Overcoming Obstacles to Religious Exercise in K-12 Education

Lewis M. Wasserman
{"title":"Overcoming Obstacles to Religious Exercise in K-12 Education","authors":"Lewis M. Wasserman","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2319155","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Judicial decisions rendered during the last half-century have overwhelmingly favored educational agencies over claims by parents for religious accommodations to public education requirements, no matter what constitutional or statutory rights were pressed at the tribunal, or when the conflict arose. These claim failures are especially striking in the wake of the Religious Freedom Restoration Acts (“RFRAs”) passed by Congress in 1993 and, to date, by eighteen state legislatures thereafter, since the RFRAs were intended to (1) insulate religious adherents from injuries inflicted by the United States Supreme Court’s 1990 decision in Employment Division v. Smith and (2) return Free Exercise protection to the level adherents enjoyed under the Court’s 1963 decision in Sherbert v. Verner, the high water mark for religious liberty in this country. By mining prior research, and by examining the outcomes of all United States Courts of Appeal decisions involving K-12 religious accommodation issued between 1963-and 2013, this article shows that RFRAs have failed to achieve their purpose because legislators: (1) incorporated legal standards which had previously failed to protect religious liberty; (2) passed religious liberty statutes of general application without specifically targeting education agencies; (3) did not consider specific activities which were more likely than others to result in conflict with persons wishing to exercise religious freedom; (4) did not distinguish state interests which merely served a governmental purpose, from those which were essential to fulfilling educational agencies’ core functions; and (5) focused on legal technicalities such as “substantial burdens” on religion and the “compelling state interest test,” which are largely bereft of meaning outside of particular agency interests.This article proposes solutions which address the principal religious conflict areas; specifically, the elements of a model statute directed at K-12 educational settings. Among the areas covered are: group meetings and religious exercise; curricular accommodations for objecting religionists; flag salutes and the Pledge of Allegiance; dress and grooming codes; class schedules and release-time programs; student health and safety; the rights of private and home-schooled students; and the rights of religiously committed public education employees over the education of their children.The proposal covers as well issues which are likely to arise in litigation, including: jurisdictional and notice of claim requirements, pleading, claims and defenses, statutes of limitations, and remedies available for violations of the Act, including fees and costs. This legislative proposal embodies principles which are intended to: (1) overcome, within Establishment Clause limits, the unfair burdens which religious believers have experienced; (2) allow educational agencies to perform their core pedagogical functions; (3) give express notice to educational agencies what they are required to do and what conduct of theirs is proscribed; and (4) encourage religious tolerance.","PeriodicalId":81672,"journal":{"name":"Journal of legislation","volume":"53 1","pages":"96"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-08-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of legislation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2319155","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Judicial decisions rendered during the last half-century have overwhelmingly favored educational agencies over claims by parents for religious accommodations to public education requirements, no matter what constitutional or statutory rights were pressed at the tribunal, or when the conflict arose. These claim failures are especially striking in the wake of the Religious Freedom Restoration Acts (“RFRAs”) passed by Congress in 1993 and, to date, by eighteen state legislatures thereafter, since the RFRAs were intended to (1) insulate religious adherents from injuries inflicted by the United States Supreme Court’s 1990 decision in Employment Division v. Smith and (2) return Free Exercise protection to the level adherents enjoyed under the Court’s 1963 decision in Sherbert v. Verner, the high water mark for religious liberty in this country. By mining prior research, and by examining the outcomes of all United States Courts of Appeal decisions involving K-12 religious accommodation issued between 1963-and 2013, this article shows that RFRAs have failed to achieve their purpose because legislators: (1) incorporated legal standards which had previously failed to protect religious liberty; (2) passed religious liberty statutes of general application without specifically targeting education agencies; (3) did not consider specific activities which were more likely than others to result in conflict with persons wishing to exercise religious freedom; (4) did not distinguish state interests which merely served a governmental purpose, from those which were essential to fulfilling educational agencies’ core functions; and (5) focused on legal technicalities such as “substantial burdens” on religion and the “compelling state interest test,” which are largely bereft of meaning outside of particular agency interests.This article proposes solutions which address the principal religious conflict areas; specifically, the elements of a model statute directed at K-12 educational settings. Among the areas covered are: group meetings and religious exercise; curricular accommodations for objecting religionists; flag salutes and the Pledge of Allegiance; dress and grooming codes; class schedules and release-time programs; student health and safety; the rights of private and home-schooled students; and the rights of religiously committed public education employees over the education of their children.The proposal covers as well issues which are likely to arise in litigation, including: jurisdictional and notice of claim requirements, pleading, claims and defenses, statutes of limitations, and remedies available for violations of the Act, including fees and costs. This legislative proposal embodies principles which are intended to: (1) overcome, within Establishment Clause limits, the unfair burdens which religious believers have experienced; (2) allow educational agencies to perform their core pedagogical functions; (3) give express notice to educational agencies what they are required to do and what conduct of theirs is proscribed; and (4) encourage religious tolerance.
克服K-12教育中宗教活动的障碍
在过去的半个世纪里,司法裁决绝大多数都倾向于教育机构,而不是家长提出的针对公共教育要求的宗教调整要求,无论法庭上施加了何种宪法或法定权利,也无论冲突何时出现。在国会于1993年通过《恢复宗教自由法案》(“RFRAs”)之后,这些索赔失败尤其引人注目,因为RFRAs的目的是:(1)使宗教信徒免受美国最高法院1990年“就业部门诉史密斯案”判决所造成的伤害;(2)将宗教信徒的自由行使保护恢复到法院1963年“舍伯特诉弗纳案”判决所享有的水平。这是这个国家宗教自由的最高标志。通过挖掘先前的研究,并通过检查1963年至2013年间发布的所有涉及K-12宗教安排的美国上诉法院判决的结果,本文表明RFRAs未能实现其目的,因为立法者:(1)纳入了以前未能保护宗教自由的法律标准;(二)通过普遍适用的宗教自由法规,不专门针对教育机构的;(3)不考虑比其他活动更有可能与希望行使宗教自由的人发生冲突的特定活动;(4)没有将仅仅服务于政府目的的国家利益与履行教育机构核心职能所必需的国家利益区分开来;(5)侧重于法律上的技术性问题,如对宗教的“实质性负担”和“强制性国家利益测试”,这些在很大程度上失去了特定机构利益之外的意义。本文针对主要宗教冲突地区提出了解决方案;具体来说,是针对K-12教育机构的示范法规的要素。涵盖的领域包括:小组会议和宗教活动;为反对的宗教人士提供的课程安排;向国旗敬礼和宣誓效忠;着装和仪容规范;课程安排和释放时间计划;学生的健康和安全;私立学校和家庭教育学生的权利;以及虔诚的公共教育雇员对其子女教育的权利。该提案还涵盖了诉讼中可能出现的问题,包括:管辖权和索赔通知要求、请求、索赔和辩护、时效法规以及违反该法的补救措施,包括费用和成本。该立法提案体现了以下原则:(1)在政教分离条款的限制下,克服宗教信徒所经历的不公平负担;(2)允许教育机构履行其核心教学职能;(三)明确通知教育机构应当做什么和应当禁止哪些行为;(4)鼓励宗教宽容。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书