The First Amendment and State Bans on Teachers' Religious Garb: Analyzing the Historic Origins of Contemporary Legal Challenges in the United States

Description

Examining the twelve-decade legal conflict of government bans on religious garb worn by teachers in U.S. public schools, this book provides comprehensive documentation and analysis of the historical origins and subsequent development of teachers’ religious garb in relation to contemporary legal challenges within the United Nations and the European Union. By identifying and correcting factual errors in the literature about historical bans on teachers’ garb, Walker demonstrates that there are still substantial and unresolved legal questions to the constitutionality of state garb statutes and reflects on how the contemporary conflicts are historically rooted. Showcased through a wealth of laws and case studies, this book is divided into eight clear and concise chapters and answers questions such as: what are anti-religious-garb laws?; how have the state and federal court decisions evolved?; what are the constitutional standards?; what are the establishment clause and free exercise clause arguments?; and how has this impacted current debates on teachers’ religious garb?, before concluding with an informative summary of the points discussed throughout. The First Amendment and State Bans on Teachers’ Religious Garb is the ideal resource for researchers, academics, and postgraduate students in the fields of education, religion, education policy, sociology of education, and law, or those looking to explore an in-depth development of the laws and debates surrounding teachers’ religious garb within the last 125 years. Cover Half Title Series Title Author Biography Copyright Contents List of Tables Foreword Acknowledgments Glossaries Preface I – The Problem and the Plan What Are Anti-Religious-Garb Laws? What Legally Grounds This Study? Historical Context: A Perennial Legal Problem Global Context: A Pervasive Legal Problem Designing This Study II – How Did We Get Here? The Problem From Five Vantage Points 1. Contributions of Legal Experts 2. Contributions of Government Officials 3. Contributions of Educators and Education Associations 4. Contributions of Religious and Civil Liberties Groups 5. Contributions of Journalists Evolution of State and Federal Court Decisions Enumerating Causes of Action in Anti-Religious- Garb Cases Origins of Anti-Religious-Garb Laws and Cases: 1894 to 1910 Expansion of Statutes and Policies: 1910 to 1946 Conflicting Legal Developments in States: 1936 to 1956 Discussion of Developments in State Laws: 1894 to 1956 Contemporary Federal and State Decisions: 1986 to 2018 III – What Are the Constitutional Standards? The No Religious Test for Office of 1787 The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution of 1791 Incorporating First Amendment Rights to State Laws Incorporating the Free Exercise Clause to the States Incorporating the Establishment Clause to the States Judicial Standards for Establishment Clause Cases The Lemon Test The Endorsement Test The Neutrality Test The Coercion Test Classifying an Establishment Case Summary of Establishment Tests Judicial Standards for Free Exercise Cases The Origins of the Strict Scrutiny Test From Rational Basis to Strict Scrutiny Extending Strict Scrutiny to Religion The Sherbert Standard The Yoder Exemption The Neutral and General Applicability Standard Smith’s Shadow: Developments in Federal and State Statutes The Constitutional Limitations of Restoring Religious Freedom Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Increased Reliance on Religion Clauses in state constitutions The Origins of the Religious Animosity Principle Applications of the Religious Animosity Principle Synopsis IV – How Do We Proceed? Step 1. Synthesize Judicial Tests by Cause of Action Step 2. Collect Primary and Secondary Source Documents Step 3. Articulate Narrow Legal Questions Step 4. Set Factual Parameters Limited Inquiry Into Pennsylvania’s Anti-Garb Statute Pennsylvania Religious-Garb-Wearing Teachers Have Standing Teachers Are Paid Like All Other Teachers State-Employed, State-Examined, State-Certified Teachers State Schools, Not Federal Schools Defining Teacher Satisfactory Performance Defining Religious Garb No Evidence That Religious Garb, Alone, Coerces Observers No Evidence of Religious Instruction Overview of Factual Parameters Step 5. Conduct Legal Analysis Summary of the Five-Step Action Plan V – What Are the Establishment Clause Arguments? Does the Statute Have a Secular Purpose? The Statute Seeks to Create a Secular School Culture The Statute Seeks to Avoid a “Religious Takeover” The Statute Promotes Public Safety in Public Schools Is the Primary Effect to Advance or Inhibit Religion? No, It Does Not Have the Primary Effect of Advancing Religion No, the Statute Does Not Inhibit Religion And yet, the Statute Advance Some Religions Over Others Yes, the Primary Effect Is to Inhibit Religion Does the Statute Foster an Excessive Entanglement? No, the Statute Prevents Entangling Public Funds for Religion The State Misconstrues the Meaning of Entanglement Does the Statute Endorse or Favor Religion? No, the Statute Avoids the Perception of Endorsement or Favoritism The State Misconstrues the Meaning of Endorsement and Favoritism Does the Statute Result in Religious Coercion? Yes, the Statute Coerces Teachers No, the Prohibition Prevents the Coercion of Students The Statute Prevents Religious Indoctrination The Statute Prevents Religious Instruction The Statute Protects Impressionable Students Summary of Establishment Clause Arguments Establishment Clause Arguments Made by the State Establishment Clause Arguments Made by the Teachers VI – What Are the Free Exercise Clause Arguments? Is the Statute Neutral and Generally Applicable? No, the Statute Targets Religious Conduct for Government Regulation Is there Evidence of Religious Animosity? Yes, Anti-Religious-Garb Statutes Originated From Anti-Catholic Bias Yes, the Statute Continues to Express Religious Animosity Does Strict Scrutiny Apply to Public Schoolteachers? No, Strict Scrutiny Is Not Applicable to State Employees Yes, the Nature of the Statute Triggers Strict Scrutiny Does the Statute Substantially Burden Religion? Yes, It Burdens Religious Garb-Wearing Teachers Through Legal Penalties Yes, It Burdens School Directors for Failing to Comply Yes, the Statute Burdens Women Disproportionately Yes, It Burdens Religious Minorities Disproportionately Yes, It Burdens Some Religions Over Other Religions Yes, It Burdens Religion Over Nonreligion Yes, It Burdens Communities With Religious Segregation Summary Does the State Have a Compelling Interest in Burdening Religion? Yes. (See State’s Answers to Establishment Clause Questions.) Is the Statute Narrowly Tailored to Achieve the Least Restrictive Means? The Statute Is a Limited Time/Place Restriction No, the Statute is Not Narrowly Tailored VII – Discussion and Decision The Statute Provides No Least Restrictive Alternative State Employees’ Religious Garb Is a Compelling State Interest The “Religious Takeover” Argument Must Be Rational Safety Regulations Must Be Rational Safety Regulations Must Be Narrowly Tailored Historic Decisions Predate Strict Scrutiny Test Contemporary Decisions Were Caught in Smith’s Shadow Public Salaries Have “No Bearing” on Teachers’ Private Donations The State Must Prove Excessive Entanglement Secularism, Sectarianism, and Separatism Are Not the Same The State Must Provide Evidence That Garb Alone Coerces Religious Garb Is Not Indoctrination Religious Garb Cannot Be Used for Religious Instruction Yes, Students Are Impressionable: But in What Way? New Purpose: Prepare Students to Self-Govern a Nation of Religious Minorities VIII – What Have We Learned? The Statute Violates the Establishment Clause The Statute Failed the Lemon Test The Statute Failed the Endorsement Test The Statute Failed the Coercion Test The Statute Violates the Free Exercise Clause The Statute Is Neither Neutral Nor Generally Applicable The Statute Failed the Religious Animosity Test The Statute Failed the Substantial Burden Test The Rational Basis Test Requires Reasonable Arguments The Statute Failed the Compelling Interest Test The Statute Failed the Narrowly Tailored Test Strict Scrutiny Is “Strict in Theory and Fatal in Fact” Need for Research on Students’ Impressions of Religious Garb Case Abbreviations Index