As teachers of public school systems, the amount of constitutional protections they possess has been put into question in San Diego, California. A long-time educator at a public high school, Brad Johnson has taught the fundamental subject of math for twenty years. During this time, Johnson had proudly displayed banners saying “God Bless America” and “One Nation Under God” on the walls inside his public school classroom. The ability of Johnson to continue the display of both banners was recently disputed.
The principal of the San Diego high school asked Johnson to remove the banners, or to prove the historical nature of the banners. When Johnson failed to do so, the principal ordered the banners to be taken down. The school district claimed that Johnson had limited constitutional rights inside the classroom, thus enabling the district to disallow the displaying of the banners.
When Johnson believed his constitutional rights had been violated by the school district, he went to federal court to restore the displaying of the banners. The judge presiding over the case said, “….the federal and state constitutions do not permit one-sided censorship.” Judge Roger Benitez made this statement when he noted that other educators in the school system had religious posters displayed on the walls of their classrooms. The article went on to say that “Johnson had never referred to the banners while teaching,” which influenced Judge Benitez’s decision even more.
As of now, the school district is continuing to explore their options. The board can continue the case through the court system by appealing, settling the case, or waiting for trial.
Because the article highlights the issue of whether Johnson, a public school teacher, has limited constitutional rights in his occupational capacity, I side with the judge who denounced the school district’s action. This is because of two factors: the intent of Johnson and the school district’s tolerance of other religious material to be displayed in other classrooms.
From Johnson’s original intention, the displaying of the two banners was a symbol of his patriotism. He was not attempting to push his religious convictions into the minds of students, nor did he ever mention the banners during class time. Here, I see Johnson’s First Amendment rights violated by the school district, as it is a public school.
Next, the school district admittedly allowed posters “with Buddhist and Islamic messages” to be displayed in other classrooms, among other religious and cultural items. The intent of these posters could be purely academic, or they could be viewed as a way of the educators showing their pride in a particular religion. Either way, the limiting of religious and cultural displays undermines the First Amendment and arguably dismisses the spread of intellect through religious and cultural displays.
I find it shameful that the taxpayer supported public school district attempted to force the removal of the two banners from the classroom walls of a longtime educator. The teacher never mentioned the banners in class, nor did he have the banners on display as a signifier of his religion. I find this important to the study of religion and American law because of the serious consequences that individuals and groups have attempted to misconstrue freedom of speech with religion, and the ways of limiting both constitutional freedoms. I can not fathom the reasoning of the school district to not have the two banners on display, as the purpose of education is to learn new things. Even though the banners were not discussed by Johnson in class, the curiosity the education system is hoped to instill in students could prod some of them to learn more about the banners.
As the school board still has yet to decide on what to do next, expect more details about this issue to emerge. It would be an interesting case to see develop in the court system, as the constitutional protections of public school teachers could be one of the main aspects of a case.
House Brands Palestinian Slogan as Antisemitic
17 hours ago
Posts
11 comments:
Tyler addresses several key issues in his post. I think intent plays the largest role in this situation. The banners all had a historic and American background, whether than one based in religion. A poster saying "God Bless America" might as well be one declaring "Support Our Troops." I agree that Johnson’s intent was a patriotic one more than religious.
I disagree in regards to the rights of a teacher in a public school. Teachers have their First Amendment rights limited while in that authority position. Faculty holds a position of power as teachers; they should not be allowed to use that status as a soapbox for their beliefs. Students should expect to learn the core subjects at school, without being bombarded with religious, political, or personal messages. If the poster has a religious purpose with no relation to the class, I see no reason for it to be there. The court declared that there was no one-sided censorship in the Constitution, as there clearly was in this case. I would argue that all banners of a religious nature should be taken down in the classroom. I don’t want to know the political affiliations of my teachers; similarly, I don’t want to know their religious associations.
While I agree wiht Sara and Tyler that the posters should be allowed my reasoning comes down to what appears to be an anti-Christian bias. The fact that "Buddhist and Islamic messages" were allowed in other classrooms without objection (that is noted in the article) shows that the concern wasn't religion, but Christianity. A general rule abolishing religious content in all classrooms may be more appropriate than one that pinpoints certain religions.
Despite my objections to this rule, I understand the reasoning behind the Principals decision. Because Christianity is the dominant religion in America, the Principal probably feels that there is pressure to conform. Buddhism and Islam don't pose the same type of "threat" as Christianity because in our society it is far more acceptable to reject these views. This concern does not make the decision valid, however, and unless the Principal is willing to make a rule that covers all religions the posters should stay.
In my mind this is a clear violation of his First Amendment rights. The issue of religion should not even be an issue as 'In God We Trust' is publicly printed on our money, and 'God Bless America' is often played at 4th of July celebrations. Both phrases have already been on display for the children in other aspects, why should a teacher displaying them be any different? As previously mentioned, I also think that intent plays a huge role in the issue. The teacher was not pushing or even displaying his religious views, he was simply being patriotic. And if he must remove the banners for religious reasons then all religious posters or items on display of any kind in the school must also be removed. However, I personally dont believe that is the right way to go about it either, but there can't be a one sided bias toward the Christian display and not of other religions.
It's a tough issue, in that what may seem innocuous to some people could have an effect on others. I remember various teachers at my public high school who displayed items with religious sayings; we sang some traditional church music in our choir. While something might seem innocent (the popular phrase "God Bless America"), some students might be made uncomfortable by phrases like "One Nation Under God" and its implications that we are a religious nation. I remember feeling out of place when my choir class sang church music which celebrated a religion and belief system I didn't adhere to.
I would be much more comfortable if materials which promoted one specific religion were removed, unless they were purposely used as teaching tools (and explained as such); that way, no religion is being singled out for "removal".
I agree with Sara. As an employee of the state-funded school district, the teacher should not even be allowed to promote his or her opinions--not to say it's unconstitutional, just frowned upon. If the posters do, however, have a religious bias, and not for academic reasons, the posters should not be allowed because of the probably overwhelming influence a teacher has in the classroom. It would be irresponsible if the school district were to allow the teacher to continue displaying his signs. We've seen cases like Engel where a precedent has been set on halting religious influence in the classroom. There is no place for such ideals to be spread because of the delicate nature of the situation (young children who absorb a lot of information).
I also agree with Tyler that there is nothing wrong with this teacher hanging these posters in his room as long he is not drawing attention to the signs. I also believe that teachers should be allowed to put religious posters in their room only if they are using it to teach a point, mostly historical contexts. Although there are First Amendment rights that are limited to teachers, their rights are not completely abolished and should be taken into account. Offensive words and sayings cannot be displayed in schools so religious sayings should be banned. The only reason I see a difference in Johnson's case is because his posters are sayings that are seen nationally on money and in celebration. These are not necessarily seen as religious.
I disagree with Tyler’s opinion supporting Johnson in this case. I would argue that the teacher’s intent in this case actually furthers reasoning for believing in the inappropriateness and unconstitutionality of the display of posters. To me the case looks like this: A teacher, i.e. somebody of authority, is hanging posters to display a symbol of his patriotism in the public classroom in which he teaches. Both of these posters include explicit religious references. In effect, is a student to believe that to be patriotic, you may need to be religious? Or that to be patriotic means to be religious? Or vice versa? This is not to suggest that these high school students are unintelligent; this is to suggest that teachers are persons in authority positions whom have power of influence and persuasion, intentional or unintentional, by use of language and action over their students in the academic atmosphere of the public school and more specifically, of their own classrooms. Also, it doesn’t necessarily matter that the teacher didn’t mean to impose his religious convictions upon his students. It matters whether or not his religious convictions were actually imposed on any of the students in effect of his posters displayed on his classroom wall. I conclude that these posters have no educational purpose. They are merely means that suffice Johnson’s personal and private religious convictions and therefore have no place in the public school classroom.
As long as every teacher in the school was being treated equally in regard to the determining whether or not they may display religious materials in their classroom, I don’t see a problem with some teachers being able to keep theirs and others not. Equal treatment doesn’t mean the same treatment. If a teacher is using some sort of religious display to further the secular education of his/her students, and there is no other sufficient means in doing so, as in the case of a (for example; not limited to) multicultural or world religion class, he/she is not inconsistent with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Note that there is a difference between teaching a religion as fact and teaching about a religion. The first includes teachings from a Lutheran Pastor on Christianity and the latter includes teachings from a professor on Islam in a Middle Eastern history class. There is nothing unconstitutional in the teaching about a religion and using relevant religious props to do so. I realize that from the excerpt we are given, we do not have insight as to what the case really was with other teachers being allowed to keep religious materials in their classrooms, however, I’m going to assume that this was addressed in court.
Another point I’d like to make but won’t expand upon is that I think it makes a difference whether the teacher’s posters are taped onto or placed upon the personal space of his desk or whether the posters are displayed across the wall next to, for example, a poster with the quadratic formula on it. I don’t think this would change any of my previous views, however, I thought it’d be interesting to bring up.
Personally I feel that the forced removal of the bumper stickers was a very hypocritical thing to do. “One nation under God” is within the pledge of allegiance, a pledge that is said every day in public schools. I agree with what others are saying in that if one religious poster or sticker is taken down then all others should be taken down as well. If not then it’s a violation of the first amendment because the school is showing favor to other religions.
Also, I guess what exactly the other posters were is an important factor. How could they be used as a teaching tool? With this argument, however, one can pretty much argue that any religious poster could be used as a teaching tool. If the school truly wants to have a separation of church and religion it shouldn’t just be one religion, but all religion. By singling out one religion they are protecting other religions while the constitution protects all religion.
This specific case lands on an issue that has no clear right or wrong answers. On one hand, the teacher can be seen as simply being patriotic towards his country. Following the 9/11 attacks, teachers at my home town school showed their patriotism by hanging posters and keeping their students informed on relevant current issues that reflected patriotism. I would have no problem allowing the posters to be put up if it was purely for patriotic purposes. It is also important to remember that our country uses these phrases on public property such as money to reflect patriotism.
On the other hand, the teacher may have put the posters up for religious reasons. I personally think that if the teacher put up the posters as a religious act then the posters should be taken down because teachers shouldn’t be imposing their religious beliefs on students in a public school. However, I would have no problem with allowing these posters in a private institution. Nonetheless, I think that ultimately this case comes down to a sincerity test. Did the teacher put the posters up for religious or patriotic reasons and who should be the judge of this?
I would like to echo Jonny’s comments. While I do agree with Tyler and see this as a violation of Mr. Johnson’s First Amendment rights, I find it most troubling because the rule only applied to him and not to other teachers. I would not be as bothered by the school’s decision to take down signs with religious undertones if the decision had been applied fairly to all religions and all teachers. However, based upon the article, it seems as though Mr. Johnson was the only one forced to take his signs down. If they’re going to make him take down his signs, they need to make the other teachers take down their signs that had Islamic and Buddhist teachings. The fact that Johnson was singled out seems to be blatantly discriminatory - a type of discrimination that the First Amendment was designed to prevent.
In order for our country to have religious freedom, we must protect against religious domination. I view this very similarly to how I view racial equality and affirmative action. Affirmative action is necessary to further equality even though it gives preference to non-whites. It is sometimes necessary to infringe on the majority’s rights to allow racial equality and religious freedom to be a possibility. If I were convinced that religious preference and persecution would be forever non-existent in America, then I would have no problem with Mr. Johnson blatantly sharing his religious beliefs and would have no worry that non-Christians would feel excluded. It is sometimes hard for the majority to understand what the minority feels.
I disagree with some of the blogs because I do not think the main point is Mr. Johnson’s intent. I am more concerned about the reaction of the students and their families then whether Mr. Johnson was trying to promote Christianity or pro-American ideas. However, I am sure he would not have chosen for both banners to have a God reference, if he had purely patriotic motives. He would have offered to switch out the banners for something like “I’m proud to be an American.” I’m concerned that Mr. Johnson was perpetuating the false belief that religion is directly tied to patriotism (only Christians love America). This troubles me because it might make non-Christians be viewed as less American which obviously leads to bigger issues.
Post a Comment