|
Alan’s post raises an important point, which is that when we expect, or even mandate, public schools to address controversial matters or matters that strike close to home for people, in terms of their strongest values and personal lives, sticky questions may arise. I’ll duck the specific questions Alan raises about teaching on religion for now – although I think them to be unavoidable questions for a school system – and instead suggest that one could sketch a similar series of anguishing questions for how a public school would address issues of race, economic class, political affiliation, and sexual orientation. To take just the latter as an example, a quality education to prepare a student for life in the modern American culture could not ignore altogether the controversies about homosexual orientation and same-sex marriage. But given the strong divisions in our culture, a balanced educational approach ought to tread along a careful line between presenting accurate information and proselytizing either for traditional values or in favor of the moral neutrality or societal benefits of homosexual unions.
What I’m saying is this: the fact that teaching about sensitive topics, whether religion or race or sexual orientation, is difficult is not necessarily a reason not to do it. That a difficult subject is challenging to convey, and a fully satisfactory resolution may prove always elusive, doesn’t mean that the matter isn’t worth the effort. (Note that I don’t understand Alan here to be saying otherwise, I was just using his post as a springboard to anticipate the argument that some may make, and have made in the past, that these kinds of sticky problems prove the impossibility and impropriety of teaching about religion in public schools.)
Greg Sisk
-----Original Message-----
There is a long article in yesterday’s WSJ about the conflicts that have arisen in the California Department of Education’s textbook review process.
At least to my mind, the article raises a variety of interesting questions.
1. Is there a constitutional problem if a public school teaches children what members of their religion and other religions purport to believe – and those teachings are challenged on the grounds that they:
a. misrepresent the religion’s teachings b. denigrate the tenets of a particular faith c. favor one or more religions over others -- or one understanding of what a religion stands for over another when there is internal conflict as to the religion’s precepts.
2. Under Scalia’s understanding of the Establishment Clause, might a school only teach students about monotheistic faiths and ignore any discussion of other religions.
3. The article describes a disagreement among Hindu organizations and scholars on the question of whether Hinduism is monotheistic or polytheistic. Who gets to answer that question (both for the purpose of determining what is taught in school and with regard to the preferences Scalia would extend to monotheistic religious displays)? Is that a matter for political determination or constitutional adjudication?
Alan Brownstein UC Davis |
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
