Research On Religion » Engel v Vitale

Robert D. Rubin on Judicial Review & the Religious Right

tonygill — Sun, 28 May 2017 08:00:08 +0000

Prior to the 1980s, conservative evangelical Christians were skeptical of the US federal court system, having suffered a number of setbacks within the Supreme Court involving issues such as education and abortion. This begins to change in the 1980s as the now organizationally-consolidated Religious Right began a new legal strategy of embracing judicial review and positioning themselves as an aggrieved minority. Dr. Robert D. Rubin, an independent scholar who earned his Ph.D. at Indiana University, discusses how this change occurred in the legal and social crucible of Mobile, Alabama in the 1980s. After a bit of background on how Dr. Rubin discovered this topic, we review the religious and political landscape of both the United States, writ large, and the US South, in particular noting important changes such as the Civil Rights Movement and various Supreme Court Decisions (e.g., Epperson v Arkansas) that gave rise to the Religious Right movement. We then examine two very specific cases that passed through the chambers of Judge Brevard Hand — Jaffree v Board of School Commissioners and Smith v Board of School Commissioners. The Jaffree case involved an atheist parent who had a problem with a school prayer that his child was being forced to recite in a public school. The second case involving Douglas Smith took up the issue whether the public school curriculum in Mobile County was advancing the religion of “secular humanism.” Robert details the dimensions of these cases and notes how Smith v Board saw religious conservatives going on the offensive and employing some of the arguments used to remove prayer from the school to place religion on an even playing field. Tony then questions Dr. Rubin about the character and judicial philosophy of Brevard Hand. The conversation includes reflections upon Robert’s various meetings and interviews with Judge Hand, a man who challenges the stereotypes of the “rotund and suspender-wearing judges” often depicted on television. We also review the justice’s legal philosophy, which emphasized the principles of republican majoritarianism, federalism, and self-reliance. Tony picks up a whiff of Alexis de Tocqueville in this discussion and asks Robert if he noticed any particular books in Judge Hand’s personal library, to which he gives an interesting and revealing answer that provides insight into the mind of southerners. (To find out what book it was, you will have to listen to the podcast… or read the links below.) We close our podcast with Robert’s reflections about what he learned throughout the research process, wherein he learned to see the importance of viewing the world through the eyes of others, and a bit of discussion about his next project that examines the importance of prayer in enhancing civil discourse. Recorded: May 10, 2017.

Aaron Saiger on Religion & Charter Schools (Encore Presentation)

tonygill — Sun, 03 Apr 2016 08:00:06 +0000

Is the charter school movement changing the way we think about religious education in the United States? Prof. Aaron Saiger of Fordham University Law School discusses this topic from a historical and legal framework, demonstrating how various religious communities have adapted to more market-oriented approaches to public education. We review changes in the educational landscape over the course of the 20th century and how various court cases affected how religion mixes (or doesn’t mix) with public school curriculum. Prof. Saiger then talks about the rise of charter schools in the 1990s and what distinct factors define such educational entities. The conversation moves to examine how religion can then be reconciled with these novel “hybrid” (public/private) schools, using examples from Jewish, Christian, and Islamic institutions. We finish by examining some recent court cases and how they may impact the future of charter schools. Recorded: March 28, 2014.

Aaron Saiger on Religion and Charter Schools

tonygill — Sun, 30 Mar 2014 08:00:45 +0000

Our conversation begins with a summary of what the K-12 educational landscape looked like circa the 1970s. This allows Prof. Saiger to lay out the historical origins of what he calls the “Progressive model” of public schooling that originated at the turn of the 20th century. This educational model was premised on the idea of “common schools,” meaning they were open and free to all, and that they shared a common curriculum designed to craft citizens. This model developed a design preference for top-down expertise to guide school curriculum. During the mid-1900s, a variety of court cases such as Engel v Vitale and Abington Township v Schempp injected secularism into this model, leading to the public school/private school dichotomous system that most folks like Tony and Aaron (who grew up in the 1970s) identify with today.

However, beginning in the 1990s, a movement to create charter schools arose to challenge this simple dichotomy. Aaron details what a charter school is, revealing that while they are funded publicly, the “grassroots” nature of their formation give them a “private school” feel. Educational entrepreneurs are able to craft a school around a particular curriculum or pedagogy within the limits of some basic regulatory requirements (e.g., students must learn math). Prof. Saiger notes that many of these charter schools develop niche markets specializing in topics such as maritime studies or horsemanship. Tony asks how charter schools relate to the school voucher movement that began taking shape a decade or so earlier, and while noting that partisans of vouchers and charters often claim to be very different in nature, Prof. Saiger points out that both movements share the mechanism of giving educational consumers greater choice and variety in how children are educated.

The ability of charter schools to create niche markets for specific educational consumers opens the door for schools with a more religious flavor to arise, challenging the notion of the secular public school. This is particularly true for communities of religious minorities who often live in close proximity to one another and can use the charter school option to develop a curriculum that they feel best suits their religious and cultural needs. To this effect, Prof. Saiger asks two important questions. First, can a charter school be genuinely (overtly) religious? And second, if the charter school is not overtly religious, how close can it come to that line and still serve the needs of a religious constituency?

We spend the second half of the podcast addressing those two questions. Aaron notes that no charter school has yet to be overtly religious, largely due to the reluctance of states to do this. Nonetheless, some religious communities have been able to create charter schools based on cultural and linguistic traditions, such as Hebrew language charter schools that use Jewish history and social science as a means of exposing students to Jewish religious traditions. These schools do not teach theology per se, but they provide an inexpensive alternative for religious individuals to have their children exposed to the culture and values of their choosing. There have been similar instances with Islamic (e.g., Arabic language schools) and Christian-flavored charter schools.

This discussion brings up two important Supreme Court cases that have influenced this movement: Zelman v Simmons-Harris, allowing for school vouchers in Cleveland, and Locke v Davey, which allowed states to restrict educational funding for students interested in earning theology degrees. Prof. Saiger notes that the ambiguity of the charter school system and interpretations from these two cases leaves the door open for the possible chartering of overtly religious schools and speculates on how this might affect our educational system in the future. He also discusses Justice Stephen Breyer’s dissenting opinion in the Zelman case that a system that allows for more parental choice in education could lead to religious strife in the future. Aaron provides a more optimistic view about the future than Justice Breyer. Recorded: March 28, 2014.