www.mozilla.com Weather Central
Voices
Headlines

Embarrassing economists -10/24/2014, 9:13 AM

Sherow for House -10/24/2014, 9:13 AM

It can't get crazier (wanna bet?) -10/24/2014, 9:04 AM

Digital distractions -10/23/2014, 10:01 AM

Orman for Senate -10/23/2014, 10:01 AM

Federal persecutors -10/23/2014, 10:00 AM

Kids do count -10/22/2014, 10:31 AM

Needing the past in the future? -10/22/2014, 10:31 AM

In praise of hunting -10/22/2014, 10:30 AM

What is a CID? Will it work for mall? -10/21/2014, 10:22 AM

Judging importance on the ballot -10/21/2014, 10:22 AM

Kansas Speaks -10/21/2014, 10:22 AM

Paying for schools -10/19/2014, 1:21 PM

Joining forces for Orman -10/19/2014, 1:21 PM

Research before voting -10/19/2014, 1:21 PM

Davis is moderate? -10/19/2014, 1:21 PM

The most important election in your lifetime -10/19/2014, 1:21 PM

Huelskamp stands out -10/19/2014, 1:21 PM

Kansas farm interests -10/19/2014, 1:21 PM

Keeping unfounded reports from 'going viral' -10/19/2014, 1:21 PM

The age of cynicism -10/18/2014, 9:02 AM

Preventable diseases -10/17/2014, 10:28 AM

Second term needed -10/17/2014, 10:28 AM

Kansans deserve better -10/17/2014, 10:28 AM

Officially killing Americans -10/17/2014, 10:27 AM

New era at FHSU -10/16/2014, 10:01 AM

Roberts is right choice -10/16/2014, 10:01 AM

Crumbling Constitution -10/16/2014, 9:52 AM

Redbelly's future -10/16/2014, 9:52 AM

Kansas deserves better -10/15/2014, 10:23 AM

Remember to vote on Nov. 4 -10/15/2014, 10:23 AM

You almost feel sorry for Sean Groubert -10/15/2014, 10:23 AM

Register to vote -10/14/2014, 10:14 AM

Living on that 70 percent -10/14/2014, 10:14 AM

New bullying problem for schools: parents -10/14/2014, 10:14 AM

Cheerios, marriage equality, the Supreme Court -10/13/2014, 9:49 AM

Wedded bliss -10/12/2014, 5:54 PM

Who is the real fraud? -10/12/2014, 5:08 PM

Teenagers 'make some noise' -10/12/2014, 5:08 PM

Not so private property -10/10/2014, 10:01 AM

Federal funding -10/10/2014, 10:01 AM

Teacher indoctrination -10/10/2014, 10:01 AM

Vote Republican -10/9/2014, 9:49 AM

Non-partisan politics -10/9/2014, 9:49 AM

Teen driver safety week Oct. 19 to 25 -10/9/2014, 9:04 AM

FHSU party -10/9/2014, 10:11 AM

Poverty in America -10/9/2014, 10:11 AM

Let the women serve -10/9/2014, 10:11 AM

Time for new direction -10/8/2014, 9:49 AM

Improving Kansas economically -10/8/2014, 9:35 AM

Water abusers -10/8/2014, 9:35 AM

Play safe on the farm -10/8/2014, 9:34 AM

Where the money comes from -10/7/2014, 10:24 AM

The president's security -10/7/2014, 10:24 AM

Marriage equality -10/7/2014, 10:24 AM

The sins of the father are visited -10/6/2014, 9:02 AM

Cannabis in America: The bottom line -10/6/2014, 9:20 AM

A reason to celebrate -10/6/2014, 9:20 AM

Gov. shields wealthy from paying for schools -10/5/2014, 2:07 PM

Passionate protest in defense of civil disorder -10/5/2014, 2:07 PM

October is time for baseball and, of course, film premieres -10/4/2014, 2:16 PM

Alley cleanup -10/3/2014, 10:01 AM

Will the West defend itself? -10/3/2014, 10:01 AM

Find another school -10/3/2014, 10:01 AM

It's better now -10/2/2014, 9:17 AM

The answer is to bomb Mexico? -10/2/2014, 9:17 AM

Falling revenue -10/2/2014, 9:17 AM

School facilities -10/1/2014, 9:27 AM

Look ahead, not back -10/1/2014, 9:27 AM

Secret Service needs to step up its game -10/1/2014, 9:27 AM

Roosevelts were true leaders -9/30/2014, 9:18 AM

Moral bankruptcy -9/30/2014, 9:18 AM

Expect some sort of change in Topeka -9/30/2014, 9:18 AM

'A tale of two countries' -9/29/2014, 9:59 AM

The last of the Willie Horton ads? -9/29/2014, 9:59 AM

Finding answers to the future of Kansas -9/28/2014, 2:20 PM

College: Where religious freedom goes to die -9/28/2014, 2:20 PM

Honoring Hammond -9/28/2014, 2:20 PM

Do statistical disparities mean injustice? -9/26/2014, 9:53 AM

World university rankings -9/26/2014, 9:52 AM

Kansas experiment -9/26/2014, 9:52 AM

Two anti-choice parties -9/25/2014, 10:03 AM

Not in the same old Kansas anymore -9/25/2014, 10:03 AM

Domestic violence -9/25/2014, 10:03 AM

Back to war we go -9/24/2014, 9:55 AM

Piling on the NFL -9/24/2014, 9:54 AM

Emma Watson looking for a few good men -9/24/2014, 9:54 AM

Renter runaround -9/23/2014, 7:32 PM

Enough is enough -9/23/2014, 9:02 AM

Life of politics in the state -9/23/2014, 9:02 AM

What is and is not child abuse -9/22/2014, 9:30 AM

Cannabis politics and research -9/22/2014, 9:30 AM

Future of The Mall -9/21/2014, 6:14 PM

Multiculturalism is a failure -9/19/2014, 9:52 AM

State education rankings -9/19/2014, 9:52 AM

Kobach gone wild -9/19/2014, 9:52 AM

Bias prevents civil discussion of education issues -9/18/2014, 9:35 AM

Immigration is American -9/18/2014, 9:35 AM

Costs to states not expanding Medicaid -9/17/2014, 10:14 AM

Medicare threats -9/17/2014, 10:12 AM

myTown Calendar

SPOTLIGHT
[var top_story_head]

Are 'religious viewpoint' laws needed in schools?

Published on -4/6/2014, 2:11 PM

Printer-friendly version
E-Mail This Story

Remember the hue and cry last fall when a Tennessee teacher told a fifth-grader she couldn't write about God as the person she admired most?

Well, members of the state legislature didn't forget. Even though school officials quickly corrected the teacher and apologized to the family, lawmakers seized on the incident to push for a bill designed to protect student religious expression in public schools.

Last week, the "Religious Viewpoints Anti-discrimination Act" passed both houses of the Tennessee legislature by huge margins and now awaits the governor's signature.

Sometimes all it takes is one bad story.

Tennessee's new legislation is the latest of a series of almost identical laws pushed nationwide by conservative Christian groups in recent years. Texas, Mississippi and South Carolina already have enacted this legislation, and bills are pending in Oklahoma, Georgia, Alabama and other states.

The ostensible aim of all these laws is to protect the right of public school students to express their religious views in class, assemblies and graduation ceremonies. As the Tennessee bill puts it, schools "may not discriminate against the student based on a religious viewpoint expressed by the student on an otherwise permissible subject."

Actually, this is nothing new. The U.S. Department of Education issued guidelines in 2003 outlining the religious rights of students -- guidelines quoted verbatim in these state laws. Much of what is in the USDOE guidance tracks what is allowed under current law, according to most legal experts.

It widely is accepted, for example, students have the right to express their religious views in homework, artwork, and class discussions -- as long, of course, as they fulfill the requirements of the assignment and their comments are relevant to the subject under consideration. No new law is needed to make this clear.

What is disputed, however, is where to draw the line on student religious expression before a captive audience at school-sponsored events. We know from various Supreme Court decisions that public schools might not promote religious beliefs at school events -- even if they select a student to deliver the religious message.

But the USDOE and the state "religious viewpoint" laws assert when students are given the opportunity to speak without school officials controlling the content of the speech, then such expression is not school sponsored and might not be restricted because of its religious content. Call it a "free speech" moment during which a student can talk about faith or even offer a prayer.

Critics contend the USDOE guidance (and the state laws that echo it) go too far because lower courts are divided about where school officials can draw the line on student religious speech before a captive audience. Moreover, they argue, speech at school-sponsored events remains school-sponsored, even when school officials don't review the content of student speeches.

Turning the podium over to students, of course, can be a risky business. Although the "religious viewpoint" laws would not require school officials to allow speech that was profane, sexually explicit, defamatory or disruptive, the student speech could include political or religious views offensive to many.

Conservative Christian groups promoting these laws appear willing to take that risk, gambling religious speech they like will be heard far more often than religious (or anti-religious) speech they don't like.

In fact, lawmakers in Tennessee and other states are hedging their bets by requiring schools to create a pool of "student leaders" -- student council officers, football team captains and the like -- from which the school-event speakers will be chosen. Even if limiting the selection process in this way is constitutional (and that remains an open question), it surely signals the "open forum" isn't so open after all.

The bigger problem with these laws, however, is not so much the content but the potential for abuse. In communities where one religion dominates, school officials might view these laws as a doorway to promote the majority faith -- doing through students what the school can not do itself.

If public schools actually would let all students (not just the designated "leaders") speak freely at school events, then free speech, religious and non-religious, might be well-served.

But as written, these laws appear aimed at encouraging student religious expression that will be popular in states such as Tennessee and Texas. After all, in most of these school districts, people aren't too worried about what the football captain will say (or pray).

Charles C. Haynes is director of Religious Freedom Center of Newseum Institute,

Washington.

chaynes@newseum.org

digg delicious facebook stumbleupon google Newsvine
More News and Photos

Associated Press Videos

AP Breaking News