I fear that one of the problems is the desire for neat, clear, bright-line answers instead of recognition of the full complexity of everyday interactions and beliefs. Students may well have a right to be free from harassment, but who decides and on what standard? Is it the person who is targeted? Is it that person's subjective response? Does it matter if it is a group targeting another group (I know Eugene does not believe in any sort of group-based analysis in this area) as opposed to individuals in conversation?
Some people have highly sensitive antennas -- like Woody Allen's character in many of his movies with the Jew who hears Jewish slurs everywhere -- e.g., "D'you eat yet" is heard as "Jew! Eat yet!" Is that the standard?
Or is it the result of a poll with majority rule? Many whites in many parts of the country said "n----r" thoughtlessly -- not with subjective ill will. If the poll showed that they did not associate it with being derogatory does that make it all right?
Can we distinguish between evangelism and proselytizing? Can we distinguish between information and advocacy? Should we?
When we are called upon to advise our schools on such behavior, do we educate about nuance or just say no?
A strange twist has been at work where those who decry the expulsion of religion from schools have created the monster they feared -- where teachers and principals ban the Bible completely and such.
Life is not so simple. And some of these sorts of interactions are the very stuff of life in school.
But in my experience the majority all too often are insensitive to the sensibilities of the minorities and see nothing intimidating or wrong with shunning or the HS analogs or with bold pronouncements of solidarity with their majority faith friends, despite the likely response of others.
The minorities live with things those of the dominant faith simply, as a whole, don't recognize exists and can't seem to understand. Though I reject my colleague's positing the existence of a Protestant Empire as an accurate or even helpful heuristic device in most instances, in this instance, I think it apt. My kids went through schools where this was the case and they were pretty bright and strong-willed and able and willing to defend themselves for the most part. But why should they need to be in a situation where that need to defend themselves is a constant part of life?
This is, it seems to me, what teaching tolerance is all about -- not accepting everyone's beliefs as equal, but respecting the differences and not condemning them through word or action -- such as proselytization.
A bit of a ramble. Sorry.
Steve
--
Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017
Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-8428
2900 Van Ness Street NW mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Washington, DC 20008 http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamar
"Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided man."
- Martin Luther King Jr., "Strength to Love", 1963
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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.
