The U.S. Department of Education has issued new rules discussing religion in classrooms, and outlining when students and others may pray in public schools.

   Supporters of the directive, issued last Friday in Washington, say that it brings clarity to a contentious issue, and is needed to protect the rights of youngsters and teachers who seek to practice their religion without fear of legal reprisal. But critics are responding that the guidelines muddy and distort constitutional protections against coercive religious exercise, and may encourage "prayer bullying" during some official school activities.

   The new standards were announced with a cover letter from education secretary Ron Paige, and mandated as part of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). Section 9524 of that measure required the department "to issue guidance on constitutionally protected prayer in public elementary and secondary schools." The law also stipulates that as a condition for receiving federal funds under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), all local and state school agencies must "certify" that they have "no policy that prevents, or otherwise denies participation in, constitutionally protected prayer in public schools as set forth in this guidance..."

   For years, proponents of classroom prayer and other religion-in-schools initiatives have complained that the rights of religious students are routinely violated. Their concerns focused on everything from youngsters forming Bible study clubs to "spontaneous" prayer or other religious outbursts during athletic events and even graduation ceremonies. The Clinton administration twice had DOE issue guidelines, and activities such as praying were allowed provided they occur outside of the classroom and were initiated by students, not teachers or school officials.

   While the new instructions "broadly follow the same direction given by the Clinton administration," according to an Associated Press dispatch, there are important differences -- and that worries critics who say that the rules are "pushing the envelope" and ignoring important legal decisions.

   ¶       Teachers are still "prohibited by the Establishment Clause from encouraging or discouraging prayer, and from actively participating in such activity with students." The new rules, however, add that teachers may "take part in religious activities where the overall context makes clear that they are not participating in their official capacities." The guidelines specifically note that teachers may meet with each other "before school or during lunch" for prayer and Bible study, and "may participate in their personal capacities in privately sponsored baccalaureate ceremonies."

   ¶       "Student led" prayer or other religious messages during official school activities such as assemblies will be permitted, as long as the "speakers" are chosen through "neutral, evenhanded criteria." Schools may also issue disclaimer statements stating that the content of such student speech does not represent endorsement by the institution.

   "I'm very excited about the clarity, and very optimistic that these guidelines will go a long way in solving issues related to students' religious speech," gushed Mathew Staver of the Liberty Counsel advocacy group.

   While supporters of the new guidelines insist that they will secure appropriate rights for religious students, not everyone agrees that the rules are necessary or proper.

   "The emphasis here, as usual, is on 'religious rights,'" said Ellen Johnson, President of American Atheists. "Althought the DOE guidelines claim that government is not endorsing or promoting religion, vague and misleading language is sure to result in the types of abuses we've been seeing in public schools against those who do not wish toengage in religious activities."

   Johnson pointed out that the DOE document specifically mentioned "see you at the pole" gatherings, where off campus groups encourage students, teachers and other officials to meet for pre-school sectarian prayer.

   "They could hold something like this off school property, but they don't," said Johnson. "They want students to see the activity, and they want it associated as closely as possible with the school."

   Johnson added that the guidelines don't go far enough in warning teachers or school administrators to refrain from certain activities that could convey an impression of official endorsement, or even favoritism.

   "Will students believe that their grades may be affected by joining activities where a teacher is present, such as 'See You At The Pole' or a Bible study group? And what about indirect pressure from teachers who reward religious students, and even penalize those who don't participate?" asked Johnson.

   Another area of the DOE guidelines persistently warns that schools must give equal treatment to both religious and non-religious organizations. A section on "Baccalaureate Ceremonies" states that while "School officials may not mandate or organize religious ceremonies," any school which makes facilities available to other private groups is required to make those same facilities and services accessible to "organizers of privately sponsored religious baccalaureate ceremonies."

   Similar guidelines are outlined for "prayer groups" and "religious clubs," which must be provided "the same access to school facilities for assembling as is given to other non-curricular clubs, without discrimination because of the religious content of their expression."

   Here, too, there are potential problems. In some school districts, officials "pick and choose" when this standard is to be applied, often in favor of student and off-campus religious organizations.

   When students at a Salt Lake City, Utah public high school wanted to organize a Gay-Straight Alliance support group, for instance, district administrators did all they could to discourage the move. GSA supporters noted that the Equal Access Act -- which called for equal treatment and putting religious groups on a level field with other non-curriculum related student organizations -- worked in their favor, too. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), a co-sponsor of the legislation, responded that "those kinds of clubs" were not the intended beneficiaries.

   Another problem involves what happens when excited "prayer warrior" students, often with the support of off-campus churches or religious ministries, insist on "sharing the good news" of their faith with disinterested or actively skeptical students.

   "We saw evidence of this before and after the Columbine shootings," said Ellen Johnson. "And it's a surprisingly common complaint that we receive at the American Atheist Center. Students and parents report cases of harassment, inappropriate pressure and similar tactics by some religious groups in what should be a secular environment."

   The DOE guidelines do not specifically mention one of the most contentious and disputed areas of First Amendment as it applies to student groups, namely, athletic events.

   In June, 2002, the Supreme Court struck down a Texas policy which permitted so-called "student led" prayer during high school football games. In the 6-3 ruling, Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, noted:

"Even if we regard every high school student's decision to attend a home football game as purely voluntary, we are nevertheless persuaded that the delivery of a pre-game prayer has the improper effect of coercing those present to participate in an act of religious worship."

   Less clear, however, are court rulings involving prayer at official graduation ceremonies. In LEE v. WIESMAN (1992), the high court declared unconstitutional a school district tradition of having clergy lead an audience in sectarian prayer. That narrowly-focused decision has resulted in considerable legal legerdemain, such as having a "nondenominational" and "nonproselytizing" prayer, to permitting students to deliver a "message" which might consist exclusively of religious exhortation.

   Left ignored in the report and the wider discussion over religious practice in public schools is why the issue remains so volatile.

   With over 350,000 houses of worship in the United States representing every conceivable creed, sect and denomination, why is such an effort being made to interject religion into the nation's secular educational curriculum? Religious youngsters, for instance, may pray on their own time -- at home, with parents, or in church, temple, or mosque.

   Part of the explanation may involve the long history of conflict between public schools and religious groups that perceived the educational system to be a threat to their beliefs, or possibly a way to advance and support their own doctrines. Catholics and Protestants during the nineteenth century were locked in frequent battles over which version of the Bible, for instance, would be read in schools. Later, there were deep divisions over the content of prayer. In New York, a committee of the State Regents actually tried to invent a "nondenominational, nonsectarian" prayer that would presumably offend no one (save Atheist or nonreligious families) and still have the effect of appealing to an unspecified deity. The U.S. Supreme Court struck down that practice of having government-composed prayer in the historic ENGEL v. VITALE (1962) case.

   Other arguments have been conjured on behalf of prayer or other religious profession in public schools. Some maintained that the ritual creates an aura of solemnity and order, a suggestion still made in defense of a "moment of silence." There have also been claims that prayer, or display of the Ten Commandments in classrooms, is a prophylactic against everything from drug use and teen pregnancy to violence. And there are efforts to introduce religion into schools by using the Bible as a historical document, or permitting "creationism" or "Intelligent Design" theories into science classes.

   The latest Department of Education guidelines, say critics, distort and confuse what is permissible religious conduct in public schools. They also may serve to encourage churches and off-campus ministries to continue their efforts to exploit the secular school system as a recruiting ground for young followers.

   "This problem wouldn't exist if the churches kept their business off campuses and let teachers do what they are trained to do -- teach," said Ellen Johnson. "The Bush administration isn't making that task any easier."

[text only]