Keep religious influences out of our public schools

Guest Columnist By Guest Columnist The Oregonian
Follow on Twitter
on December 02, 2009 at 9:00 AM, updated December 02, 2009 at 1:53 PM
WW.11Hinkle.jpgCharles Hinkle
For as long as there have been public schools, religious groups have been trying to use them to promote their own religious beliefs. They have wanted their own sacred texts read, their own prayers uttered.

In 1844, rioting broke out in Philadelphia over which version of the Bible should be read in schools. Many people were killed. Such events caused states to enact stronger measures to keep religious influences out of the schools. An 1895 Pennsylvania statute prohibited public school teachers from wearing religious dress in the classroom. Pennsylvania's Supreme Court upheld the statute, stating that "the Legislature deemed it important that all appearances of sectarianism should be avoided in the administration of public schools."

The Oregon Legislature enacted a similar statute in 1923. In a recent editorial, The Oregonian's editorial board said that the Oregon statute was the product of "ugly, lingering prejudice" ("Saying goodbye to an ugly, lingering prejudice," Nov. 28). The board overlooked the fact that the statute was rewritten by the 1965 Legislature and approved by then-Gov. Mark Hatfield.

In the 1980s, the Supreme Courts of Oregon and the United States upheld the statute against a constitutional challenge. The Oregon court said that there was "no reason to believe" that the 1965 Legislature "had any aim other than to maintain the religious neutrality of the public schools, to avoid giving children or their parents the impression that the school, through its teacher, approves and shares the religious commitment of one group and perhaps finds that of others less worthy."

The free exercise of religion is a precious constitutional right, but it is not more precious than freedom of speech. Public school teachers have no free speech right to express their views on abortion or vegetarianism to the captive audience of their students, and they have no greater right to express their religious beliefs in the classroom, through their clothing or by any other means.

Most young people are influenced by their teachers more than by any other person, except their parents. What their teachers wear matters. Studies have shown that a student's academic performance is significantly affected when the teacher wears a religious symbol. Catholic students, for example, perform better on tests administered by a teacher who is wearing a cross than on tests administered by a teacher who is wearing a Star of David. The younger the student, the greater the influence.

By prohibiting public school teachers from wearing religious dress in the classroom, Oregon helps to preserve the religious neutrality of the public school experience. If teachers were permitted to wear clothing that communicates a message about their faith, then it is hard to see why they should not be permitted to wear other insignia that communicates a similar message -- a swastika, for example, which has been a sacred symbol in Buddhism and Hinduism for centuries. And if a teacher can wear clothing that communicates the message that "I'm a priest" or "I'm a Rajneeshee" or "I'm a Muslim," then why shouldn't a teacher be allowed to wear a T-shirt that says "Jesus Loves You"?

Sectarian religious influences should be kept out of the public school classroom. The Legislature should leave the religious dress statute alone.

Charles Hinkle is a Portland attorney and a cooperating attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union in Oregon.