Making Public Schools Safe for Religion

Even in the lazy days of summer, when most schools are as noisy as a mausoleum, classrooms are rattling with the ghosts of First Amendment debates left unresolved: A parent sues a Mississippi school district for allowing prayers over the school intercom. A California high school prevents students from distributing invitations to a Bible study group. A school principal in Virginia bars a student from reading her Bible on a school bus. Meanwhile, conservatives in Congress may soon unveil a religious-liberty amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as promised by House Speaker Newt Gingrich after the Republican victories in November 1994. One version of the bill, introduced by Representative Henry Hyde of Illinois, would not allow any government agency to deny benefits or otherwise discriminate against any private person or group on account of religious Supporters hope the bill's language will prevent educators from muzzling legitimate forms of religious speech--from class reports to lunchroom prayers. Charles Haynes, an authority on religion and education issues, isn't sanguine about adding a postscript to James Madison's historic formula for church-state relations. Although he laments a widespread failure to take religion seriously in the classroom, Haynes says a constitutional amendment isn't needed to protect religious expression. Despite some mistaken judicial rulings, he says, court interpretations of the First Amendment still permit private religious speech by students as well as classroom instruction about religion. Let's try the Amendment we have before we add another one, he says. I would argue that we still really haven't tried to make the First Amendment Making the Amendment work first means educating parents and teachers about the forms of religious expression still permissible under state and federal court rulings. Haynes, a scholar at Vanderbilt University, collaborates with Oliver Thomas, an expert on church-state law who has taught at Georgetown University Law Center. Both played a role in getting religious and civil-liberties groups last year to sign a Joint Statement of Current Law, outlining wide freedoms for student-initiated speech (see sidebar, page 21). just because religious expression is legal does not mean it is uncontroversial. Working district by district, Haynes and Thomas are bringing together educators, parents, and community leaders of different faiths to agree on three basic rules for setting policies on religion in schools: (1) Schools must protect the religious freedoms of students of all faiths, even those of no faith; (2) parents have primary responsibility for the education of their children; and (3) public debate must always be conducted with respect and civility. School districts around the nation are signing up. Called the Three Rs Project (for rights, responsibilities, and respect), the program has been introduced in all of California's 58 counties. It has been endorsed by groups as diverse as the Anti-Defamation League, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Christian Educators Association International, and the California Teachers Association. And a growing number of states--including Georgia, New Mexico, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Utah--are moving ahead with the initiative as even their most homogenous school districts absorb rising numbers of ethnic and religious minorities. The lesson is that pluralism need not hush all religious voices in public schools. Haynes insists that the First Amendment is animated by a respect for individual conscience, and that it implies a set of civic principles for affirming religion in the public square--in all its diversity. If it's done right, the First Amendment will make the schools, for the first time in our history, places where deeply religious people will feel confident in sending their children to be educated, Haynes says. But getting it right is going to take a great deal of work. …