On the one hand, the free exercise clause (“Congress shall make no law … prohibiting the free exercise” of religion) seems to support Mattson’s view that public school teachers should be free to express their religious identities at work. On the other hand, the establishment clause (“Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion”) seems to argue against any sort of religious dress for public school teachers, on the grounds that impressionable students might read such garb as an indication that their school is pro-Catholic (if their teacher wears a habit), pro-Sikh (if their teacher wears a turban), or pro-Muslim (if their teacher wears a hijab).
I believe that the Constitution requires public schools to allow teachers in upper grades (where students are generally less impressionable and less deferential to authority, and typically cycle through various teachers each day) to express their religion in dress, as long as they maintain in their teaching the religious neutrality required by the Constitution. However, I believe that the Constitution requires public schools to deny this same freedom to teachers in lower grades because here, students are generally more impressionable and more deferential to authority, and often have only one teacher in a given school day.
My position might seem convoluted, but it is no more so than many U.S. Supreme Court rulings on religion, which are forever trying to balance the demands of the establishment clause for religious neutrality with the demands of the free exercise clause for religious liberty. My position is also in keeping with the views of many ordinary Americans, who continue to differentiate themselves from Europeans when it comes to religious tolerance.
This makes for a fascinating potential conflict. I don’t know about other former CSA states, but in Virginia it is still against the law to appear in public with your face covered (except for kids on Halloween). If it is O.K. for a Muslim woman to mask her identity, and once masked we can only assume it is a woman under all that cloth, then I hope the ACLU will take the case of KKK members when they appear in public wearing full headgear with faces covered. How about the right to face your accuser if it’s a Muslim woman who is completely veiled has accused someone of a crime. Will sharia law trump basic constitutional rights?
Teachers in middle school can wear just half of their religious outfit at any one time.
This seems to me like a very insightful and sensitive position. I do hope that Prothero gets the attention he deserves in this age of slogans and soundbytes.
As I understand it, the burka and other items of clothing that cover the face are not mandated by the Koran, but are Arab adaptations, and are not universal to Muslims. Based on that it would seem that the “fre exercfise of religion” argument is weak.
Another weak part of the argument is that older students are less likely to be swayed by a teacher wearing a religious emblem. But as a retired public high school history I beg to differ. Teen-agers are rebellious and the one’s they are trying to establish their independence from are their parents. And sometimes it is a teacher (or coach’s) example they copy to rebel against them. Apparently, for some older students, copying someone of a bit of status is preferable to rebelling through drugs, etc.