippie-modern. It is tolerating hatred based on the thin air of faith.
-
If we're going to keep anyone who believes strongly that there is only one way to do something out of the classroom, that is going to be monumentally intrusive. I'm an atheist, but I side with religious minorities because "There but for fortune go I." It would be wrong for a math teacher to preach Islam, but to say that she or he can't look Islamic violates both our Free Speech and our Freedom of Religion. I raised this issue before: suppose a teacher wants to wear a headscarf but she is NOT Islamic. If we forbid her to do that, then what about a religion that FORBIDS headgear of any kind? Will we then require those teachers to wear hats to class because not wearing headgear is an expression of religious faith? I see the freedom TO practice one's religion (or irreligion) as far more important than any freedom FROM it. I'm no friend of Islam: I have plenty of problems with their beliefs and practices, but let's keep our society free.
-
You side with religious minorities, but do you side with minorities that most religions oppress? The example scottmil gave is homosexuals. Should homosexual students have to be reminded every day that their teacher (most likely) believes they are evil?
As far as people wearing headscarves because they think they are cool goes... Schools can set dress codes. If the headscarf is religious, it has to come off by law. If it is not religious, then you are at the mercy of the dress code. Most likely, the school is going to make you take it off because it is accepted as a religious symbol regardless of your belief. I do not see how this poses any issues.
As far as not wearing headgear goes... Tell me the difference between a man not wearing a hat and a man not wearing a hat because it is his religion. Or a man wearing shorts and a man wearing shorts because his religion forbids pants. You can't tell the difference, and that's the point.
Personally, I value Freedom of - and Freedom from Religion equally. Mainly because they are both expressly given in the Constitution, and the rights of the state (teachers) should never trump the rights of individual citizens (students). Ever.
-
I think this is an interesting area to look at: how freedom of speech and freedom of religion intersect. For example does one trump the other, or are they equal? (Perhaps, people more familiar with this area and the legalese, already know all about it.) Because, perhaps contrary to what I said in other comments, if you view this as only a freedom of religion issue, then it seems like you might have more of a case for lifting the ban, but if freedom of religion is considered equivalent and essentially the same as freedom of speech then it seems you would have less of a case. Like are these symbols or garments meant only as a practice, procedure or observance of religious faith, or do they also communicate in the form of speech? I don't mean just in the form of proselytizing, but in the form of conveying that you are of a certain ideology. Perhaps, even if one is not intending to communicate with these symbols, in the classroom setting, they may inherently or unavoidably be communicating. For instance, this is ridiculous, but, if you wanted to wear one of those hooded garish garments of the KKK (that I think were also originally worn by Catholics) as a teacher, we would probably object because of the ideology that goes with them and the KKK. So does religious ideology have another umbrella, or a wider more forgiving umbrella then the umbrella of the freedom of speech. If so, how wide?
-
this comment is meant as a rebuttle to scottmil, two comments above — Wed Feb. 10th 10:56a.m.,
You make a false assumption by implying that all ideologies are employed the same way by individuals or even entire organizations. It is “all or nothing thinking” to assume that because an institution is run by a religious ideology that other viewpoints are inapplicable to its theology.
When you cynically say, “I accept the 'diversity' of your right to hate me”, it seems you are referring specifically to the intolerance of American evangelicalism ‘heaven or hell’ doctrines. Regardless, there is a difference between proselytizing and the use of outward expressions of inner-faith. The difference being, proselytizing is persuading others to one’s own belief system and this act has its own spectrum with messages of intolerance on one extreme. While the expression of outward garments/jewelry worm by public school teachers actually propagates tolerance by exposing children to teachers who can both teach a secular curriculum and maintain their religious ideological integrity.
I will grant you, too much of a good thing can be a bad thing. That is to say, diversity can be a double edged sword, i.e. should it go so far to include hate speech, etc. However, you make the mistake of assuming that the root of all religious ideologies is a message of intolerance. Religiously affiliated teachers who buy into a secular curriculum are a living example of tolerance. You entirely miss the virtue they represent by reducing their actions to the stereotypes affiliated with religious intolerance
-
I don't make a mistake 'of assuming that the root of all religious ideologies is a message of intolerance.' I think that is what we all, too often, forget. We think religion is benign, just as I said like a preference for milk or dark chocolate. The fact that there are multiple religions, common-sense would say, that each believes their way is the correct way. How could one subscribe to a faith and not believe it has virtues over the others? What would be the point? Choosing one automatically means you exclude the others. Suggesting they are tolerant is almost like saying that they must be meaningless choices then. Why would you choose one over another? I think all religions, even the seemingly secular, believe ultimately that they have salvation at some point, which is intolerant, or it is at least the outsourcing of intolerance to a god. That is the problem with discussing religion, it is different from almost any other ideology or model, because the scale is so extreme. It does after-all attempt to answer the mysteries of life! But, we ignore the ultimate conclusions of where these faiths lead, because we are used to, and immune to them, and because they have so thoroughly infiltrated our lives. We forget what they actually mean, what they really say about us.
Exposing children to religion, is not like exposing children to culture. It is more like exposing children to bigots. Is it necessary to employ open bigots so a child can learn to tolerate them? Like I said, religion is not some benign simple thing, it has conceptual and ideological components that are not at all superficial. Exposing children to race and culture can be valuable for some children because it teaches them that race and culture ARE superficial and underneath we are all the same. Exposing children to religion does not do this. Religion teaches children that some people may hate you, your lifestyle and your lack of belief in their belief. It teaches children that some people believe they have the chosen path to a heaven. That does not seem useful in an education.
Yes, the 'root of all religious ideologies is a message of intolerance.' If they don't say that, than I have no idea why anyone would want to be a member of a group that believes it has no advantages over any of the others.
-
Reply to Slak Pt I
Slak wrote: You side with religious minorities, but do you side with minorities that most religions oppress? The example scottmil gave is homosexuals. Should homosexual students have to be reminded every day that their teacher (most likely) believes they are evil?My reply is: I side with freedom of thought, expression, and speech. I have to put up with jokes about bald guys or old people, both things I AM and do not CHOOSE to be. Why should homosexuals get better treatment than I do? BTW, you charicature the religious view of homosexuals. In most cases they feel homosexuals are wrong (sinful) not evil. Evil is unredeemable.
Slak wrote: As far as people wearing headscarves because they think they are cool goes... Schools can set dress codes. If the headscarf is religious, it has to come off by law.
My reply is: Perhaps you missed the theme of the show, which was whether the law should change.
Slak wrote: If it is not religious, then you are at the mercy of the dress code.
My reply is: Assuming there is one. If the state Supreme Court finds that the dress code is intended primarily to oppress religious expression, well they might invalidate the law. This isn't like the case of the Islamic woman who refused to uncover her face for her driver's license. In this case, there would have to be something more important than our freedom of religion.
-
UnseenWorld,
I hardly think the religious view, at least that I have personally encountered from my parents, that I deserve death, because I am following the ways of Satan, is exaggerated by the word 'evil.' But, anyway it isn't a pity party.
You, perhaps unknowingly, brought up an important point when you said you do not 'choose' to be bald or old. Which is, yes, exactly the point! The point, of why a student who doesn't 'choose' to be something should be subjected to feeling unsatisfactory by a teacher that, without doubt, 'chooses' to be a member of a certain religion. Religion is a choice. Being a religious minority is a choice, and, because of this it is different from almost all other minorities we generally talk about. Unfortunately, we don't make this distinction often enough. We essentially think of religion like a race, that needs to be protected at all costs. But, religion is nothing of the sort. Its ideology should not be protected, in the same manner, as the color of one's skin.
-
Reply to Slak Pt II
Slak wrote: Most likely, the school is going to make you take it off because it is accepted as a religious symbol regardless of your belief. I do not see how this poses any issues.
My reply is: It does if the purpose of the law is to prevent proselytizing. No proselytizing, then the law should not apply.
Slak wrote: As far as not wearing headgear goes... Tell me the difference between a man not wearing a hat and a man not wearing a hat because it is his religion.
My reply is: Tell me, how can you tell the difference between a teacher wearing a headscarf because it is required by her religion and one whosimply likes headscarves.
Slak wrote: Or a man wearing shorts and a man wearing shorts because his religion forbids pants. You can't tell the difference, and that's the point.
My reply is: And as you can see by my point, you stepped into my trap. Simply because a woman is wearing a headscarf, you can't see into her brain to tell if she's a muslim or not.
Slak wrote: Personally, I value Freedom of - and Freedom from Religion equally. Mainly because they are both expressly given in the Constitution, and the rights of the state (teachers) should never trump the rights of individual citizens (students). Ever.
My reply is: Our country was founded by people running from a society attempting to control their religion. That was the pilgrims. Later on, our founding fathers (the ones who wrote the Constitution) were quite obviously more concerned with allowing people to practice their religion than with preventing people from expressing it.
A woman in a headscarf teaching math may be giving a reminder of her faith, but I really can't understand how that oppresses students any more than if her clothing reveals she likes pastel colors or tweed.
This is all a lot of looney left silliness, except that it's oppressive of a religious minority.
-
I cant believe that in the twentyfirst century we cant teach our children to accept other peoples beliefs and accept that people are different. teaching our children tolerance, understanding and acceptance is better than burying your head in the sand. tolerence and understanding leads to peace and a healthy way of life. if we allow people to have other religions then we must accept that they are going to show their ways. that is a great thing that we can all express our views, it is called America not some third world nation. love your neighbor and allow them their beliefs.
-
Thank you for this nice post
my blog: justin bieber biography | how to get rid of love handles
-
The part that troubles me the most about this issue is that the headscarf worn by Muslim women implies a woman's inferiority to men. If it can be proved to me without a doubt that women are equal to men in the eyes of Muslims in the US, then I fully support a Muslim's right to wear whatever she chooses. Dog bark collar citronella bark collar
-
Comments are now closed.
Quoting directly from the Constitution of The United States of America:
BILL OF RIGHTS, Article I:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
THE CONSTITUTION, Article VI:
All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
So it seems to me, from reading this, that Oregon's law prohibiting school teachers from wearing symbols of their faith -- be it a crucifix, a yarmulke, a turban, or a hijab, is contrary to the Constitution of the United States. And frankly, I fail to see how any student's education is diminished by an educator wearing her hijab, or his turban, or a crucifix or a Star of David, or any other personal item that is a symbol of their faith.
No, I am not a lawyer or a Constitutional expert, just a citizen with a modicum of common sense who is tired of seeing individuals' civil rights stepped on by the government, especially the government of Oregon.