| As reported in The Observer this week, the Kearny Board of Education issued a press release in regards to the ongoing "Church and State" issue.
Intertwined with the usual expected rhetoric of:
the district fully supports and complies with the requirements of the U.S. Constitution with regard to personal religious beliefs of teachers in the classroom.
(as if they had a "choice" in the matter), and cover your ass statements like:
The memo clearly says the district took appropriate action when they were informed of the situation involving teacher David Paszkiewicz and student Matt LaClair.
(is allowing this to fester until it is clear that it will not just "go away" really appropriate action?), what you find is that "going forward steps" appears to be either a Settlement with the LaClair family or an effort to block a lawsuit.
First, every teacher in the Kearny school district will be required to take part in in-service training on Constitutional parameters.A professional, qualified to teach such a "course," will be brought in by the district to train teachers and staff
It is sad that this step needs to be taken, but based on his letter to the editor, this is a necessary step, if not for all teachers, but at least for Paszkiewicz who in a letter to the editor still exposed to the world that he just doesn't get it.
What confuses me most is the next part. Unless of course it is part of some sort of settlement:
Next, the district will adopt a formal policy "expressing its strong commitment to the principle that personal religious beliefs of our institutional staff have no place in our classrooms."
Why do they need to "adopt a formal policy" for this? It is the Law! Do they need policies that tell them they are supposed to follow the law? I mean, it is even spelled out for them by the Secretary of Education: "The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the First Amendment requires public school officials to be neutral in their treatment of religion, showing neither favoritism toward nor hostility against religious expression such as prayer. [ 1 ] Accordingly, the First Amendment forbids religious activity that is sponsored by the government but protects religious activity that is initiated by private individuals, and the line between government-sponsored and privately initiated religious expression is vital to a proper understanding of the First Amendment's scope. As the Court has explained in several cases, "there is a crucial difference between government speech endorsing religion, which the Establishment Clause forbids, and private speech endorsing religion, which the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses protect." [ 2]
Such conduct is "attributable to the State" and thus violates the Establishment Clause. [ 3 ]
It is fortunate in this case that the student's father is an attorney, I am not so sure, the BoE would have drawn these same conclusions if a lawsuit wasn't hanging over their heads. Either way I am very happy that it has been resolved properly.
[ 1 ] See, e.g., Everson, 330 U.S. at 18 (the First Amendment "requires the state to be a neutral in its relations with groups of religious believers and non-believers; it does not require the state to be their adversary. State power is no more to be used so as to handicap religions than it is to favor them"); Good News Club v. Milford Cent. Sch., 533 U.S. 98 (2001).
[ 2 ] Santa Fe Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290, 302 (2000) (quoting Board of Educ. v. Mergens, 496 U.S. 226, 250 (1990) (plurality opinion)); accord Rosenberger v. Rector of Univ. of Virginia, 515 U.S. 819, 841 (1995).
[ 3 ] See Weisman, 505 U.S. at 587. |
