Introduction
Even though spirituality and related rituals play a pivotal role in many individuals’ daily lives, there is no absolute freedom of religious self-expression in social spaces and educational institutions, including public schools. Regarding acceptable behaviors in the classroom, there are no rules to prevent students from expressing their religious beliefs during class discussions. Thus, in general, school students, regardless of their religious affiliations, are allowed to talk about their identities if some topics related to religion and related traditions are raised during class discussions (Averett, 2016). Although religious self-expression cannot be prohibited per se, some limitations include such statements’ irrelevance to discussion topics, the potential to disrupt the educational process, or explicit attempts to promote or demonize certain beliefs, thus contributing to conflicts in the classroom (Anti-Defamation League, 2012). Even though talking about one’s religious beliefs during lessons is not always a violation of public school policies, students are advised to engage in religious discussions during recess time (ADL, 2012). Therefore, school students should make sure to express their beliefs neutrally and appropriately.
Main body
It is also possible for school students to touch upon and discuss their religious beliefs and values or lack thereof in submitted assignments. To start with, privately initiated religious expression is protected under the First Amendment, which is why public schools cannot just bar students from mentioning their religious identities (Haynes & Thomas, 2007). Importantly, some limitations surrounding self-expression are related to the type of assignments. When it comes to works that will be seen and evaluated only by teachers, schools may not refuse to accept specific responses only because they contain religious statements (ADL, 2012). Nevertheless, students’ right to religious self-expression should be limited when they work on projects to be presented publicly, such as lectures, works of art, or plays (ADL, 2012). Such assignments should be secular to be considered appropriate and demonstrate that the school is not interested in promoting specific views.
The situation is a bit different when students are willing to engage in prayer in the classroom. If students want to pray during non-instructional time, they are free to do so if this decision is fully voluntary and does not involve coercing other students to participate in the ritual (“Constitution USA with Peter Sagal: Battles of school prayer,” 2013; Haynes & Thomas, 2007). Non-coercion is specifically important in the context of prayer at school. For instance, Engel v. Vitale (1962) and Lee v. Weisman (1992) promoted the voluntariness of prayer by preventing schools from encouraging formalized religious activities and ceremonies (Holzer, 2015).
The main limitation related to students’ right to pray at school and in the classroom refers to the requirement to avoid disrupting the educational process and hindering classmates’ participation in learning activities. The First Amendment protects any citizen’s right to enjoy freedom in practicing religion, but it does not involve the right to make the audience listen to prayers or see other procedures (Eckes & Schimmel, 2014). For instance, when in the classroom, it is not appropriate for religious students to pray audibly since it can distract their classmates from learning (Haynes & Thomas, 2007; U. S. Department of Education, 2020). Additionally, children’s right to religious self-expression, including prayer, does not affect their responsibilities as students. Thus, it is inappropriate for students to use prayer as a pretext for not answering the teacher’s questions or refusing to work on assignments (Haynes & Thomas, 2007). Considering the abovementioned limitations, if students feel the need to pray in the classroom, they should do it very quietly and only when they are not supposed to participate in classroom activities.
Religious meetings
As is clear from the previous discussion, school students are not free to practice their religious beliefs in the classroom, which contributes to the creation of student-led religious groups. Equality between the representatives of different confessions is of utmost importance, and there should be no preferential treatment and positive or negative discrimination based on beliefs (“AG Paxton: Prayer room at public high school raises First Amendment concerns,” 2017). According to the Equal Access Act (EAA), religious groups led by students are allowed to organize meetings at secondary schools (Haynes & Thomas, 2007). However, there is one important limitation that refers to the role of outsiders in such clubs. Thus, the right of student-led religious groups to meet at schools during non-instructional time is not absolute.
The EAA is aimed at preventing discrimination against religious groups in access to school facilities for club meetings. Nevertheless, using it, school authorities retain the right to exclude the student-led groups that are directed, regularly attended, and controlled by outsiders or non-school individuals (U. S. DoED, n.d.). Thanks to this exception, the emphasis is placed on whether these groups are led and initiated by students and the degree to which group members’ actions and decisions are independent. Therefore, the abovementioned limitation is important since it allows schools to support students’ ability to engage in religious activities without coercion from other individuals or organizations. It is possible that the provision referring to non-school individuals’ participation in religious meetings can reduce the risks for students to be exposed to manipulative influences.
School-based religious clubs
School-based religious groups and clubs should be organized by school students that act independently from any other individuals, including school staff members. According to the EAA, school faculty members can sponsor student-initiated extracurricular groups and participate in their activities, but this rule does not apply to religious clubs (Haynes & Thomas, 2007; U. S. DoED, n.d.). With that in mind, teachers are not allowed to sponsor students’ religious groups since it would run counter to the requirement to stay neutral and avoid supporting specific religious beliefs in an explicit manner. School-sponsored religion is a widely-recognized ethical problem – according to Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe (2000), when schools support any religious messages, they make some students feel unwelcome and less appreciated, thus turning them into outsiders (Hankins, 2001). With that in mind, teachers’ ability to sponsor religious groups would be a violation of the principles of diversity and equal treatment.
Conclusion
Aside from the issue of sponsorship, it is inappropriate for school teachers to participate in the activities of student-led religious groups. The EAA states that school teachers are allowed to attend the meetings of extracurricular religious groups only to monitor them, but any participation in religious activities is strictly prohibited (Haynes & Thomas, 2007). Again, it is because schools and teachers take on the responsibility to treat all students equally regardless of their religious identities and remain impartial when dealing with conflicting beliefs. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment requires any employee of the government, including teachers in public schools, to remain neutral when it comes to religion (Haynes & Thomas, 2007). It means that teachers’ religious self-expression in workplace settings is discouraged, and praying with students would be a blatant violation of both constitutional and ethical principles.
References
AG Paxton: Prayer room at public high school raises First Amendment concerns. (2017). Web.
Anti-Defamation League. (2012). Religion in the public schools. New York, NY: Anti-Defamation League.
Averett, S. (2016). Religious freedom conference addresses handling religious speech with associates, in public schools.The Daily Universe. Web.
Constitution USA with Peter Sagal: Battles of school prayer. (2013). Web.
Eckes, S. E., & Schimmel, D. M. (2014). Graduation speeches: Do students have a prayer? Principal Leadership, 8-10.
Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962).
Hankins, B. (2001). Is the supreme court hostile to religion: Good News Club et al. v. Milford Central School (2001) and Santa Fe v. Doe (2000). Journal of Church & State, 43, 681-687.
Haynes, C. C., & Thomas, O. (2007). Finding common ground: A First Amendment guide to religion and public schools. Nashville, TN: First Amendment Center.
Holzer, S. (2015). Religious reasoning and due process of the law: Why religious citizens have the burden to prove the innocence of their reasoning in the public square. Journal of Church & State, 57(3), 419-449.
Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992).
Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000).
U. S. Department of Education. (2020). Guidance on constitutionally protected prayer and religious expression in public elementary and secondary schools. Web.
U. S. Department of Education. (n.d.). Legal guidelines regarding the Equal Access Act and the recognition of the student-led noncurricular groups.