1970s Religion and Policies for Today Ryan Hall
12-6-2002
Fall EDGE
I vividly remember sitting in my ninth grade world history class, only six short years ago, when my teacher announced that next week we would begin a four week study on world religions. A nervous murmur swept through thirty students, all thinking the
same thought, “oh no, here we go again.” Why is religion in our preparatory schools such a touchy topic? Teachers would rather not address religion or they carefully tip-toeing around the topic? While attending Big Bear High School (a typical southern
California school with about 1,000 students) I learned a lot about how religion is taught and how religious issues are handled. Raised in a Christian home, having my father teaching at the same school I attended, and practicing Christianity my entire life, I
watched carefully throughout my high school education to see how my teachers would deal with the world and U.S. religions that play an enormous role in the history of our world and country.
I am primarily interested in how religion was taught in the early 1970s. Including: what religions were covered, how they were integrated into the text, and the values of the religion that were presented. With my interest in possibly majoring in religious studies I feel that I have an excellent understanding of how religion is taught in our high schools today, but I don’t have a thorough understanding of what it was like to grow up in school in the 1970s and go through school. How was religion presented in the textbooks of schools in the 1970s? My primary goal of this paper is to further my understanding of religion in high schools of the 1970s. Then I would like to further my study by looking at newer documents and regulations that are in place now to govern religion that is taught and expressed in our schools today. What I expect to find is that religion was taught similarly in the 70s without all the newer policies and guidelines of today. Lastly I would like to look at how these policies and regulations in our public schools are affecting our students.
Teachers of the 1970s had many cultural factors that affected how religion was taught. First, they were teaching at the end of the 1960s. When the 1960s come to mind there is instantly images of peace signs, cigarettes, ty dye T-shirts, drugs, and sex. This was an age of breaking away from the normal white collar citizens of the 50s. Religion was an openly debated topic and was being explored by this new generation in ways it never had been in Americas past. Another cultural issue that affected teachers was
the confusion that began in the courts in the 1960s. In1962, the Supreme Court struck down a case involving state sponsored school prayer. The main text that will be examined in this text was written shortly after this confusion. Published in 1972 and written as part of the California State Series of textbooks, WE the People; a history of the United States of America, met the challenging task of informing students of religion as it occurred in the history of the United States.
What makes a successful U.S. history textbooks when teaching religion? One of the largest successes of We the People is that it covers a large spectrum of religions naturally as they occur in our nations history. WE the People covers: Jews, Mormons, Moslems,
Quakers, Catholics, Roman Catholics and Christians. Covering a wide variety of religions makes the student feel more comfortable with any given religion that he/she may practice. For example, a practicing Moslem would probably feel uncomfortable in a class that focuses solely on Catholics and Christians. He/she may even feel secluded from the class, to ensure this from not happening a variety of religions are presented in this text. Covering a variety of religions is the first step in avoiding religious tension in the classroom, but even more important is how each religion is taught.
The story of Martha Ball is a perfect example of the tension teachers receive when trying to teach about religion, in this case about Mormons.
“In 1984, Utah middle school teacher Martha Ball discovered
just how sensitive schools had become to religious issues in the classroom. During a middle school class on U.S. and Utah history,‘ I made this innocuous remark about how we were going to study the Mormon migration west,’ Ball recalls. ‘And one kid said, ‘You use the word “Mormon” in this classroom and my Dad will sue you.’ Stunned, Ball went to her principal, who warned her to avoid the topic. The head of the school’s history department agreed and told Ball she was ‘asking for major problems’ if she explored the subject any further.” (NEA Today, 8)
The story of Martha Ball is a typical problem that all teachers across the country experience. So how do the textbooks of the 1970s teach religion? In teaching about Mormons the text tells the story of how they experienced religious persecution in New York and then again in Illinois, and thus headed west to settle in Utah. The text avoids conflict by focusing on the settlement of Utah rather than the Mormon faith. Subtly it still tells about the faith as it applies to the settlement of Utah. Once again this same strategy is implemented when the settlement of Pennsylvania is explained. William Penn was a Quaker, thus the text takes the opportunity to explain the Quaker faith yet it is still focusing on the settlement of Pennsylvania.
In the 1970s textbook it is rare to find much discussion of religion outside of how it directly affects history. For example, when discussing why Prince Henry first explored the Atlantic Ocean three reasons were given for why he decided to explore. The least amount of time is spent on arguably his most significant reason for exploration, to spread his Christian faith. It is obvious that this text doesn’t want to go any further into his background of the Christian faith, his convictions, or beliefs. The text wants to avoid
the possibility of challenging the student. They seek to inform but to some extend they don’t tell the entire story, just enough to not offend students. The best word to describe religion in 1970s textbook is: subtle. Were as textbooks today are more likely to have an entire section devoted to religions, this is not evident in We the People. In this text the focus in blatant, the facts of how things began in the U.S. They acknowledge that religion sparked much of the colonization of the U.S. but choose to focus elsewhere. This approach is valid to some extent because it is a history book, not a religion book. It is hard to criticize this text because obviously their approach to religion will not violate the students 1st Amendment. If teachers were to follow this text than surely there would be very few if no problems.
1970s textbooks present religious information the same way that I have experienced it, in a non-threatening, factual manner. Simply presenting facts about religion is not when conflict occurs. Conflict occurs more when it comes to expression of faith, either by the faculty or the students. That is why so many new laws, policies,
and philosophies have come out since the 1970s.Exploring Religious Controversy in Schools
In 1940, the Minersville School District was involved in a court case because of religion in school; but not because of how it was taught or because of suppression. Rather the case involved a task that students across the nation perform everyday: the flag
solute. The case involved parents who argued that saluting the flag by saying “and to the Republic for which it stands; one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all” was forbidden by the Bible. They reasoned that the pledge of allegiance was putting the flag as the supreme authority. The court ruled that obedience to saying the pledge of allegiance did not in any way promote or restrict religious beliefs. This nation wide policy is used to promote national unity among children in public schools.
This case may seem extreme, especially for the time, but it stirred a movement of school cases regarding religion.
In 1972, Wisconsin v. Yoder involved the Amish and its members violating Wisconsin’s compulsory school attendance act which made it illegal for kids to not attend school. The Amish had their children drop out of school in the 8th grade so they could come home and prepare for the Amish way of life. They argued that they would endanger their own salvation by attending high school. The court ruled that this compulsory law violated the Free Exercise Claus in the 1st Amendment, which was made applicable to the states in the 14th Amendment.
The Amish argument was valid and the 1st Amendment was violated in their case but does that make it acceptable for them to directly violate school regulations? What about the schools side of the argument? Shouldn’t kids have to attend school? The law
says yes, but not if your Amish. What are the regulations for: how religion should be taught, how are students allowed to express their views, what about teachers? The law seems unclear and lenient with religion which is why numerous articles and policies
have recently emerged; in order to inform teachers how to effectively deal with religion.
Policies and Rules for Religion in School
The first and greatest authority on religion in school is the 1st Amendment. The 1st Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...” (We the People, 445). As a product of the
1st Amendment schools are not allowed to promote any religion, they must instead walk the middle, neutral ground, especially when teaching.
A history teacher who may be teaching about various religions is
not bound by the law to spend a certain amount of time on any certain religion. But it is recommended that religion be taught were it naturally occurs throughout history while covering a variety of religions. For example the way in which We the People taught
about Quakers when discussing the colonization of Pennsylvania.
In 2001, The First Amendment Center published Finding Common Ground: A Guide to Religious Liberty in Public Schools which gives helpful hints on teaching religion in the classroom. The document basically states: focus on studies about religion not practice of religion, be academic not devotional, try and make students aware of all religions but don’t stress that they might practice them, expose different religious views without imposing them. It is easier for teachers to teach neutrally about religion
when they take a purely academic approach.
In 1995, President Bill Clinton had the secretary of education, Richard Riley, write a document instructing teachers the proper manner to teach religion. This document was derived from to the 1st Amendment. What was fascinating was the text under the headline Civic Values, which stated “teachers are expected to teach civic values, virtue and moral code that holds community together. Just because some of these values are held by certain religions it does not make them unlawful to be taught.” Teachers are expected to teach our children morals and values that will promote them to become good citizens and contributors to our nation. This expectation is the very thing which makes teaching religion so difficult. Most religions are not bad. Most religions don’t hurt anyone or teach physical aggression in anyway. Most religions have good, solid values and morals, that our nation would like each citizen to have. So how do teachers remain neutral when teaching a religion if they are expected to teach some of the morals that our country expects our students to have? This is the main dilemma that teachers face. In addition teachers are people themselves, some of which hold religious beliefs that are
influencing how they teach in obvious and sometimes not so obvious ways.
Teachers that are religious have to remove themselves from their job and view their job as the role of a public servant. They must keep the needs of their students and respect their faith before they practice their own faith. Teachers may pray silently to themselves
but not with students. Teachers are allowed to wear modest jewelry, such as a cross or a star of David. Teachers are not allowed to wear proselytizing clothing. Schools are not required to permit teachers from wearing religious attire but in most cases they still allow it. Basically, the teachers personal life must be left at home or kept for private time only.
Students have much more religious freedom at school than the faculty. Students may wear religious clothing and items to the same extent that comparable secular messages are allowed. Schools may not single out religious attire in general. A good
example is that if a school district allows a popular wrestling shirt “Austin 3:16” to be worn than by that same standard they have to allow a shirt that says “John 3:16” to be worn.
In the classroom, students are allowed to freely discuss their religious beliefs. They may write about religion or religious figures and be graded by the same standard of that of all the other students. With as much freedom as the student have in the classroom, there are some limitations. For example in oral presentations the entire class is held captive and forced to listen to the student presenting. In this scenario a student is still
allowed to present about religion as long as they are not proselytizing.
Another difficult topic in schools is Holidays. Holidays are generally very religious events, or at least have religious significance behind them even if the secular world doesn’t know about it. Holidays can be a good opportunity to teach about
religion but only if a variety of Holidays are discussed. NEA (National Education Association) Today says “ displaying some religious symbols in the classroom for Holidays may be OK as long as students don’t feel excluded from the holiday because of
their religious preference” (10) about religious symbols and holidays. For example, a Christmas tree would be acceptable since it is legally not considered a religious symbol. Holidays are less likely to be offensive if purely the secular aspect of the holiday
are celebrated. In addition to holidays there are many more controversial topics that schools across the nation have faced. What about graduation, religious literature and religious excusals. Prayer at graduation has been a highly controversial topic for some time. The legal ruling is that prayer is not allowed to be organized by a school
official. If a student leads a prayer by their own will at graduation then it is legal. But if a teacher tells a student that after the pledge of allegiance you can say a prayer it is illegal. Religious literature is allowed to be given out by students just as secular literature
would be allowed to be given out. Although, schools are allowed to impose regulations on a reasonable time, manner and place that it is distributed. Religious excusals because a students religion disagrees with what is being taught is in most cases illegal. Generally students do not have a federal right to be excused from lessons that may be inconsistent with their religious beliefs or practices but teachers can not try to make students use
or not use heir excusal option.
I have first hand experience struggling with religious policy in public schools. When I was a senior in high school my cross country team decided to embroider bible verses on our warm-ups that we had purchased with money from our own pockets. We
didn’t think much about the possibility that our school district would not allow us to wear warm-up jackets that said Big Bear High School on them as well as our bible verses. We didn’t understand the struggles they were going through. We learned latter that they were involved in a messy lawsuit involving a Jewish father sewing the school district because his son was supposedly being abused physically and emotionally because of his Jewish
beliefs. The height of the argument was when his son was told he was going to hell by fellow students. This lawsuit had been one of many that our school district had been enduring. They were making all efforts to crack down on any religious expression that
might be thought of as coming from the high school. Our situation grew until finally a group of us decided not to run at the upcoming state meet unless we were allowed to wear our jackets. This would cause a very large uproar since one of the members that
took this stand was the defending state champion and national mile champion in Track and Field. Not competing would mean not only bad local report but also nationally as well. The school district finally decided to let us wear our jackets and we ran. Regardless, I will never forget the feeling I had as a Christian student when I
was told that we would not be allowed to wear our jackets because of the bible verses. With the knowledge that I now have of the situation, I see that there was no legal basis for them to allow us to wear our jackets. Although, even knowing that we were at fault does not change how I feel about the situation. I felt suppressed and violated, the first emotion that I felt was that of waging war (which may not be the best approach, I am just being honest). This is why religion in our schools needs to be handled
very carefully; in the way it is taught and the policies that determine the expression of religion among students and faculty of public schools.
Religion should be something that runs naturally in school. America boasts of having the most religions in the world that all live together peacefully under the same country. Religion is a huge part of America’s history and even its very purpose for
existence was for religious freedom. Religion needs to be taught and expressed in our school how the 1st Amendment intended it: with opportunity for those with religion to express their faith freely and not infringe upon their ability to practice while attending
school.
Bibliography
NEA Today. “Navigating Religion in the Classroom.” John O’Neil
and Kristen Loschert National Education Association Volume 21.
Number 3. November 2002.
We the People. Bidna, Greenberg and Spitz. California State
Department of Education. Sacramento, 1972.
“Religious Expression in Public Schools” Richard Riley.
www.ed.gov/inits/religionandschools/. Department of Education.
Archived Information. Guidelines. 1995
The First Amendment Center. www.freedomforum.org. Nashville,
Tennessee. 20 November. 2001.