Nice! Talk about a stealth victory!
Posted on 02/15/2003 10:10:17 PM PST by 11th_VA
In one fell swoop, the federal government this month told public schools that they must accommodate religious speech - and warned school districts that they would risk losing federal funds if they did not allow "constitutionally protected prayer."
The detailed directive came with a March 15 compliance deadline, causing districts around the country to quickly begin assessing their policy manuals and preparing reports to their states.
The guidelines - which say schools may show "neither favoritism toward nor hostility against religious expression" - do not break legal ground on this sometimes-contentious topic, but the threat of financial penalties is a first.
The directive is also unusual because the federal government traditionally leaves issues of school policy to state and local governments, one school-prayer scholar said yesterday.
At stake for school districts is $11.5 billion in Title I money for needy public schools. New Jersey schools are getting $257 million in Title I funds this year, while Pennsylvania's receive $600 million, including $101 million for Philadelphia.
The directive was issued Feb. 7 by the Department of Education as part of the phase-in of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, the sweeping law requiring greater performance by students and teachers.
"What we are trying to do," department chief counsel Brian Jones said yesterday, "is bring some clarity to the perceived fuzziness in the law by letting districts know exactly what the courts are saying and standardizing that view."
The directive drew immediate fire from critics, including Barry Lynn of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, who said the department "is clearly trying to push the envelope on behalf of prayer in public schools."
Several other analysts interviewed this week, however, agreed with the department's stance that the instructions build on 1999 guidelines from the Clinton administration and reflect Supreme Court rulings.
According to the directive, schools must allow prayer provided it happens outside of classroom instruction - such as at an assembly or sporting event - and is initiated by students, not school officials.
Students taking part in assemblies may not be restricted in expressing religious ideas as long as they were chosen as speakers through "neutral, evenhanded criteria," the guidelines say. Schools may issue disclaimers clarifying that such speech does not represent the institution.
Also, teachers are permitted to meet for prayer or Bible study before school or after lunch, provided they make clear they are not acting in their "official capacities."
By March 15, school districts must certify to their states that they have "no policy that prevents, or otherwise denies participation in, constitutionally protected prayer."
Districts do not need to develop rules covering each point but simply must certify that "they have no policy that undermines" the protected behaviors, said Jones, the federal counsel.
The directive was approved by the Justice Department office of legal counsel, "which serves as the last word for interpretation of the Constitution," Jones said.
Mark J. Pelavin of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism called the guidelines a "good job" but said he wished the department had taken advice from outside experts.
"We would have helped them guide teachers about issues and concerns to be aware of, not just what's legal and what's not," Pelavin said.
"One child can give a presentation about Jesus, but when three or four do it, it feels different."
J. Brent Walker of the Baptist Joint Committee, a church-state separation group, told USA Today that the guidelines could "allow a student speaker at a school assembly to launch into a hateful hellfire-and-damnation sermon."
Jones countered that schools could prevent proselytizing under their rights to stop "disruptive behavior."
William P. Marshall, a school-prayer scholar at the University of North Carolina law school, said the directive was "not constitutionally suspect."
At the same time, he said, "the line between distinguishing when a school is endorsing religious expression or not is thin. By conditioning Title I funds on this, they are putting schools in a very precarious position."
Marshall said the directive also approached "federal intrusion and control. School policies are traditionally left to state and local governments."
Patrick Korten of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty said the directive vindicated a Burlington County boy, Zachary Hood, whose mother sued the Medford School District in 1996 after the boy, then 6, was not allowed to read to his class from his beginner's Bible.
"It's a new day for Zack and millions like him," said Korten, whose group defended the boy. "In a very real sense, these are 'Zack's rules.' "
The boy's mother, Carol Hood, said yesterday that the directive "will help to avoid litigation, which is draining and depressing for children."
Andy Rosen, assistant general counsel for the Philadelphia School District, said Philadelphia would not have a problem meeting the compliance deadline "because we're not doing anything that would deny student participation" in religious activities.
Tim Allwein, a policy director for the Pennsylvania School Boards Association, said the quick deadline "is going to put this at the top of the list for districts, but I don't think it's going to cause a lot of problems for them. The question is clear; you are either denying access to constitutionally protected prayer or you're not."
In New Jersey, Education Department grant specialist Diane Schonyers said most New Jersey districts "have policies in place that do not prevent school prayer. But there's not a lot of time for any district to assess where it is and put any changes in place... . Because of the multiple levels of approval that include school boards, we need to be flexible."
While I like the fact that we finally seem to have recognized that silencing all forms of religious expression does not equate with the "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" guaranteed in the Constitution, I am disturbed that we now look to the courts to settle all Constitutional disputes. The courts have claimed the right of divine interpreter of the Constitution with no Constitutional authority.
Unfortunately, the Congress and the President have been all too willing to abandon their Constitutional mandates, as interpretation of the Constitution can be upsetting to some of their constituents. It is far easier to engage in the current bidding war for votes that is currently bankrupting the country than to take a stand as a statesman.
A friend of mine, commenting on Alan Keyes presidential bid, told me, "You can be an evangelist, or you can get elected. You can't do both. The voters want to know what you're going to give them."
Unfortunately, we have gone past the point of recognizing that accepting money from the government means accepting control from the government. When was the last time you heard, other than on FR, someone pose the argument of whether the government had the right to regulate certain areas?
Sounds good to me. "Disastrous positon," would be better still, but I'll settle for "precarious."
Nice! Talk about a stealth victory!
Looks like the only person who wasn't paying attention was you.
Clintonesque enough for you ?
Can't get much clearer than that.
Anyways, BUMP! for all the "not a dime's worth of difference" clowns.
Sounds like they are saying "this is OUR interpretation of the law" - which invites more courts in to provide a lawfull clarification. ( which takes us back to my original post... )
They are saying that the courts decision is fuzzy, which gives cover to all those who interpreted it "wrong" -
Gee.. I didn't know...
... and an opening to a challenge with THEM having to testify that the original ruling was "fuzzy"
It is what Rush calls, "the liberal template". Arguments tend to take place within a box and it is rare that anybody in the lamestream scumbag news media ventures outside the box where the real questions are. Like, what is government doing in the education business to begin with?
Doesn't look that way:
The directive was approved by the Justice Department office of legal counsel, "which serves as the last word for interpretation of the Constitution," Jones said.
Amazing, no?
And here I thought the Supreme Court had that job description....
Whether some such personal acts are protected or not, such impositions as the "No Child Left Behind" Act are trashings of the Constitution. In any event, a Democratic administration's Office of Legal Counsel may have quite different views about acceptable "prayer" ... or wiretaps, or warrantless searches, or stripping of citizenship. It'll be too late, then, to deny them the tools of abuse, won't it?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.