From an email:
We received a legal opinion from our attorney regarding the practice of daily prayer by Muslim students in our schools. According to our attorney’s analysis of legal statutes and case law, the District’s past practice of allowing the students a designated time and place to practice their religion is appropriate. The District does not encourage or participate in the practice of said religion, but, neither do we inhibit the student’s practice of his religion. Staff has reported that providing a designated place for a Muslim student’s daily prayer is less disruptive than forcing the students to seek random accommodations for the practice of their religion.
I understand your concerns, however, to change our current practice could violate the rights of students. This practice applies to all students. Thank you for communicating your concerns.
Arthur Culver
Discuss.
Sounds like they need a new attorney to me!!! They have now opened themselves up to being forced to designate a prayer room for every conceivable religion. I think every Christian, Jew, Hindu, Shintoist and yes even the followers of the Flying Spaghetti Monster should demand their own room for prayer.
In case you aren't familiar with the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster check out http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/. Before you knock the Flying Spaghetti Monster I would like to remind you that most of you believe that one man gathered two of every species on the planet and then managed to fit them on a single boat, that the earth was created in a day and that God's love for you is unconditional despite the fact that he will send you to hell for even a single unforgiven sin. Suddently the Flying Spaghetti Monster does seem that far out does it?
Thankyou Gordy for posting this. Well folks now we have the set policy of Unit 4 on this matter,,,no more conjecture. I think it needed to be done,,because it did not seem that everyone in Unit 4 was aware of this policy. so berate me if you wish,,,but I am stating here, Gordy has been tellinig us all for months and months to give this new school board a chance,,,,,,,,,do not be quick to judge, and I admit I was one of them more than once. But, Gordy was right,this board is different than past boards, they are not afraid to tackle an issue,,,they do not cut and run at the first sign of controversy, and they are open and honest in their dealings with the public. Now I as one person cannot do much about the difference between "reality and perception", that has been used alot,,but for what is worth to them,,,they have won a convert,,,,,me.
Constitutional law is clear on this point... the Bill of Rights was designed to protect citizens from government interference, not limit the rights of citizens. As long as the policy covers all religions as appropriate, then there is nothing wrong and everything right with this policy.
Let's hope that people use more sense than the Flying Spaghetti guy does. The idea that allowing one thing means we must allow everything is quite clueless and shows only how poorly educated too many people are.
I think it needed to be done,,because it did not seem that everyone in Unit 4 was aware of this policy.
What a waste of time and money. It is exactly this kind of stuff that makes teaching kids in public schools so difficult.
D. Boon as usual you are entitled to your opinion,,,,but you dont seem to get it:) Sorry you dont, I have nothing more to say other than that.
Greg Novak here
I have read the lawyer's brief on the issue and have a concern on his recommendation that we continue the practice. Accordingly, I have requested that this item be added to our Board agenda for Monday night's meeting at Jefferson Middle School.
My concern on the issue is not whether the district provides space, but rather it is a question of when the practice is permitted. If any student or group of students were to request use of district space to hold student run religious services during a non instructional period of the school day , I would see no reason for it not to be granted. After all, there are a variety of student clubs and organizations which use school space on a regular issue. Whether before school, after school or during lunch I can see no reason preventing Muslim students, or students who like chess, or science fiction, or Bible reading from having a place in a school to meet.
However when the meeting of a students religious request requires they are excused from instructional class on a daily basis, even if only for a few minutes, I believe that the district has crossed the line from being neutral to being supportive. In the current case reviewed by the lawyer, the students are excused from several minutes of class time daily to complete their prayers with their tardy being marked as excused.
In my opinion - which is my opinion - If the district suppports ANY religion it must support ALL religions - and I for one don't want the Champaiign schools to be in a position of having to determine what is a "legitimate religion" and what is not a "legitimate religion" when viewing student requests.
The Consent Decree grew out of the fact that the district was treating different groups of students in different ways. I would rather not repeat that mistake.
My .02
This is a tough question, and I commend Mr. Novak for taking a second look at it and not just taking the attorneys' word as final. As I understand Muslim practice, their prayers are to be done 5 times a day at specific times and unlike Christian prayers, are done by kneeling on the floor in the direction of Mecca. I can see how it might be uncomfortable for grade school, junior high school and high school students to have to get down on the floor several times during the day and pray in the presence of their classmates. However, it is not the business of the schools to make the practice of one's religion comfortable. I am not Pentacostal, but I understand speaking in tongues is part of the Pentacostal devotional practice. Should a room be provided for Pentacostal students to go to so they can speak in tongues without being embarassed by their peers? I don't know the answers to the question as to how accommodating the schools should be for religious practice. None of the school board members were drafted to serve in their positions. Making these decisions is why the run so hard to get elected.
Mr. Novak,
After reading your efforts to address this situation openly on this website, I am glad that I voted for you. I appreciate open discussion from my elected officials.
Anon 10:48, is right on, a breath of badly needed fresh air in Unit 4 has arrived,,,and it is appreciated by more people than you can know at this time. Thanks Mr. Novak,,,
As a whole, Muslim children are exempted from these requirements by their religion and should not be punished for not adhering to them. Only adults have the requirement to meet the daily prayer times. Children are guided by their parents but are not culpable if they miss prayer time.
The school district's policy is wrong-headed and misguided.
Who is the school's attorney on this? Are they the same attorneys who are advising the school on the consent decree?
As a flaming liberal, I, too, disagree with this decision. Pandering to one religion is not only wrong, the way i see it, it's unconstitutional. Seems to me the district is endorsing and/or establishing a religion.
Hi all,
Below is the actual policy for the school district (directly worded from Ilinois Combined Statutes). The question is not nor ever will be "does any student have individual right to pray at school during non-instrucctional time?".. Numerous court cases and practices by schools nationwide have held that individual students can pray at school. The district will not get in the argument about whether prayer should or should not be allowed. As a matter of law, it has already been decided. It is allowed and the district will remain neutral.
As for the excused absences issue, we will continue to seek legal advice and discussion on the intepretation of these statutes on that issue.
Hope this helps.
Dave Tomlinson, President
Unit 4 Board of Education
707 STUDENT RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES
All students are entitled to enjoy the rights protected by the U.S. and Illinois Constitutions and laws for persons of their age and maturity in a school setting. These rights include the right to voluntarily engage in individually initiated, nondisruptive
Thanks, Greg, for your comments.
Thankyou Mr. Tomlinson, and also to Mr. Novak for taking a very pro-active stance on this issue. Some on here have been raking me over the coals for my means and methods of being this issue onto the public sphere, but I think it is important to get these kind of issues out into the open and discuss them in the open,,,no matter what a persons personal view,,,,it needed to be brought out,,,in my opinion. Now it will be discussed by the people that make policy,,,,the school board and admin. Some of the past boards would have shunted this issue aside and ran away,,,,and that attitude in part, it what created the consent decree and the level of distrust of Unit 4 over the years. A new day has dawned and free and open is welcome. Thankyou
While I appreciate Greg's thoughts on any issue, I don't agree that the policy needs further review. I think that the districts attorney is correct the policy should be impartial as it is. I know that there is a possibility that the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster may show up but that hasn't happened yet and it wasn't the problem this time. The issue this time wasn't found to be a problem, the policy worked fine the students weren’t being given special treatment by the district; so as they say "if it’s not broken don't fix it". It sounds like Greg's concern is that the district is overly "supportive" to Muslim students because they allowed the students to be tardy. I think this is easily corrected by not allowing the students to be tardy. I am unaware of a requirement of the Muslim faith that says that they should break student conduct code. That would go the same for jumping up in class and speaking in tongues which might be disruptive to other classmates. These things were not allowed in school in the past and students should be able to schedule their prayer time around class time and get to class on time. I think that this can be worked out easily and the students can be accommodated with little disruption to the school day while maintaining their constitutional right to free speech.
I'm really torn on this one. I'm no lawyer, but for those of you how don't know, this issue rests on this one phrase from the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
In my mind, this case lands squarely on the dividing line between the two clauses; that is, by providing the space and time to pray, the school seems to be establishing religion. on the other hand, by not providing the space and time to pray, it is prohibiting the free exercise thereof. This may have to be decided by the Supreme Court.
It seems to me that the current settled interpretation of things generally is that it's okay to accomodate "religionS" plural and generally, but not preference one over another or force anyone to participate in any of them. So a prayer room for voluntary use is fine, but a specifically Muslim prayer room isn't.
Of course, the issue (just as it was with the case in San Diego) is about the time requirement really, not so much the room, ACLU agrees there. Practically I think a large reason for the room is that having a bunch of people bowing down in the hall (remember, this is high school) starts to be annoying for everyone else passing through. Common courtesy is go use an empty classroom or something at least.
As for kids not being required to follow prayer times - at what age do the requirements kick in? Remember, this is high school. In Judaism, kids are religious adults and responsible for all the mitzvot at 13 for boys, 12 for girls. So a high schooler is absolutely required to follow adult religious rules. I wonder if the Muslim prayer times are an issue in high school specifically because of a similar age issue?
Other than the minor issue that the students are excused from class a few minutes early ("a few" being 2 minutes or 15?), I just don't understand the problem people are having with this policy. As Dave Thomlinson wrote: "These rights include the right to voluntarily engage in individually initiated, nondisruptive prayer..." The students have the right to pray. That right exists as a matter of law; it's non-negotiable.
There simply is no establishment issue here. No student is being forced to pray against his or her will. No money is being spent on special rooms. No classes are canceled to free up a room. The school environment and the education of other students is not being disrupted. At worst, one administrator shares her office for a few minutes with these students. Presumably they are behaving with decorum and not preventing her from getting her work done.
This is not "pandering to one religion." This is a reasonable accomodation of this particular religion, as should be done for all religions.
The manner in which the school is handling this seems very logical and appropriate. Why would we (as a community) want to go out of our way to prohibit or restrict to make life difficult for others? Provision of a designated time and space for these students to participate quietly in an important activity of their faith & culture doesn't cost any money or interfere with the education of other children. These students are not being disruptive or infringing on the rights of others in any way. People involved in the school on a daily basis and with firsthand knowledge of the logistics involved have concluded that providing a designated time and space is the most reasonable way to handle the situation.
This solution seems to be in keeping with opinions of attorneys and others with expertise in constitutional issues. You may want to check out some background reading on these topics at the Freedom Forum website www.freedomforum.org (a nonpartisan foundation focused on free speech and the First Amendment) and its more focused website www.firstamendmentcenter.org On both of those websites, there are a number of publications discussing thoroughly issues related to consitutionality and religious liberty in public schools.
And to be clear - other than any possible issues with the timing (where probably some agreement can be worked out too - if everyone is cool with a given student skipping 5 minutes of class for WHATEVER reason, with parents approval and all, and their grades are okay, what's the problem? Why the obsession with attendance anyway?), I don't see a problem with the room either (for the record, I am not religious). As it is, as far as I can tell, it isn't a specifically Muslim prayer room.
akibare,
The problem is because it's largely used by muslims, and for many in the conservative set, it's a case of muslim = brown skin = terrorist = evil-bad-they're-gonna-blow-up-little-johnny, and/or of fundagelical christians getting up in arms about someone other than themselves exercizing religious freedoms in what they claim is a "Christian Nation", whatever that is. They'll argue and claim that their concerns are for other, supposedly legitimate issues, but the entire reason this is being discussed in the first place is because it touches on issues of xenophobia.
"They'll argue and claim that their concerns are for other, supposedly legitimate issues, but the entire reason this is being discussed in the first place is because it touches on issues of xenophobia."
Mindreaders are special.
I will add to this even though I think it has been decided. I think the issue as Greg has said is that the students are Tardy which really should be kept to a minimum as others students may feel there not being treated unfairly.
I suspect many of the younger readers of this site aren't aware that there was a landmark opinion by the U. S. Supreme Court involving religious instruction in the Champaign Public Schools in 1948.
The case is McCollum v. Board of Education and the successful plaintiff in the case was the mother of three-term Champaign mayor Dannel McCollum.
I thought some of the readers interested in the ongoing discussion of prayer time in Champaign schools would also be interested in the history of the relationship of religion in the public schools of Champaign.
There's a bit in common between today's debate and that of 60 years ago, but there are also fundamental differences. I thought a bit of history might be of interest to readers.
JRR - You're right, I was not aware of that specific case. However, having read the article you linked to, I have to agree that there are some very fundamental differences. The matter the original case was about was a clear instance of the public schools, and thus the government, both supporting some religions on one hand and at the same time excluding others. The current issue deals with the schools permitting free exercize of religion. While there's still a fine line to be aware of, nothing's been presented to my knowledge that indicates that the line has been neared or crossed. The only similarities I see is that it involves religion during the school day.
IP - Honestly, if this were just a "some kids get excused from class for a period of time, how will the other kids take it?" issue, would you or any of your regular authors/editors/whatever bother writing about it here?
A previous poster used the phrase "a flaming liberal"
Why are liberals designated as "flaming" ??
illinipunditposter:
Two reasons I can think of. For the first, head down to Urbana on a farmer's market sometime this summer... you'll find some adults there who still think patchouli is a good substitute for a shower in the morning.
The second reason has to do with irrational hatred of conservatives and a desire to see Bush have a short conversation with an IED. But then, you get that on the other side of the aisle, too. Instead of "flaming liberals" there, you have "raging neocons."
Fortunately, there aren't many of either of those two types on this blog. Although we seem to have picked up a straggler lately who is somewhere in between the two. "flaming idiot", perhaps.
You get those, too.
Kem
"IP - Honestly, if this were just a "some kids get excused from class for a period of time, how will the other kids take it?" issue, would you or any of your regular authors/editors/whatever bother writing about it here?"
None of the regular authors/editors/whatever wrote about it on here. This started in an Open Thread comment, got the responses from a few school board members, and I've followed up by posting the District's reaction. That's it.
To me, the interesting thing isn't the issue itself, but how the Board reacts to it and to the public in dealing with it. But that won't stop you from calling me a racist, because you know everyone's motivations so perfectly.
I don't remember you commenting either way IP.
Edwards is dropping out
Honestly, if this were just a "some kids get excused from class for a period of time, how will the other kids take it?" issue, would you or any of your regular authors/editors/whatever bother writing about it here?
Let me take a swing at that.
This is different because of the actions of Muslims around the world. South Park couldn't show Muhamed. Muslim women have resisted uncovering their faces for a drivers license picture. An award being taken away from a book because it might be offensive to Muslims.
Western civilization has been established. Muslims seem to want to be a part of it, but don't. We are now getting a taste of it in CU,and yes, I think its a big deal that warrants some discussion.
Rsw, Muslims are not all the same, especially here in the US. Prayer is a basic part of any faith and protected as a part of the 1st amendment. I think that kids are let out of class for a lot of reasons; I think it would be better if it was kept to a minimum and monitored by people closest to the kids those in the building.
This is an actual Peanuts Sunday comic strip, unaltered, from 1963