Freedom to Teach as the Students Require
Local communities should be free to differ on matters of education and religion without the ACLU's having a national veto.
Two Cranston residents wait for a School Committee meeting to begin last week.
Photos (1)
Photos
The connection is indirect, to be sure, but the controversy over an old prayer banner in Cranston High School West brings to mind the Chafee administration - and not (only) because Rhode Island's new governor has me so worried that I think a school-system-wide prayer initiative might be beneficial.
Rather, what connects the items, in my mind, is an aspect of newly confirmed Board of Regents Chairman George Caruolo's not-so-surprising hesitance to embrace the reforms that Commissioner of Education Deborah Gist has been pursuing with such zest:
"I've never seen a turnaround in anything with an alienated work force," Caruolo said. "And from my viewpoint, I don't see a lot of talk about poverty and homelessness and family disruptions in the education dialogue, right now."
The comment is of a sort that one hears whenever the notion of linking teacher pay with student success arises. Immediately, in the eyes of the other side, a profession that is rightly admired for its ability to change lives and improve the future prospects of students becomes a hopeless endeavor in the face of parental apathy and poverty.
My response, whenever a debate turns in that direction, is to ask why we oughtn't therefore reduce the investment that communities make in education and direct resources where they might address the problem claimed by those who gainsay the possibility of teacher accountability. If parental disconnect is the underlying problem, then pay teachers less and use the money to create programs that draw mothers and fathers into the educational lives of their children. If economic distress is the underlying problem, then redirect education funds to economic development.
Of course, reference to non-educational causes of educational failure is meant to suggest a need for funding of an "and that, too" variety. The money is never to be shifted, but always compounded. Still, the salient point is that there's more to student success than academics, and Rhode Island's schools are demonstrably lacking in it, whatever it is.
Which brings us to the Cranston High West school prayer banner.
The initially striking aspect of the debate over whether it should stay or go is the nonchalant extremism of the people who wish to tear it down. Here we have a banner hanging passively on the wall --- no doubt, one of dozens of posters and banners decorating the walls of the school --- where it has been since the school opened nearly a half-century ago, when school prayers were common.
Its message is one of general encouragement toward good behavior, and its religiosity is mild and nondenominational --- albeit recognizably Christian. Nobody is required to recite the prayer; nobody is required even to look at it.
Yet, people outside of the city find it perfectly reasonable for a well-funded pressure group, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), to threaten the district's tenuous finances with lawsuits. In times of economic hardship, they place the blame on the community for defending its heritage, rather than the parties, whose opinion is in the minority, who are insisting on a change.
More striking, though, is the broadly accepted certitude that one understanding of what is necessary for education should be applied across all 3.8 million square miles the United States of America. Perhaps the community of Cranston finds it beneficial to remind students that certain principles to which they should continue to adhere were once rooted in religious faith. Of what concern is that to Providence or Washington, D.C.?
For my own community --- that in which I'm a taxpayer and registered voter --- I would advocate for encouragement of individual exploration and articulation of beliefs, with all given equivalent rights to public expression, and the added proviso that traditions already in place require the democratic process (not threats of lawsuits or judicial fiats) to change. If there's a banner, if there's a traditional appearance by the Easter Bunny, if there's an annual Hanukkah festival, then the entire community should agree to its cessation. But there is no reason that my solution should be binding on a nation of school districts in which I do not live.
Indeed, it can only be an article of religious faith to insist that no public school in the country could possibly benefit from a visible approval of religious principles. As long as no student is forced to recite a creed contrary to their beliefs, as long as their right to speak freely is not abridged, as long as their families are neither prevented from working to change the operations of their government nor from leaving, then a degree of religious expression is well within the tolerance of diversity that our federalist and democratic system was designed to accommodate.
The genius of the United States is the degree to which it makes possible peaceful coexistence and even civic cooperation between people who wish to live in very different societies. Freedom to define the boundaries of the government under which one lives is a necessary component, and if that freedom is real, governments at the level of town and city will differ in fundamental ways.
Who's to say but that a dose of religion is precisely remedy for struggling students? Or, more specifically, who better to determine as much for a particular community than the people who live there and who have the greatest interest in the well-being and success of its students?
Michael McGill
10:25 pm on Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Mr Katz appears to believe the constitution is a regional document
Justin Katz
6:17 am on Wednesday, March 16, 2011
The Constitution pertains to the federal government. It takes a hop, skip, and judicial interpretation through the Fourteenth Amendment to get to the secular extremism that currently passes as an objective reading of the law.
Michael McGill
2:43 pm on Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Are you suggesting that the federal government should have no interest in public education?
Red Card
9:39 am on Wednesday, March 16, 2011
I don't always agree with the ACLU. In fact, it's probably close to a 50/50 split. But this "well-funded pressure group" exists to protect the Bill of Rights. That's not a liberal cause, a conservative cause, or a tea party cause. It's an American cause. A measure of proof of this can be found in the ACLU's defense of David Nelson in the lawsuit and countersuit involving him, which they define as a First Amendment issue, regardless of Nelson's politics. Whether or not the city of Cranston is in financial straits is beside the point. The Bill of Rights is not applied situationally depending on circumstances. It is a document of equal protection. I agree that the complainants in this case are over zealous, but for the ACLU or anyone else to be less than zealous in their protection of the Bill of Rights would be unAmerican.
Justin Katz
12:16 pm on Wednesday, March 16, 2011
The ACLU is almost an objective definition of "pressure group." It uses lawsuits and the threat thereof to pressure government agencies into conforming with its interpretation of the Bill of Rights. And that's what it's promoting: an interpretation. The fact that its ideological stand sometimes overlaps with that of others who differ politically does not change that fact; neither does the fact that the organization sometimes takes up cases that allow a PR sheen of objectivity. (In the David Nelson case, I can tell you that its participation was hardly zealous.)
Moreover, since it is dealing with an interpretation, it is absolutely appropriate for the group to judge that some borderline cases are counterbalanced by the potential harm to the communities that fall in the crosshairs.
Red Card
1:42 pm on Wednesday, March 16, 2011
By your definition, the governors and legislatures of Arizona and Michigan are pressure groups. So is the Supreme Court. So is the TCC. All of these groups are using legal mechanisms to pressure for their particular interpretation of a law, precedence, or town charter. If you're looking for absolutes, or constitutional purity, good luck. The Bill of Rights establishes a series of principles, not laws, and those principle on occasion require interpretation and defending.
Rob Coulter
12:40 am on Thursday, March 17, 2011
Both of you are making eminently reasonable arguments, but I must say that I agree with the anonymous poster 100% word-for-word with his or her 9:39 A.M. post.
So a frank comment about lawsuits. No particular fan of lawyers am I, and I have the inside view, but yet, what better way to resolve a true dispute between citizens about rights? We don’t take the streets in violence to resolve our disagreements. We turn to the courts as the last refuge of the rights which need protection when they are violated. The very point of the Bill of Rights and due process is to protect the minority, otherwise we wouldn’t need a Bill of Rights. When the majority tramples rights, only the courts can offer protection. That is no affront to democracy, but the preservation of even higher order principles of liberty.
As a policy matter, it is unfortunate that big government has wrestled its way into near monopoly of education so that the good of religion is supressed. But that’s policy, not law.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Anyone has the right to petition peaceably for redress, and should not be criticized for doing so. That goes for aggrieved Taxpayers in Tiverton, and the ACLU's client in Cranston, all the same.
Justin Katz
6:12 am on Thursday, March 17, 2011
Rob,
That's a narrow (although popular) understanding of the Bill of Rights. It also protects the majority from a powerful minority. Think the dominance of Sunnis in Saddam's Iraq. In the complications of democracy, it's possible for a majority to maneuver in ways that, say, abridge speech, while building a sufficient coalition for other reasons to continue to be elected. With your phrasing, the majority view becomes suspect simply because it is the majority view, which is part of the problem... people assume that a minority's claim to grievance carries an inherent truth.
Your argument isn't really to the point, though. The courts don't merely operate in the area of law, as distinct from policy. Indeed, as I understand the history, policy affecting the Establishment Clause has largely been implemented and defined by judges responding to lawsuits. It should long ago have become the precedent that, to wit, the Cranston School Committee is not Congress and a non-denominational decoration with historical relevance to the school does not "establish" a religion. Had that been the case, there would clearly be no grievance to redress, and the pressure-group would have no screws to turn.
Moreover, that one has a right to do something does not mean that one should do it, and it is reasonable (indeed, important) for people to express disagreement --- that is, to criticize those who leverage the right to redress to change policy through undemocratic means.
Rob Coulter
12:32 pm on Thursday, March 17, 2011
Justin,
I count at least 6 points spread over many paragraphs, agree completely on 5 of them, and I’ve addressed only the one portion I disagree with.
In the same sentence the First Amendment prohibits both establishment and also the abridgement of free exercise of religion. Perhaps by design, it’s patently ambiguous. So who decides when its gray? Because we are talking about constitutional rights of the highest magnitude, shouldn’t we err on the side of the individual with a healthy suspicion of government, which is what the Founding Fathers, informed by the lessons of European tyrrany, wanted. If that means the minority occassionaly enjoys an undeserved default benefit of the doubt, then that’s a price I can accept, given the risk in the alternative. I don’t see that as narrow or pop analysis, but a declaration of a core priniciple which makes this country awesome.
If the courts get in wrong (and they often do), then a supermajority can amend the Constitution, as has happended 27 times. Also, the ACLU can’t just swoop into any hapless town and wreak havoc. There has to be an aggrieved citizen *in that town* with a claim. Finally, the Cranston school budget is $131M. Now $131M, year after year, is what I call well funded. The RI ACLU budget is about $200K, has no staff attorneys, and relies heavily on volunteers. Without groups like the ACLU, how many citizens could assert their rights against a government unit with a $131M annual budget?
Justin Katz
5:43 pm on Thursday, March 17, 2011
1. So are we dropping the policy versus law distinction? I'd just like to know what arguments are still on the table.
2. I love the budget comparison; it almost makes me want to go to law school so that I could take you on in court... almost. As we're both amply aware, the great majority (unto "all") of a school district's budget is allocated. We may not always like what it's allocated to, but there isn't a whole lot floating around without being dedicated to new programs or absorbed into labor contracts, and the volunteers it seeks are mainly geared toward school-related activities. So, Cranston's $131 million is money meant to educated children; the ACLU's $200,000 (plus pro bono) is all dedicated to its mission as a pressure group.
Moreover, it's in the nature of a pressure group's mission that its more zealous members are willing to work for free.
Justin Katz
6:17 pm on Thursday, March 17, 2011
3. Personally, I don't find the First Amendment all that ambiguous. Congress can't establish a religion, and it can't do so in a negative way by restricting religious activities. Basically, the federal government is to stay out of the religion business. (Indeed, the entire argument of the ACLUphiles is that the First Amendment is NOT ambiguous, so much so that they see merit in depleting a school district's time and resources in order to force removal of a non-denominational decoration against the popular will.)
But let's cede your premise for the sake of argument: "who decides when [the Constitution is] gray?" How about we let the people decide in the smallest political units possible? That is, if we consider self governance as the liberty qua non of civil rights, we should permit maximal opportunity to shape the governing regime under which one lives --- provided dissenting local voices are not silenced nor residents prevented from leaving for more affirming locales.
Because the ACLU and you (presumably) don't like that solution, you opt for the alternative, which is "err[ing] on the side of the individual" to the extent that the individual gets a veto on other citizens' rights of self governance except within a very narrow range defined (conveniently) by secular humanists. What is that but a relative majority oppressing a minority that wishes to live according to their understanding of liberty within the confines of their own town?
Joe Sousa.
6:51 am on Thursday, March 17, 2011
I have always wondered why the ACLU pays so much attention to the first amendment, and separation between church and state. Yet they ignores the second amendment. I guess chasing Santa and God out of our schools is more important to them then ones right to protect them selves. You cant pick and chose with out loosing credibility. The banner was put up by the citizens and is in no way harming any one. The ACLU should focus on the unconstitutional Oboma health care bill. It is costing cities and towns with another unfunded mandate.
Red Card
10:22 am on Thursday, March 17, 2011
I'm not sure I would agree with the ACLU defending the right to form militias specified in the Second Amendment, but I would defend their right to do so. The health care reform bill, namely the provision requiring people to purchase insurance, is being challenged by several states, and likely will end up in the Supreme Court. This may be a constitutional issue, but I don't see it as a Bill of Rights issues, unless somehow it falls with the 9th and 10th amendments.
sallyturn
8:26 am on Thursday, March 17, 2011
People support the banner because it speaks of Christian values. What if someone displays a banner that speaks of Muslim or Hindu values ?? Would your argument be the same?
Justin Katz
5:38 pm on Thursday, March 17, 2011
Absolutely. I would still think it was a matter for the people of Cranstonstan to resolve democratically. And if it were an issue in my own town, I'd support a movement via local government to make religious representation in the school more representative of the population. And if (as in Cranston) the banner were of historical interest to the school, I'd support keeping it on those grounds, although perhaps moving it to make clear its import.
Red Card
5:51 pm on Thursday, March 17, 2011
Is "Cranstonstan" your idea of humor? Not entirely sure what you're implying, but I can guess. It's those cute little demeaning remarks that make you so loved, Justin.
Justin Katz
6:25 pm on Thursday, March 17, 2011
It's not demeaning in the least. Sally's hypothetical requires imagining Cranston (as the pertinent stand-in for that role in the debate) to be quite a different place than it is, one in which Islam or Hinduism has long been the dominant religious practice of its residents. The "-stans" suffix gives a flavor of such cultures, and frankly, it betrays s chauvinism on your part to assume that the reference must be negative.
To be honest, if you and others are not able to find some humor in that sort of jovial give-and-take, I can't say I'm too concerned with your loving me. (And I'm not sure your affections would be so easily won.)
Red Card
7:01 pm on Thursday, March 17, 2011
If that's your idea of jovial give and take, then I bet you're a real fun guy at a party. It's also quite a stretch to infer from Sally's direct question that a banner espousing Hindu or Islam values would make those religions the dominant ones in Cranston. No, Justin, don't whiz in my ear and tell me it's raining. You have a history, using the forum granted you by Patch, to fire off pithy insulting comments that you think nobody else but you will understand.
Justin Katz
7:13 pm on Thursday, March 17, 2011
Huh? The banner in Cranston has a Christian basis because the region has a Christian heritage. You can't draw a hypothetical parallel with another religion without bringing both aspects of the story with you. The banner doesn't MAKE those religions dominant; it would be there, if the hypotheticals were accurate, because they WERE (and perhaps are) dominant.
I'm actually thinking that my problem is more that I think people will understand more than they do...
Red Card
7:17 pm on Thursday, March 17, 2011
You try really hard in these columns of yours, Justin, so I hope you can take come criticism. I find your prose to be convoluted, tortured, and self-conscious. Your opinions lack true understanding of the dimensions of an an issue, evidenced in your responses to alternate points of view which amount to a simple rephrasing of your original argument or and endlessly circular discussion. You lack the humor, grace and character to bend one inch to meet a valid opinion that happens to be in opposition to yours. And your see-no-evil, hear-no-evil defense of any and all actions of the TCC can't be disguised by your oh-so-reasonable facade and purple prose.
Matt, if you're reading, I refer you to the Patch policy prohibiting intentional deceit on the part of posters. Justin's column is an exercise in deceit. If you truly seek journalistic credentials, then I suggest you practice the fairness doctrine by a) finding a real journalist, or b) finding someone to present an opposing viewpoint. Otherwise, the people who accuse you of shilling for a cause are sadly correct.
Red Card
7:21 pm on Thursday, March 17, 2011
With circumstantial evidence of bigotry.
Justin Katz
7:32 pm on Thursday, March 17, 2011
Surreal. To the degree that there's circularity, it's because I don't find that the responses address the fundamental difference between my position and that being expressed by others. It's certainly possible that I'm wrong, and it's even more possible that I'm not expressing myself well. But it's also true that I do quite a bit of reading and debating of these issues, in multiple forums, and especially on church/state issues, there tends to be an accepted opinion of what is reasonable for each side to believe, with public policy more or less in a stalemate and inches gained through judicial rulings, rather than democratic action. I don't find that healthy, so I try to drill down more deeply into the disagreement.
In the specific case of Sally's comment, I responded direct: My position would be the same regardless of the religion. If the matter were parallel, I'd take precisely the same position; I'd be similarly objective if a Christian group tried to post a NEW banner.
I'm sure none of this will satisfy an anonymous coward who apparently believes that insults amount to criticism, but I can only do what I can do.
Red Card
7:38 pm on Thursday, March 17, 2011
With you, Justin, opinions amount to insults. When you come out from under the skirt of the TCC, then you can call me a coward. I'm done.
Justin Katz
7:40 pm on Thursday, March 17, 2011
I was active before there was a TCC. And I'll continue to think you a coward until you're willing to make public statements under your own name.
Red Card
10:24 am on Thursday, March 17, 2011
Rob, you were spot on in your point about the courts as the ultimate "interpreter" of our rights. There's an old saying: Your rights end where mine begin. Since that line isn't always clear, courts and lawyers sometimes need to become involved.
Jim L
7:58 pm on Saturday, March 19, 2011
if real names where used here alot of names used here wouldn't dare make comments here, cyber bullies at their best!
Lindsay Wilkes-Edrington
9:51 pm on Saturday, March 19, 2011
I respectfully ask that the two of you end this discourse on our site.
Lindsay Wilkes-Edrington
Associate Regional Editor
Jim L
11:52 pm on Saturday, March 19, 2011
and i respectfully ask that you reviev what comments i have made on patch and decide if i am at fault to dismiss someone who trys to bridge to different sides verses someone who just submits comments of no valve other than to imflame would be a miscarraige of justice on your part, i have submitted nothing but factualy info on this site only to be dismissed and disregarded by unknown nameless presenters on this site, i have more than once submitted my name and addy and adreess on this site, so for you to as me to refrain from takeing part in anything on this site seems to disregard my and others seeking of the truth, i as that you review ALL my comments on this forum verases other nameless folks, nameless is ok, but to just deride is not, I am sorry but your local man mr anderson has not mattioned control on this forum comparved to other local editors, i also know this is a new endevor and as such things are in flux, but , you know what never mind, my honesty and service to my country has been called into quetion by an unnamed sourse on your forum and you choose to do nothing about it. WHY i have signed this before and i will again, but YOU miss have allowed me to be threated by a kbnow name clown and then asked to meet him inpublic, in a crowd, with no id of him what so ever, i am awaiting your reply, somethimg here is out of control, got any idea's<
james c lipe 86 hobson ave tiverton ri 02878 patch name jim l
Jim L
12:14 am on Sunday, March 20, 2011
i hope stoney and red and joe sousa and justin and the world read this, i will stand up to bullies any where any time any time anywhere , being friom a miltary family it's how I was raised
stoney larue
8:50 am on Sunday, March 20, 2011
Jim you have many valid opinions as does everyone else so let others express themselves with out confrontation
Joe Sousa.
9:01 am on Sunday, March 20, 2011
Give um hell Jim. Their lies cant go unchallenged. Facts bring the light of day to the situation. They'd like to keep people in the dark. It make it easier to control the public. Who is they you ask? The anonymous posters,or those who use fake names.