Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

Guest column: Clarify, balance religious-liberties policy
(Des Moines Register, July 18, 2009, by CONNIE RYAN TERRELL, executive director of the Interfaith Alliance of Iowa)

The Spencer school district is discussing a new public policy on religious liberty. It is admirable for the school board to tackle the contentious issue and attempt to craft a policy that defines the role of religion in a public-education setting and clarifies the meaning of religious freedom and expression.

The problem with the proposed policy is that it is ambiguous and unbalanced. The school board needs to return to the drawing board.

The policy states, "School will permit the graduating class to choose whether to have an invocation and or benediction to be given by student volunteer in non-proselytizing and nonsectarian manner." Why is it OK to put religious freedom up for a vote? Is it OK for the majority to win just because there are more? It is not the business of public schools to promote religion, even if everyone present unanimously believes.

If we allow public prayer at a graduation, a ceremony intended for all students, whose religion is honored? Evangelical or mainline Christians? Orthodox or Reform Jews? Unitarian Universalists, Sikhs, Muslims or Hindus? Whose religious freedom is irrelevant at a public-school event?

Several items in the policy are ambiguous, including "Distribution of Religious materials on School Grounds." Who can distribute materials? Does this include outside organizations? Are materials from any religion welcome? Can a teacher distribute religious brochures to students?

Perhaps of gravest concern is the policy section "Religion in the Curriculum." It's not because the school board wants religion to be included in curriculum, but because of the unbalanced description. Although the policy states, "Approach must be academic, not devotional," there is no balance in the electives or curriculum to be offered including "The Bible in History and Literature" and "Critic of Darwinism, a Scientific Approach." In the Darwin class, the only suggested text is "Darwin's Black Box" by Behe, a pro-creationism book not accepted by the science community. Does the school board show its hand by the examples cited and those excluded?

If the school board wants to provide "Religion in the Curriculum" in a balanced fashion, then cover the myriad of religious beliefs in "Religion and History," including the history of those who question or reject religion. If the desire is to provide a class on "Evolution vs. Creationism," do so as a political science or debate class and include examples of resources from across the spectrum of opinion.

One point in the policy where we can find common ground is "For many years public education has often gone too far in excluding religious influences for fear of offense. The purpose of this policy is to restore balance to the issues." Religion is an important element of society and history. Teaching about religion is important for students to receive a well-rounded education. However, the statement should also acknowledge that prior to the trend to exclude religion altogether, public schools allowed religion to have too much influence. Finding real balance is critical.

Public schools may teach about religion in a world-religions class, but they cannot teach a Bible study class. Schools may include songs with religious text at a concert, but the program should be diverse and cover an array of religious and secular music. In policy and in practice, schools must exercise extreme caution to protect the religious rights of all people regardless of religious belief, including those who choose no religion. In all areas, the personal beliefs and private expression of all students and staff are protected, with or without a policy.

Two great equalizers commonly valued in this country include our dedication to religious freedom and our commitment to provide a quality, public education for all children. Respecting the greatness of both and how they can complement one another is critical in this conversation.

When the religious freedom of each person is protected, it makes for a healthy democracy and a successful public-education system.

Religion in School- Spencer begins discussion of touchy Iowa's first public school 'religious liberty policy'
(KRIS TODD/Storm Lake Pilot-Tribune/July 21, 2009)

Rather than shying away from the perceived controversy, the board chose to tackle it head on. They agreed a potential policy would need to provide guidance for staff, as well as clarify the interpretation between church and state and how it's applicable to the Spencer school system. Board members also tentatively agreed to explore a possible high school religions curriculum.

Attorney Steve Avery encouraged the board to gather comments from staff and community members. After both are invited in for focus group-type discussions and input is received, he suggested the current draft policy written by board members David Schlichtemeier and Rev. Barb Van Wyk be revisited. Whatever the religious liberty policy's final content ends up being, the board said the discussion is worthy to have.

"I think it's essential that we craft something in the end, just for the sake of our staff and students," Schlichtemeier said. "It's all over the news that we're talking about a religious liberty policy. If we just drop it now, the message will be that God is a four letter word."

Superintendent Greg Ebeling was also directed to bring a potential process to undertake, along with potential timelines to the next board meeting. While Ebeling reported that feedback had not yet been received from a lawyer with the Iowa Association of School Boards, Spencer attorney Avery informed board members that no school in Iowa has such a policy in place.

Avery said that the public district cannot, under the First Amendment, promote one school of thought or one secular belief - and cannot prevent an individual from expressing his or her free expression of religious belief. A local religious program, course or materials, he warned, "needs to be very broad brush." It should extend to cover many religions, multiple versions of the Bible and possibly throw in a chapter on evolution to balance it out, according to Avery.

"You don't need to retreat from teaching religion as far as an educational study matter," Avery said. "You do need to be certain that there's no agenda with regard to the course or the materials...You will not be successful avoiding, in my opinion, litigation if you adopt a secular view or a course material that only would be supported by one type of thinking or one group.

"If you can submit your course materials to members of many faiths and they say it's fair, I think you'll make it. But in Iowa, you are in unchartered territory. You're going to come under the microscope... You're not going to adopt this in a vacuum."

The district attorney made some suggestions for changes to neutralize a few issues he was with the draft policy. He spurred them to address world faiths throughout. He warned that graduation and extra curriculars are areas that will attract lots of attention and litigation if religion is included.

"To have a prayer as a portion of a program is not going to pass muster," Avery said, as opposed to students voluntarily gathering for a baccalaureate... "watch out there."

On distributing religious materials on schoolgrounds, Avery warns to "use the same policy for all organizations, no matter what they are."

Avery also said inclusion of an employee's "official neutrality" in the expression of his or her personal religious reliefs is "very important" in this policy. "As long as the teacher is teaching from a neutral position, and is without an agenda, the materials aren't going to be a problem," he said. But the "Darwin's Black Box" text by Michael Behe and the national "The Bible in History and Literature" curriculums suggested in the draft policy, leave the board to make difficult policy decisions.

Ed Ver Steeg began the ensuing board discussion, "I didn't realize as a board that we were going to be adding any (elective) courses to our policy. From my viewpoint, that's micromanaging. I think that's up to the staff and the curriculum coordinator to bring to us, not for us to bring it to them."

"We are looking for common ground here, not battle ground," added Van Wyk, one of the policy's writers. "And in our community, I think it's a really good thing to have a healthy discussion about this - because we all know that there is a spiritual component to our lives..." So I think it's important for us as a school district to look at having a policy, because we are interested in educating the whole person, the whole student. And to totally avoid the spiritual component because we're afraid to do so because it's going to cause more trouble, and everyone's afraid of the trouble it might cause, I think we are doing a disservice to our students. That's why I'm eager to see a policy adopted that would bring it out."

In response to Van Wyk's comments, Bomgaars said she strongly believes in the separation of church and state in public education. "I received a very good education as a youngster in parochial school," she clarified. "However, I am a believer that religion comes from our families, and I would like to keep it that way."

Seeking guidance from the superintendent in regard to what the board's overall goal was in last night's discussion, Ebeling offered, "I think our teaching staff deserves to be understanding of where the line is. Because I think it is very easy as a public educator to just avoid it. ... So, through this process, (I hope) we can give some guidance to our staff (on what their options are and what curriculum could be written), create a policy that is within our legal rights and makes sense for everybody."

As board member Ver Steeg attempted to wrap up board discussion on the matter, he offered his opinion on the draft policy, recommending the elimination of its religion and evolution definitions. In regard to graduation exercises and other extracurricular activities, he said, "I don't think legally we can do either one of those. So why throw them in there?" Ver Steeg also reiterated that what electives could be taught in classrooms should be decided by Spencer's superintendent, curriculum director and staff first, who would, in turn, present their recommendations to the board.

"I realize it's unusual to have curriculum mentioned in a policy. But in this particular subject matter, because of the fear that's out there about not knowing where the boundaries are, ... if that's the reality, it's up to the board to provide some leadership. So, in our offering of some specific courses to be offered, we're saying here's some safe ground to walk on," Schlichtemeier, the draft policy's co-creator, said. "Because no one else can make that call. Only the board can set that policy saying this is safe and this is unsafe."

Following's last night's work session, Spencer's superintendent said the policy offered will obviously change with feedback received from district staff and community members.

"Hopefully we can reach the intent of why we headed down this road," Ebeling said. "This is still the right conversation to have. It needs to take place. There's no reason not to have it, except for the fact that it takes time to try to get people discussing it. But, quite frankly, we haven't received a lot of feedback from the community one way or the other.

"Wherever this ends up will make an impact. And, hopefully our community and students will understand what is OK for them to do and not do. That will be a good thing."

"We're a very diverse community and we had a very, very spirited discussion tonight," added Schlichtemeier, the board president. "I hope we can find some true common ground that allows for people to feel safe including their faith in their high school experience."