Does God Belong in Public Schools? (review)

Kent Greenawalt, one of the leading constitutional law scholars, a former Deputy US Solicitor General, and Professor of Law at Columbia University School of Law, takes up the thorny question, "Does God belong in public schools?" Public schools should not sponsor religion. But Greenawalt rightfully recognizes that this principle, by itself, leaves many issues of constitutional law and educational policy unresolved. He thus uses his legal expertise to offer a range of normative principles and practical guidelines for teachers, administrators, lawyers, and judges grappling with the constitutional limits of religion in public schools.

Greenawalt begins his book by sketching the history of religion in public schools. The original public schools of America were significantly religious. Students prayed, read the Bible, and were taught the biblical account of the world, including Adam and Eve. This began to change around the nineteenth century, and by the mid-twentieth century, the Supreme Court developed constitutional doctrines that practically constrained religion in public schools.

The Supreme Court may have put the brakes on religion, but Americans are still very religious. More than 90 percent of Americans claim to believe in God, a universal spirit, or life force, and about 70 percent are members of a church or synagogue. Thus, it is no surprise that there has been a wide array of controversies over the proper place of religion in public schools. In view of this, Greenawalt's book covers past and present court cases involving religion in schools and answers questions such as the following: Do prayer and Bible reading belong in public schools? What about a moment of silence and reflection? Should the principal intervene if she knows that the graduation speaker is going to urge the audience to turn their lives over to Jesus? Could a teacher wear a Muslim dress to class? Should the school continue its Christmas pageant if it includes Christian carols and dialogue about baby Jesus? What should schools teach about religion and topics such as condom use and evolution? Should the theory of Intelligent Design be taught as a criticism of evolution? Can parents prevent their children from being exposed to basic curriculum that they deem as hostile to their religion?

Greenawalt answers these tricky questions by cautiously weighing what would constitute sound educational policy, given the limits of what is constitutionally permissible. Doing so, he takes a moderate approach. He argues that religion is valuable and does belong in schools but only under limited conditions. School prayer should be left out altogether, but moments of silence may be acceptable provided that there is only a very weak and implicit encouragement that students pray during the silence. As a matter of free exercise, teachers can wear religious garb, although students do not enjoy the same level of freedom. Religious student clubs should be able to meet on campus and have the rights of nonreligious student clubs, provided that school officials have no significant role in the religious clubs.

In terms of religion in the curriculum, religion has no room at all in science courses. Because creationism and intelligent design theories are religiously based, are not "scientific," and cannot be empirically tested, Greenawalt concludes that they should be left out. Even if the school community is significantly religious, discussions on the possibility of alternative religiously based explanations are off limits.

In other classes such as history and literature, however, religion has a place. In such courses, students should learn about religion, without actually being taught it. Given the various constraints to teaching about religion, however, one wonders if this is possible. For example, Greenawalt notes that religion has been important in history and should therefore be included in history courses. He cautions, however, that any serious discussion of religion would be a bad idea, even if it is appropriate for the course, because teachers may be biased and offer their own critical appraisals on religion. "[T]eachers' offering 'nonofficial' critical appraisals carries heavy risks...even critical discussions among students, supervised by a neutral teacher...