Our contributors had some rather surprising reactions to the thread posted about a month ago on Sarkozy’s pronouncement about the burka not belonging in France. A similar argument might be moving across the big pond. This is one of those articles I will just post. You be the judge.
Washington Post 7/19/09
Oregon’s Fashion Police
Should your child’s teacher wear a turban, a hijab, a kippah or other “religious dress’? The state of Oregon doesn’t think so. The Oregon Workplace Religious Freedom Act, now awaiting the governor’s signature, requires all employers to let workers wear religious items with one exception: “No teacher in any public school shall wear any religious dress while engaged in the performance of duties as a teacher.”
The proposed law has set up a classic religious liberty battle between the First Amendment’s Establishment clause, which tells government not to favor (or disfavor) one religion over another, and the Free Exercise clause, which tells government to leave the religious alone. The new law also reflects the increasing difficulty of accommodating a widening variety of religious faiths in a pluralistic society.
Organizations representing Sikhs and Muslims claim the new law would unconstitutionally limits their religious freedom. They are asking Gov. Ted Kulongoski to veto the bill. “In effect,” argues the Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund, “observant Sikh Americans would still be barred from working as teachers in the public schools of Oregon because of their religiously-mandated dastaars (turbans), and observant Jews and Muslims would also be subjected to the ignominy of having to choose between religious freedom and a teaching career in the State of Oregon.”
But Oregon’s Department of Education argues that public schools are obligated to maintain religious neutrality: “The underlying policy reflects the unique position that teachers occupy,” spokesman Jake Weigler told the Oregonian. “In this case, the concern that a public school teacher would be imparting religious values to their students outweighs that teacher’s right to free expression.”
Not quite, argues the Council on American-Islamic Relations: “Those who wear religiously-mandated attire are not proselytizing; they are practicing their faith, a right guaranteed by the Constitution. Concerns about religious neutrality in schools can be adequately addressed through professional codes of conduct,” spokesman Ibrahim Hooper says in a statement.
Oregon already bans teachers from wearing “religious dress.” The new law allows other workers to wear religious items while maintaining the ban for teachers only. The Oregon ban was tested in the 1980s when a Sikh teacher was suspended for wearing a white turban and white clothes to class.
“In its 1986 decision Cooper v. Eugene School District, the Oregon Supreme Court . . . upheld the state law, (writing) that “the aim of maintaining the religious neutrality of the public schools furthers a constitutional obligation beyond an ordinary policy preference of the legislature,” the First Amendment Center reports. Courts also have upheld a similar law in Pennsylvania.
Turbans, kippahs, headscarves and other items of clothing obviously qualify as “religious dress.” But what about crosses, Stars of David, the Hindu tilaka (forehead marks), or other religious symbols that are less apparent? What about “religious dress” that isn’t at all apparent, such as undergarments worn by Latter-day Saints or long hair or bears worn by some for religious reasons? Who gets to decide?
On the other hand, most schools have basic dress codes for teachers and students. If schools can ban tank tops or gang symbols, why not turbans or religious symbols?
Pretty rough on the teachers. However, do you want your child in class with someone who is ‘wearing their religion on their sleeve?’ Are school children captive audiences?
Is there any harm in being exposed to other religions? Would you rather have this out in the open than someone doing it in secret? It is pretty hard to hide a turban.
Would you want your child taught to read by someone whose face is covered? Will this case be headed straight to the Supreme Court?
Yeah, I read that headline and skipped the article. I wasn’t in the mood to get irritated. Recall I was one of the few here who believed women should be able to wear whatever they want if it’s part of their religious tradition. Same goes in schools. Hello? So long as the teacher isn’t teaching religion or walking in half naked, who cares?
I will have to read the article later when I have more time and patience. You know how I get when I am impatient.
Oh yes….this time it isn’t just about women and it is only what teachers cannot wear.
Readers should be reminded that teachers and students do not have the same dress code. Teachers are supposed to dress ‘professionally’ in PWC, according to my sources. now what does THAT mean?
I consider religious dress a form of speech. So is school prayer, which is essentially banned from any sort of public display in the classroom. Fair is fair, so keep it out.
Interesting. Indeed, women don’t wear kippahs of course, so definitely this is not just about women, as opposed to the other debate about burkas!
I agree with GR. It’s not about women, or religion either. If it were about either one of those things, this scarf would be included in what is protected under the law. I don’t understand why they wanted to demonstrate intolerance in the process of establishing a law of tolerance. Dumb.
Emma, prayer is not equal to wearing something that reflects your religion. “Fair is fair” would be if they banned teachers from wearing any sort of religious clothing or jewelry. I would not be allowed to teach in that case. I think a lot of people would not.
My question is this: how does the state define what is or is not “religious dress”? And when the state defines “religious dress”, and then prohibits its being worn, is this not a violation of Section 3 of the Oregon Constitution which states: “No law shall in any case whatever control the free exercise, and enjoyment of religeous [sic] opinions, or interfere with the rights of conscience.”?
Is it not also a violation of the Free Exercise principle of the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, OR PROHIBITING the free exercise thereof.”?
On the flip side of the coin, an employer has a right to require a dress code as a condition of employment. If wearing denim is a requirement of my religion, yet my employer does not permit me to wear jeans to work, is this a violation of my right to religious expression?
We have public squares to express our views, either by voice, print, or dress. The workplace is not such a public square, and I would agree that it is especially so in the case of public schools.
How about proselytizing? Is wearing overt religious symbols a form of proselytizing? Remember, you have a captive audience. The law very clearly reinforces wearing of religious symbols and clothing everywhere but in the classroom.
I think I am going to jump in on Emma’s position. Obviously if your religion is such that you must wear outward symbols even at work, I don’t think you are very secular anyway. Public schools are secular. If you need to wear religious garg, then perhaps you should consider teaching in a religious school.
Let me pose a scenario…what if a nun wanted to teach in public school and wear her habit? How would you feel about your child being taught by a nun, especially if you weren’t Catholic? What if you were an atheist?
Moon-howler, you are absolutely right. The Muslims and Sikhs who are complaining about this new law should consider teaching in a religious school. Children are heavily influenced by their teachers. They’re going to notice religious garb, and they will potentially be influenced by it. That is a form of proselytizing. Keep it out of the public schools.
“proposed law” I should say.
The collision course meets up where the person’s first amendments rights collide with the student’s rights to be taught on neutral turf.
Many people would not like their child being taught by a nun. Think how much that dislike would increase, exponentially, if the habit turned into a turbin or a veil.
Children are very influenced by that religous garb and symbols, especially if that teacher’s dress is really far out of the norm. Religious neutrality in the classroom.
I’d prefer not to see religious garb in the public schools, but it’s hard to see how a ban could be enforced in some cases. There are conservative Protestant sects where women wear long skirts, no make-up, and don’t cut their hair. What do you do about that?
Maybe people just assume they are teachers and too poor to buy make up? Just kidding. I doubt any of those women work outside the home.
M-h, you’re probably right about most of them not working outside the home. I remember a sect in high school – the kids wore longish full skirts, ponytails,white sneakers with ankle socks, no make-up or jewelry. I think that group was among those folks who moved to Colorado in anticipation of the world’s end. I wonder what they’re wearing now.
Kids experiment with religious thought. One year they’re ready to convert to Catholicism, the next to Hinduism or maybe even to agnosticism. Maybe they’ll graduate to atheism. Their parents generally give them their foundation and then they search for the right fit. My Southern Baptist friends were tempted by Catholicism and Judaism. My Methodist friends were tempted by our Presbyterian free-for-all discussions in high school. For most kids it’s just curiosity about how the other half lives. Their curiosity about their teacher’s attire should open up an avenue for discussion at home or in their churches, synagogues, mosques. Also, I think people often look at different attire as cultural and not always religious.
Welcome to Anti Blog, R. Jay Pearson. Thank you for your contribution.
MH #13
I don’t use makeup but, then again, I happen to be naturally beautiful. Sorta like Charlie Brown’s little curly haired girl 🙂
Back to an earlier part of this discussion…I know of many students and teachers who pray during the moment of silence each morning, and who either silently or quietly say grace before lunch in public schools. Nobody gets in trouble for this, as it is their right to do so. Any teachers doing the praying are NOT doing so in an instructional manner.
I agree with what Censored said about diversity of attire having some cultural connections as well as being religious based. This is a layered issue, and I don’t at all think it is as simple as saying “fair is fair” or “separation of church and state.” What comes next…a teacher will not be able to identify themselves as adhering to a particular faith if asked? Dodge the question and not be able to admit who you are?
The problem here, and I am making an assumption (I readily admit) is that the majority of people who are making the rules about what constitutes religious attire come from a Christian background (according to Adherents.com, about 75% of Oregonians self-identify as Christian). Much of what they have worn to church and to their jobs is very similar, yet they can still say that they are not wearing religious attire. Lucky them! Most Christians will not be anywhere nearly as affected as Sikhs and some Muslims.
Maybe some Christians can say, “Well, I don’t get to wear my cross, so I am affected, too.” Religious jewelry is out, huh? What about wedding rings? Though they may have originated pre-Christianity, many, many rings are exchanged in modern religious wedding or betrothal ceremonies, Christian or otherwise. Priests or ministers often talk of the religious symbolism of the rings during the ceremony. If a wedding ring was exchanged as part of a religious ceremony, you may not be allowed to wear it (following the logic of this rule in Oregon). If a child in a public school sees your wedding ring, they may be religiously influenced by the sheer sight of it!
In any case, I also worry that this leads to limiting what religious/cultural attire students can where, and then what they can say about their backgrounds. It amazes me that people are so worried about a teacher wearing a dastaar or hijab, when studies tell us time and time again that students are infinitely more influenced by their peers. You are still going to have a diversity of attire in students, and even if you try to control that within an inch of its life, kids are still going to discuss their backgrounds during free time(and that includes religion). That is OK in my book, and I hope that people won’t try to change that.
that should be “wear”…boy, I need to hit the hay!
How about they wear a clown costume! It’s not religion based. How would people fell about that? Oh, so you would say it is too distracting, and wearing a burka isn’t? Why nor teach while wearing a bag over your head. Come on, any bizarre (by American norms) clothing is going to be distracting. If you couldn’t see a teacher’s eyes or facial expressions, then I’m pretty sure communications with the class would break down rapidly. In that case why not teach via radio, and just put a speaker on the desk and avoid all this clothing issue. ; )
Hmm this is a tough one.
Indeed, it is a very slippery slope you start down, when you decide what kinds of dress are appropriate versus non-appropriate. SecondAlamo brings up a lot of good points in his post. Where do you draw the line? As soon as you start not allowing some simple form of dress – religious jewelry, a head scarf, or something – then someone will inevitably want to take it further. Or, if you start with the extreme cases first – such as a burka, or even a hypothetical religion that requires you to wear a bag over your head, then where do you stop?
It is indeed a very very difficult problem to solve, as to where to draw the line. I’ll just say, I think a lot of people would not take kindly to their children being taught by someone in a burka. After that though, what do you allow and what don’t you allow – and it will cause people to argue about where the line should be drawn, etc. And of course there’s the freedom of speach, freedom of religion issues all mixed up in there. No easy solution, and I don’t envy the school administrators that have to make those kinds of decisions. Probably no matter what they do, they’ll get hit with lawsuits, etc. There’s probably not even really a solution that would be fair to everyone involved. I’m just glad I would never be in a position to have to decide on that!
Practice at home. Jump in your car, drive off school grounds and throw the garb back on.
There are 2 groups here. It is apparent that Oregon is considering students and the desire to provide them with a religious-free classroom environment more important than teachers’ rights to wear religious garb. Since kids MUST be in that classroom, I would think courts might rule in their favor. The teacher doesn’t have to be there by law. The teacher has a choice of 1. not teaching 2. teaching in private school 3. teaching in one of the 49 other states.
It is a slippery slope. There are no easy answers here. Wedding rings are not religious symbols, regardless of origin. Celtic knots aren’t either, nor are beards because some religions require that men have facial hair.
Oregon is a very progressive state. It is one of the first, if not the only state, to have some form of right to die procedure.
This is my round up of “popular opinion”
So people who pray in school, wear conservative religious clothing (ie Hijab) and people who wear icons displaying their faith, whether they are students or teachers, should either.
A: cast off all religious symbols and practices when entering a public school.
B: Be segregated to schools that cater to their religious belief.
C: Leave the country or state.
being a Fairfax county resident my whole life, the schools I went to in the 80’s and 90’s had classes of mixed religions and races with my classmates wearing thier religious clothing and symbols and occasionally taking time to pray before test and such. The teachers also followed the same code and we got aloung just fine.
I believ most of this is rooted in parents fear that their child may be influenced by another religion or someones lack their of, which could lead to their child’s future embrace of a diffrent faith, or no faith at all.
My philosophy is this… Leave the public school alone, let the students/ teachers act and dress as they feel comfortable (within the bounds rule of law and of reason). If you really fear exposing your child to diversity will ruin the life that YOU have planned for your own child, then by all means put them in a private religious institution or homeschool them.
So schools want to teach about culture and history, but they don’t want their students to be in class with a teacher from those cultures, even if the teacher is teaching math?
Schools want to teach diversity and tolerance or at the very least respect for those who are different, but they don’t respect religious freedom or people who really are different?
No. This doesn’t cut it for me. So long as they aren’t preaching, they get to wear the turbans or whatever else they want as far as I am concerned.
Rod, I am right there with you.
Interesting post. This is complicated. I could be in favor of banning all expressions of religious belief in schools, but this would have to include crosses, little fish symbols, WWJD bracelets, etc. I don’t think as a nation we’d be willing to go there, so for now, I think people should dress as they see fit, and the rest of us should be thankful to live in a nation where we can have this debate openly and civilly.
First off, students and teachers cannot just dress as they choose. Get over that one. That will not ever happen. Having said that, no one is saying just go away. Students have to be free FROM religion. That is what the entire Madalyn Murray O’Hare Supreme Court case was about.
It really isn’t about teachers and other instructional staff. It is about children and their parents’ wishes for them. This is an area that has seen much abuse over the ages.
Just as an example, when I was a kid, everyone had to say the Lord’s Prayer in school–not just THE Lord’s Prayer but the Protestant Lord’s Prayer. It didn’t matter if you were Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, you said the Lord’s Prayer and hoped some old bitch didn’t come along and catch you not saying it. You mouthed it even if you were Buddist. Churches came in and gave religious instruction weekly. I don’t recall having to bring home a note getting permission. I suppose if someone really raised hell they could go sit in the library, but there might be a price to pay.
Schools don’t necessarily want to teach diversity. Who ever planted that misconception? Schools deal with diversity because diverse populations attend them. There is no diversity curriculum. Don’t confuse religion with culture. There are very subtle differences.
No one cares if someone wears Mormon underwear or a celtic cross. The underwear is private and celtic crosses are popular jewelry icons. Crosses and stars of David are often worn simply as jewelry having nothing to do with religion–subtly.
Before anyone starts the diversity/Christian majority mantra on me, the most abuse I have seen of religion and its symbols in schools has been from Christians. I would far rather have a Sikh in a turban teaching my kid than some sneaky Christian handing out little Christian book markers and putting Christian bulletin board border. My personal preference would be for neither display to be happening. School kids must, by law, attend school and the public learning environment must be free FROM religion.
“Sneaky Christian.” LMAO! MH, you crack me up.
I think there’s a big difference between prayer in school and religious garb, however. PWC has Muslim teaching ladies who wear burkas and no one seems to think it’s a threat (they don’t cover their faces, however, as far as I know). Since there are Muslim kids in the schools, I really don’t think the kids see it as a big deal. They are used to seeing people dress differently, especially in the DC Metro area.
Schools do indeed teach about diversity. They hold culture fests and discuss different Christmas related holidays. They talk about African Americans and the Civil Rights movement and discrimination. They take the heat when some kid makes a peeps display of the KKK.
I think I said before that I am all for comparative religion classes as well so kids understand how culture and religion connect. Because as you say, they DO connect. The distinction is often difficult to recognize.
I’m all for reading, writing, social studies, math, science and PE classes. When will we learn to stop using our kids as little social-engineering lab rats, and stick to those basics?
If some school is doing all that, perhaps that explains some of the crappy SOL scores. Talking about African Americans, the civil rights movement and discrimination is history. I don’t think that is diversity.
Where is a Muslim woman wearing a burka in Prince William County Schools? In a million years, I cannot imagine that happening. A real, actual burka? Na, urban legend. If faces aren’t covered then it isn’t a burka.
Pinko, I think you are romanticizing that diversity instruction. Most diversity events that I am aware of are an outgrowth of an academic content area, not diversity for the sake of diversity. There is no SOL for diversity.
I don’t see much difference in prayer and religous garb. Both are manefestations of the first amendment. No one is denying them the right to dress a certain way. They are just being denied while teaching. That gives them 17 hours during the rest of the day to dress it up however they want.
You might have guessed. I am a huge proponent of separation of church and state.
The solution would be to make everyone wear “school” uniforms or specific clothes as a set policy, just like the airlines have the right to enforce what people who work for the airlines wear, hooters tells people what to wear, the military has the right to enforce what people in the military wear, and your work employer has the right to set policy for what you are allowed to wear to work as a professional and what is not professional or they can FIRE you, all without violating a single freedom of expression law covered in the constitution.
Oh, by the way, the schools have a right to prohibit and “determine” what “gang” clothing is, because young minds being the vulnerable young minds they are, are not yet “mylanized” or advanced enough to resist being influenced by social issues that can harm them or create “gang values” their parents disagree with.
You could almost blame much of this on progressive media, advocating “bad” behavior as a social value that does no harm, when most psychologists tell you that everything “bad” or “destructive” that kids are exposed to contributes to the liklihood they will absorb all or some of that “bad” cultural influence in who they define themselves to be, and who they want to be seen as so their peers will “like them”.
Who are we kidding here that clothes and image do not influence people’s beliefs (Why would religions require it if it did not influence and control other peoples beliefs” HUH?
I absolutely support the idea of school uniforms. Then the kids can focus more on the content of their studies and less on the content of their closets (and their parents’ wallets). Sturdy, washable uniforms instead of the overpriced but cheaply made, whisper-thin, plunge-cut “junior” fashions. While we’re at it, require them for the teachers, too. Nice, level playing field for everyone. I loved my “days.” Never had to give a minute’s thought to what I was going to wear to work.
that was supposed to be “scrubs” days.
People who do not study brain research, have no idea that most people do not have the independently thinking minds they claim they have.
People of a cultural preference (read repetitively brain-stored (chemically-stored) belief system), try to change people to be of a like cultural preference, and become distrustful or even fearful if they cannot change others to be like themselves.
This is how friends and enemies are formed.
Repetitive environmental exposures and “repetitive values” exposure, causes DNA/RNA messaging paths to create new receptors in the cells that cause neural paths to be built (use of any single mylanized path 6 times or more causes it to be permanent, as calcium receptors solidify the neural synapse juntion to be more efficient.)
Old receptors that have not had new signals in a long time, wither away and are replaced by new receptors, tuned to the hormones and proteins that are created and that surround the brain cells as a result of the new repetitive BELIEF system, that eventually trains even the most resistant to change person to the new “cult”.
This is how the military tears down young recruits “old” minds and beliefs and replaces them with “new” ones, repetitively and with great influence on peer pressure to conform to repetitive ideas and beliefs.
This is how you turn a good child into a bad child, and a bad child into a good child.. you remove them from the destructive or highly influential environment, and replace it with a new nurturing one, until the new belief system kicks in.
No amount of environmental exposure however can re-wire a person’s brain, using environmental repetition, where that person was born with DNA that determine a permanent structure to the brain however, so for example alcoholics can never usually be free of the tendency toward alcoholism (they fight it and over-ride it), homosexuals cannot re-wire their hard-wired brain structure to prefer sex with the person opposite of what their brain is built to be, even if trapped in the DNA determined body of a person the opposite of what their brain says it is, and criminals that are hard-wired to be without conscious or re-morse, cannot be made un-mean, simply by exposure to an un-mean environment. What can be changed by receptor density however, can be used to modify the degree of behavior, but not the core behavior without major brain structure overhaul by the body (that usually takes trauma and signficant physiological events).
We are essentially who we are when we were born (determined by DNA) AND who we environmentally become, through brain receptor repetition of the environment and stored repetitive patterns of memory, fear, anger, joy, love and desire (as well as a few other emotional and higher stored cognitive patterns that are SET until the stored pattern is destroyed or changed.
So, yes regardless of what you want to believe, a teacher with openly display religious beliefs can influence young minds covertly, because young minds are affected by the visual picture patterns and repetitive exposure to beliefs that relate to that repetitive visual and emotional picture and comments of the people who spend the most time with them (like parents and teachers, and XBoxes).
This also explains why MOST of you (including me) are so stubborn and cling so emotionally and strongly to your political beliefs and religious beliefs, and “social” beliefs, and are hard to “reason with”. The emotional receptors are so much stronger than the “cognitive receptors” and are much more difficult to change in “emotional” people than they are in “reasoning” people. (See Meyers Briggs “poles” to understand what I mean by this, and also why Meyers Briggs is a hard-wired brain structural concept, but a measurable polarized structure of variability in our society, that can be influenced only pertially by repetive beliefs and political mantras from religious and political advocacy groups. It is the “repetition” of advocacy that causes such a strong, mylanized behavior in response to others debate logic.
Sort of like operant conditioning on steroids.
I think that brain research is still ‘growing,’ for lack of a better word. It isn’t an establish, proven science.
As for uniforms, uniforms only work if all students have to wear them and there are no escape routes. Prince William County allowed certain schools to pilot uniforms. However the school board refused to mandate it and said the school had to sell the parents and kids on the idea. Should I go on or does everyone see where this is going……
I believe students and faculty should look different. I am not so sure that teachers should be in uniforms. Perhaps teacher uniforms would be ok, just so they weren’t bigger versions of student uniforms.
I too Moon am a proponent for seperation of church and state for the very reason our forefathers who wrote the constitution were for it. They saw by studying history, culture wars, and the concept of Democracy, that people who have strong emotional ties to religion and ethnic culture, will do everything they can to change others to be like themselves (out of fear, anger and for some love), regardless of how thoughout history religion and ethnic culture once a mandate of government policy and government sanctioned belief system, becomes oppressive to anyone not conforming to the identified “ideology”. That is why “religion” and “ethnic culture” needs to be highly personal, and why it has no place in government because that is where it gets abused and that is where it becomes abusive of others.
The Japanese culture has had measured success with the use of uniforms in school, both teachers and students. They did it for educational score reasons however, not for religious rights issues, or “diversity” issues.
I’m not saying uniforms need to happen, I’m just saying that to ask anyone to stop wearing something, WHATEVER that something is, you have to require the same standard of everyone equally. That is one reason I always advocate that men and women in basic training should be indistinguishable, in hair and dress (some politicians however think that women are more traumatized than men are by a shaven head and hair-cut). I think for a young recruit, that is baloney, especially when they see it is enforced on everyone the same, and they are not singled out for “punishment” that is not also equally enforced on everyone else.
If the execution of our laws on “illegal” immigration were carried out with the same indifference, we would not have the current problems with people getting around the law with their own special treatment. That’s kind of like letting each new recruit, remain “diverse” in boot camp, with their own special privilige to be “different” and more “special” than everyone else. The end result of such bias, is anger and resentment from those who have to follow the law toward those who do not have to follow the law.
Posting as Pinko is correct…
School Counseling Classroom Guidance Curriculum select objectives (one of many objectives taught occasionally during “specials rotation” or another time:
State of Virginia K-3/EP3 – Understand that Americans are one people of many diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds and national origins who are united as Americans by common customs and traditions.
Prince William County
3P.8 – Understand that diversity exists in the United States of America and appreciate the similarities and differences of all ethnic backgrounds.
6P.5/7P.13/8P.5 – Recognize, accept, and appreciate ethnic and cultural diversity.
A similar type component of curriculum would be found in just about any social studies unit about the diversity of people who came here.
I find that a stretch to say that is a curriculum. Call it what you want but to me, those are goals for getting along in society and don’t need special classes.
Pinko, we are talking about religion. That does not necessarily mean non-Christian or from cultures outside the United States. It could, but it doesn’t have to. I know Wiccans who teach. How would parents feel if one of those individuals wore religious garb or insignias into the classroom? Who gets to choose which garb is acceptable and which is not? Isn’t it easier just to tell teachers to leave it at home?
Just out of curiosity, if said school were in some homogenious community, what kinds of diversity classes would be taught?
Comparative religion would be a wonderful course to take at a university, where a student chooses that curriculum. Our children, who already attend the most “diverse” schools in history, don’t need shoved down their throat what they can see all around them every day. It seems to me that most kids are relatively color blind until we start repeatedly pointing out the obvious to them.
Oops, I messed up my quote above. Only the first paragraph is Moon-howler’s – everything after that is what I wrote to comment on part of one of her posts above!
@Moon-howler
MH, Social Studies and History include studies in diversity. They overlap. When students read about things like the Harlem Reniscance, they are learning about diversity. When they hold culture fests, they are learning about diversity. You can’t help but learn about diversity when you are surrounded by diverse people. In fact, if you DON’T, then you have discrimination and race riots because there are a lack of understanding and fear.
I like the idea of uniforms as well, but you can’t make a student take off a turban or veil just because you have a uniform.
@Emma
Emma, kids are only colorblind if their parents are. And most parents aren’t because being color blind is pretty hard to do, which isn’t always a bad thing. I LIKE to see people who look differently than I do. How boring if we were all the same.
Pinko–I don’t know if little kids have diversity classes now or not. I hope not and if they do, that sure explains why people home school their kids. As for Social Studies and history, it is pretty hard to teach them without covering diversity, whether its economic diversity, racial diversity, ethnic diversity, or just about any other kind of differences that might crop up. That is where most of the ‘acknowledgement’ and ‘appreciation’ comes from. Schools aren’t just woofing about staying on task and covering content area.
Interestingly enough, people get along better, regardless of how different, when what they have in common is stressed, rather than what is different amongst them. In reality, not much is done in schools regarding individual diversity.
GR, it goes back to the captive audience thing. You were captive. You had to miss a day of school because of your parents wishes. It doesn’t even matter what you want, your parents didn’t want you going to a Jesus play. And again, what did that have to do with history?
Today, you could probably go to Jesus Christ Superstar and not even blink. That’s the difference in kids and adults.
When I lived in NJ lunches on Friday were always interesting. There were always fish sticks and there was always rye bread. I learned a great appreciation for both at Randolph Township School. A little something for everyone. Very few accommodations were made in Virginia where I was from for Jewish kids or Catholic kids. There weren’t very many and I guess the feeling was, they could pack their lunch.
What formal “diversity studies” suggest to me is something like this: “Susie, look at Sally. See how DIFFERENT she is from you? Have you noticed her hair and her clothes? She’s so DIFFERENT. Isn’t that special?”
Different from what, exactly? The baseline of “white”?
It’s not the job of the schools to teach on topics that some activist educators feel parents are lacking in the correct content for their children. The job is to teach core subjects, period.
There is no right to teach. I was mistaken to allow myself to be taken off course.
The law has existed since the 1980’s that religious garb and symbols cannot be worn in the work place. The new law exempts all job but teaching. Schools are mandated by law and must remain religiously neutral. This really has nothing to do with diversity or teaching diversity.
I think it is the school’s place to teach that we are courteous to all who attend. We don’t point at kids in wheel chairs or stare at those kids wearing turbans and we don’t torture or mimick those who appear ‘gay.’ This teaching goes hand in hand with the social reminders teachers have been handling since the beginning of time.
I am not really sure what ‘activist educators’ are. Most educators I know can barely get their work load done in a given day. They are too tired to be activists.
It may be their place, but they’re not doing that. Kids are still bullied mercilessly, to the point where a couple of City kids committed suicide early last fall, so I suppose “diversity” is prized over common courtesy.
And you’re right, Moon-howler, I don’t think teachers are the ones writing diversity objectives into the SOL’s.
@Moon-howler
No, no. There is no diversity class per se. I didn’t mean to imply that. I’m just saying learning about diversity is inherent to learning other subjects and interacting in school.