It’s not just Europe that has trouble reconciling religious commandments about proper dress and the public sector’s desire for non-sectarianism. The US and its courts and laws are dealing with the issue as well.
From The Volokh Conspiracy, we have a report on legislation moving through the state legislature in Oregon. Oregon has a law which prevents the wearing of religiously identified clothing by public school teachers. That law is in the process of being repealed:
Oregon Legislature About to Repeal Statute
Barring Wearing of Religious Dress by Public School Teachers
Eugene Volokh[UPDATE: I originally erroneously reported that the Legislature had repealed the statute; it turns out that the repeal seems about to happen: Prof. Howard Friedman (Religion Clause) reports that, “According to the Oregonian, yesterday by a vote of 21–9 Oregon’s state Senate approved House Bill 3686 repealing an 87-year old ban on teachers wearing religious dress in the classroom.... The state House of Representatives has already passed the bill, but it now goes back to the House because of two changes in wording made by the Senate.”]
The statute, the former Ore. Rev. Stat. § 342.650, provided
No teacher in any public school shall wear any religious dress while engaged in the performance of duties as a teacher.
Though it facially discriminates against religious practices, it was nonetheless upheld against a Free Exercise Clause challenge, in Cooper v. Eugene School Dist. No. 4J (1986). I think it should have been struck down, and I’m glad it has been repealed. [UPDATE: Because some comments seem to miss this, I thought I’d stress it again: The law is presumptively unconstitutional because it discriminates against religious practices on the basis of their religiosity. If the law were religion-neutral, such as a uniform dress code for all teachers without regard to religion, then it would be judged under Title VII’s “reasonable accommodation” standard, which gives employers — private or governmental — considerable though not unlimited flexibility to impose such restrictions, including on religious objectors.]
The common argument in favor of such a law is that it is necessary to prevent students from assuming that the school endorses religion (which might even give rise to an Establishment Clause, under modern Establishment Clause caselaw). But the law is not necessary to prevent such perceived endorsement, and should thus fail the strict scrutiny that should be applied to deliberate discrimination against religious practice.
The law is only necessary to prevent endorsement to the extent that the wearing of religious garb by a teacher will be seen by reasonable students as an endorsement of religion by the government. But a child who is old enough to realize that, say, a nun’s habit means that she’s a Catholic — or a teacher’s turban means that he’s a Sikh — will generally be old enough to recognize that people of many different religions may work at the same institution, and that the school’s willingness to hire a Catholic or a Sikh doesn’t mean that the school endorses Catholicism or Sikhism.
…
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
February:24:2010 - 10:49
John..
How can the law be upheld meaning the teacher can wear a religious garment when prayer is not allowed in school and all signs of religious holidays are wiped away? wouldn’t it still be under the public domain and therefore not allowed?
February:24:2010 - 11:10
Understand that this is one state, not the federal government, so it can have variations on the law so long as they do not conflict with federal law.
I think a good argument can be made that religious garb does not constitute ‘prayer’. As the article notes, by high school a student should be able to deal with the fact that people have different religions without being ‘brainwashed’.
I think the ‘wiping away of religious holidays’ is both an overstatement and and understatement. Schools run on schedules. Cluttering a school calendar with myriad religious holidays is not a useful thing. It extends the school year or contracts the amount of time available for lessons, depending on how a school implements its policies. Religious holidays are also the target of people who are hyper-sensitive to the presence of religion at any level of public life, like those who sue to get ‘In God We Trust’ removed from US currency. School boards are notoriously (and not always unreasonably) fearful of lawsuits. If nothing else, they suck up money that could be better spent. So, some schools over-react by trying to avoid any possible reason someone might sue them. [This is an example of fallacious thinking, btw. You can be sued for anything, even if you're not likely to be found liable.]
February:24:2010 - 13:38
The root of the anti-religious garb legislation was suspicion of Catholicism and Catholic schools. One law that was enacted around the same time and later struck down, was a law making it illegal to send children private schools:
http://www.catholicleague.org/printer.php?p=rer&id=143
As they went to the polls on November 7, 1922—85 years ago this month—the voters of Oregon were asked to approve an amendment to the state’s education laws that read in part:
“…Any parent, guardian or other person in the state of Oregon, having control or charge or custody of a child under the age of 16 years and of the age of 8 years or over at the commencement of a term of public school of the district in which said child resides, who should fail or neglect or refuse to send such child to a public school for the period of time a public school shall be held during the current year in said district shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and each day’s failure to send such a child to a public school shall constitute a separate offense….”
It is good to see this law repealed.
February:24:2010 - 17:50
Just no masks, please.