Back to School with the Religious Right
Table of Contents
Religious Right political groups are more engaged than ever in an
assault on public education in America. People For the American Way
Foundation has long documented the tactics, strategies and targets in a
battle that is tearing communities apart across the land. This battle
plays out both locally and nationally and the Religious Right has a
multifaceted strategy.
On the one hand, Religious Right leaders urge Christians to abandon
public schools, but on the other hand, they seek to control public
school curricula and use public schools to proselytize. By stirring up
controversy about the public schools, the Right hopes to poison
Americans on the very notion of public education and, at the same time,
change the curricula in public schools to reflect its narrow
agenda.
School vouchers are a key part of this strategy — getting
federal funding for Christian schools. In recent years, most public
attention has focused on the issue of school vouchers. Indeed, vouchers
are the Right's most heavily promoted education issue, and the effort
feeds in large measure on the rest of the Religious Right's other
anti-education work. People For the American Way Foundation has
documented the voucher movement for many years. But to examine this
effort by the Religious Right only in the context of any single
education issue — be it the push for vouchers or school
censorship — is to miss the larger campaign to discredit the very
notion of public education.
Years ago Jerry Falwell said, "I hope I live to see the day when, as
in the early days of our country, there won't be any public schools.
The churches will have taken them over again and Christians will be
running them." This spirit still persists in Religious Right leaders
like Focus on the Family's James Dobson, who has supported a growing
movement to convince Christian parents to pull their children out of
public schools altogether.
In recent years, two other Religious Right leaders, Robert Simonds
of Citizens for Excellence in Education and D. James Kennedy of Coral
Ridge Ministries, have promoted initiatives to encourage all Christian
parents to withdraw their students (and their support) from public
schools nationwide. Politicians like Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) - who
proudly touts that he has "been calling for an end to the government
monopoly school system" for over 20 years — and radio
personalities like Dr. Laura Schlessinger have also played high-profile
roles in this movement. In her April 9, 2002 broadcast, Dr. Laura said,
"I stand with Dr. James Dobson. Take your kids out of public
schools."
In the months following the September 11 terrorist attacks, most
Americans found solace in their family and community. From the outset,
many Religious Right groups were ready to offer their narrow
prescriptions for the nation, but mandating sectarian religion and
censoring classroom materials is not new and it's certainly no remedy.
The Religious Right is very committed to injecting sectarian religion
into the classroom via creationism and school-sponsored religious
activity, and to attacking curricula and materials, such as
comprehensive sex and science education, as well as certain classroom
and library books. This report provides a snapshot of current Religious
Right activity in public schools.
The Supreme Court last made a major ruling on teaching
creationism in public school in 1987. The landmark case Edwards v.
Aguillard struck down a 1981 Louisiana law requiring that any public
school teaching evolution must grant equal time to "creation science"
on the grounds that the latter advanced a religious doctrine. The Court
also stated that teaching "a variety of scientific theories" about
human origins might be valid "with the clear secular intent of
enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction." Most creationist
efforts since 1987 have attempted to exploit this language.
This new breed of creationist activism now dominates the movement, and
has adopted the moniker "intelligent design" (ID). The main methods of
injecting the ID/creationist agenda into public school curricula are
via textbook disclaimers and the language of state science standards.
The purpose of these efforts is to delegitimize evolution and minimize
its profile in science education. There is also a growing movement to
insert intelligent design into science curricula via books and
lectures. Intelligent design groups do not concentrate their energy on
producing scientific research, but on providing tactical and legal
advice on introducing the topic into science classes via clubs,
speakers and supplementary texts.
But some old-line creationists, represented by groups such as Answers
in Genesis and the Institute for Creation Research, refuse to cloak
their language by simply advocating "intelligent design." Religious
Right groups like Focus on the Family (FOF) are also playing a central
role, working directly and through state affiliates to challenge the
teaching of evolution. In October 2001, Focus on the Family urged
California students to write to the U.S. Justice Department and
describe "how you and your faith were offended by evolution being
taught as fact." If there was any doubt of FOF's intention, the piece
is titled, "Californians Have Chance to Fight Evolution in Schools."
State Science Standards
In the 2001-02 school year, the battleground
over science instruction shifted to Ohio from Kansas, which had drawn
national attention when its state school board eliminated evolution
from the state's science standards in 1999. The Kansas board eventually
reversed it decision, but evolution opponents saw an opportunity in
Ohio to take their Kansas success one step further. A state law signed
in 2001 requires the state school board to adopt academic content
standards in six areas, including science. A group called Science
Excellence for All Ohioans (SEAO) is leading the effort to insert
intelligent design creationism into the standards. SEAO is a project of
the American Family Association of Ohio and is also affiliated with the
Intelligent Design Network.
As in Kansas, the proceedings have turned into a showcase for the
"intelligent design" movement. Speakers and lawyers from ID think tanks
like the Discovery Institute and the Intelligent Design Network have
appeared before state meetings and made the issue a statewide
media-driven controversy. National and state groups are working
together on the issue. The local Religious Right group Citizens for
Community Values worked with the Discovery Institute and Focus on the
Family to broadcast the anti-evolution video "Icons of Evolution" on a
number of Ohio television stations. Other state-level Religious Right
groups like the Ohio Roundtable and the Eagle Forum of Ohio are getting
into the act, hosting intelligent design speakers and supporting SEAO's
push to change the science standards.
After an extended period of public input and revision, the state board
of education is scheduled to consider draft standards during Fall 2002
and, according to Ohio law, must adopt science standards in December
2002. The political fight is likely to intensify as the final vote
approaches.
Hawaii and Nebraska also saw similar attacks involving science
standards over the 2001-02 school year. In both cases, creationists
failed to either add creationism or de-emphasize evolution in state
policy, but it's clear that such efforts are the most active front in
the battle for objective science education free of religious influence.
Inserting Disclaimers in Textbooks
In April 2002, the Cobb County,
Georgia Board of Education decided to draft a disclaimer regarding the
teaching of evolution to be inserted in science textbooks in response
to a petition effort that gained support via local Bible study classes.
Modeled on a successful effort in Alabama, anti-evolution forces won a
disclaimer to be inserted in biology textbooks in Fall 2002 reading:
"This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory,
not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should
be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically
considered."
One parent who requested board action was not satisfied with the
decision, saying she wanted an elective science course exploring the
controversy and wanted the insert to more clearly define alternative
explanations. Another parent was more blunt, saying, "We believe the
Bible is correct in that God created man. I don't expect the public
school system to teach only creationism, but I think it should be given
its fair share." In August 2002, the American Civil Liberties Union of
Georgia filed a federal lawsuit against the district asking for the
disclaimer's removal.
Since then, the school board voted unanimously to consider changing
district policy relating to science and evolution education. The
proposed policy states, in part, that "discussion of disputed views of
academic subjects is a necessary element of providing a balanced
education, including the study of the origin of the species." The board
chair said it was not clear if the proposed language would allow
creationism to be discussed. The Cobb County board will spend 30 days
reviewing the proposed policy change and vote on the matter at the end
of September.
Other Creationist Attacks on Science Education
In June 2002, the
Annville-Cleona, Pennsylvania School Board rejected a series of reading
texts because of objections that it contained the theory of evolution
in some stories and "radical environmentalism" in others. School board
member Kathy Horst said she would like to see the Pennsylvania School
Board Association consider creationism as an issue for its legislative
platform. "I want to see that the theory of intelligent design be
taught in our classrooms, as well as evolution" said Horst."
The Greensburg Salem, Pennsylvania school district is considering a
proposal to teach "creation science" alongside evolution in its high
school science classes. A recent graduate who is currently a student at
Jerry Falwell's Liberty University requested the change. The school
board had considered adding "creation science" to an advanced biology
curriculum in 1999, but rejected the proposal on a 5-4 vote. The
science department is conducting an initial review of the proposal, but
a final decision will be made by the school board.
In Joes, Colorado the Liberty J-4 School District voted 5-0 to reverse
an earlier unanimous decision to include creationism in science
classes. In Columbus, IN the district is yet to decide how to act on a
request to add a "creation science" elective class.
Creationist Activity in Federal and State Legislatures
In 2001, the ID
creationist leader Phillip Johnson helped craft language for an
anti-evolution resolution to be inserted in a federal education reform
bill in an attempt to give local anti-evolution activists another tool.
Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) sponsored the language in a non-binding
"sense of the Senate" resolution. The resolution declared that, "where
biological evolution is taught, the curriculum should help students to
understand why this subject generates so much continuing controversy,
and should prepare the students to be informed participants in public
discussions regarding the subject." Though Sen. Santorum claimed that
the amendment did not "not try to dictate curriculum to anybody," more
than 80 science groups decried the anti-evolution agenda behind the
resolution. The Santorum language was removed from the final version of
the education bill, and a compromise version with less strident
anti-evolution language was instead included in the conference report
that accompanied the bill.
Some have sought to give the Santorum language the force of law despite
the fact that the language was part of a non-binding resolution and was
relegated to a report that was not officially part of the final
legislation. Reps. John A. Boehner and Steve Chabot, both Ohio
Republicans, invoked the Santorum language in a letter to the Ohio
school board suggesting that references to ID should be included in the
state's science standards. In Georgia, the Santorum language was the
basis for an anti-evolution bill that eventually died in committee.
Anti-evolution bills were also introduced, but ultimately failed to
progress, in state legislatures in Ohio, Washington and Mississippi.
The Right has long looked to public school
textbooks as a way of promoting its political agenda. Current
right-wing strategies to influence textbook development have their
origins in the 1960s, when Texas-based activists Mel and Norma Gabler
first led a nationwide effort to purge public school texts of what they
viewed as the "mental child abuse" of liberal ideas. The Gablers were
among the first to recognize just how influential textbooks can be. As
they put it, "Textbooks mold nations because they determine how a
nation votes, what it becomes, and where it goes."
The Right is particularly vigilant regarding what it sees as liberal
bias, such as the promotion of evolution over creationism, the
environment over capitalism, or anti-Christian ideology in textbooks.
In recent months, the Religious Right has tried to take advantage of
anxiety after the September 11 terrorist attacks to promote
Christianity in public schools. In 2002, two right-wing groups,
California's Pacific Justice Institute and the Michigan-based Thomas
More Center for Law and Justice, have taken legal action against
California school districts for using a textbook they view as
"pro-Islamic, anti-Christian propaganda." According to a press release
from the Pacific Justice Institute, Houghton Mifflin's Across the
Centuries "puts the history of the Islamic faith in a purely positive
light, while depicting Christians in a negative light." For its part,
Houghton Mifflin denies pro-Muslim bias in its books: "[T]hese
textbooks praise many cultures for their contributions to civilization.
In turn, the textbooks also include the negative aspects of each
culture, including instances of Muslim religious intolerance, military
aggression and murder."
Case Study: Texas Textbooks
In no other place
is the Right's influence on textbooks so profound as it is in Texas.
The Lone Star State is the country's second largest purchaser of public
school textbooks. As a result, publishers often go out of their way to
gain acceptance for their books in Texas. Publisher efforts to cater to
conservative tastes in Texas have a national impact - a fact not lost
on the state's right wing. As the field director of ultraconservative
Texas Citizens for a Sound Economy puts it, "The bottom line is that
Texas and California are the biggest buyers of textbooks in the
country, and what we adopt is what the rest of the country gets."
Public school textbooks in Texas must be approved by the elected State
Board of Education, which holds public hearings annually to review
texts before they are purchased by the state. Until recently, this
body, which has a majority of Religious Right allies, had considerable
latitude in rejecting texts that it deemed inappropriate. This led to
widespread abuses. In one instance, a health text drew criticism from
the Board because it contained line drawings of a female breast used to
demonstrate self-exams. Meanwhile, some Board members complained that
textbooks described slavery in an overly negative way. The rules for
textbook adoption changed in 1995 when the Texas Senate, fearing that
the right wing was using the process to promote ideology, limited the
Board's rejection authority to texts that contained factual errors.
However, the Right has found ways around the new adoption rules. In
recent years, right-wing board members and groups have shown a
remarkable ability to expand the definition of the term "factual" to
justify rejection of texts they find unpalatable. According to the
right-wing Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF), "Part of it is your
definition of fact. If by facts we want to say the only thing that
counts is two plus two equals four, then we did more than [check
facts]. But a factual check means more than that." Oftentimes, it means
screening texts for perceived liberal bias.
Right-wing groups currently conduct two separate outside reviews of
textbooks prior to the Board's annual public hearings — one from the
Texas Public Policy Foundation and a second by a coalition called the
Working Partnership for Textbook Reviews. The latter group is composed
of such ultraconservative mainstays as Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum,
the Gabler Group, Citizens for a Sound Economy, and Concerned Women for
America. These organizations bring considerable resources to bear in
their attempts to influence the process. For example, TPPF, which has a
team of 16 reviewers, plans to spend at least $100,000 in 2002 to
examine textbooks. Thus far, these investments have paid off.
In 2001, the Board reviewed public school science textbooks. Pressed by
right-wing groups, it initially rejected two environmental science
texts, Creating a Sustainable Future and How the World Works and Your
Place in It. TPPF argued that these volumes were "full of vitriol
against Western civilization." One witness testifying before the Board
urged members to reject these titles because they made "discriminatory
comments about Christianity and property ownership…. The publishers
believe that, if we were pagan serfs of the king working with our hands
and told when to procreate, that would be utopia." At the urging of
TPPF, the publisher of How the World Works made revisions to the text
so as to portray industry in a kinder light. The Board approved the
revised text.
Meanwhile, an environmental textbook financed in part by mining
companies won Board approval. It is not entirely surprising that this
title received a warm reception from the Board, given the connections
of some of its members. Grace Shore, the Board's chairwoman, is
co-owner of a Texas-based energy services company. As Shore put it,
"The oil and gas industry should be consulted. We always get a raw
deal."
The Board is currently examining social studies texts, a process
scheduled for completion by November 2002. In July, the Board rejected
a textbook entitled Out of Many: A History of the American People.
Again, it appears as though the Board based its decision on ideological
— rather than factual — grounds. Chairwoman Shore expressed her
distaste for the book in this way: "It said that there were
approximately 50,000 prostitutes west of the Mississippi in this
timeframe. I don't know where they got their information, but the way
it was written it made it sound like there were none east of the
Mississippi, they were all west of the Mississippi. And then I thought
it was just demeaning of women in the West…it made it sound like they
were all prostitutes."
In recent years, some publishers have begun to exercise
self-censorship, altering material that might be deemed offensive by a
few very active right-wing groups in Texas. This year, the cover photo
of a proposed high school economics textbook features several male
sculptures from the front of the New York Stock Exchange building. The
publisher drew in loincloths to cover up the normally naked statues,
rather than risk a potential approval challenge.
"For the past 30, 35 years, we as a nation have abandoned God. And in
one case, the Supreme Court yesterday says you can't have a picture of
Jesus, you can't have the Ten Commandments, you can't pray in schools,
you can't read the Bible. And the Supreme Court continuously takes its
fingers and sticks them in the eye of Almighty God." — Televangelist
Pat Robertson, 700 Club, 5-3-95
The Religious Right axiom that "God has been kicked out of the public
schools" is simply not true. Individual students are free to pray and
share their faith with others in the same voluntary, non-disruptive
manner that they may engage in other speech at school. The Supreme
Court has consistently held that the government may not sponsor or
endorse religious exercises or activities. Similarly, "captive
audience" prayer by students or teachers is not permitted during
classes or over school intercoms where students have no choice but to
attend. But the courts have clearly protected the rights of students to
engage in religious speech voluntarily, subject to the same sort of
time, place and manner restrictions commonly applied to all other forms
of student expression. Nevertheless, the Religious Right has been
trying to return organized religious observances to schools since the
Supreme Court banned organized, school-sponsored prayer almost 40 years
ago.
With the legal and organizing assistance of prominent Religious Right
legal groups, such as Pat Robertson's American Center for Law and
Justice (ACLJ) and the American Family Association (AFA), to name just
two, schools must increasingly contend with lawsuits brought by those
asserting that schools are infringing on their religious rights. In
fact, more than 100 firms specializing in cases dealing with religion
now exist nationwide.
Ever-prepared for opportunities to undermine the separation of church
and state, Religious Right organizations and their political allies
used the period of mourning and reflection that followed the September
11 terrorist attacks to promote their long-held agenda. Public schools
across the country were bombarded with requests for school prayer,
Bible curricula and the posting of the Ten Commandments or the national
motto, "In God We Trust." Many say they saw an opportunity to push for
their cause in the changed political climate. "Surely, Sept. 11 helps
our case," said Rep. Randal Mangham, a George state legislator who
suggested that the Georgia General Assembly revisit its law mandating a
moment of silence in schools to explicitly include prayer. Mangham said
he'd been considering his legislation for a while. Religious Right and
political groups also sensed a change. Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for
the American Center for Law and Justice, applauded the changed mood.
"There's more religious expression going on in our public schools than
at any time in history. This is going to change the tone of public
schools in America."
School Prayer
Texas was just one of the states
where the Religious Right used the events of September 11 to promote
its agenda of re-establishing organized, state-sponsored prayer in
public schools. Texas Gov. Rick Perry endorsed organized school prayer
saying that he saw no problem with ignoring the U.S. Supreme Court ban
organized school prayer "at this very crisis moment in our history."
Perry was defending school officials' decision to invite a Protestant
minister to open a middle school assembly with a Christian prayer in
October 2001. Perry also said he was planning on making school prayer a
campaign issue in his next election. Jerry Falwell praised Perry in a
widely distributed email saying it was good politics to press for
school prayer after the terrorist attacks. "Prior to the Sept. 11
attacks on our nation, this might have been an unwise campaign
approach. But not now," Falwell said.
Similar incidents occurred in 2001 in states across the country — from
South Carolina, where state legislators wanted to turn the "moment of
silence" into a moment of prayer, to Illinois, where the state House
unanimously passed a bill to allow students to initiate group prayer in
public schools, to West Covina, California where the school board voted
to become the first district in Los Angeles County to begin the day
with a moment of silence.
In God We Trust
Since September 11, interest in posting the national
motto "In God We Trust" in public schools has grown. There is a vast
difference between the appearance of this message on coins and dollar
bills, on the one hand, and in public schools, on the other. When these
words are directed at captive audiences of young school children by
their schools, they send an impermissible message of government
endorsement of religion. The Supreme Court has long distinguished
between speech in general public settings and religious speech directed
at public school students because students "are impressionable and
their attendance is involuntary."
The American Family Association began its campaign to place posters
displaying "In God We Trust" in public schools almost two years ago.
Mississippi Governor Ronnie Musgrove signed legislation requiring the
motto in every public school classroom, auditorium and cafeteria
throughout the state early in 2001. AFA then turned its attention to
the rest of the country. AFA president Don Wildmon reports that since
September, requests for the poster have gone up and the AFA Center for
Law & Policy has offered to defend any school that is challenged for
putting up the poster at no cost. AFA says nearly a quarter million
posters are being displayed.
Michigan, Utah, New Jersey, Florida, Arizona, Oklahoma, Virginia and
Louisiana are all states that have introduced or already passed
legislation allowing or requiring schools to post "In God We Trust"
plaques or posters. Randy Sharp, American Family Association's director
of special projects, described the motto as a historical rather than a
religious document. At the same time, Sharp said, his group has
specifically pushed for "In God We Trust" posters in schools because
"we think it's important for young people to recognize the religious
heritage of our nation."
In Virginia, every school will be required to hang a poster with the
words "In God We Trust, the National Motto, enacted by Congress in
1956," in accordance with a law signed by Gov. Mark R. Warner in May
2002. In several districts, schools will hang posters provided by the
Family Policy Network, a state affiliate of AFA, which has been pushing
the Virginia General Assembly to pass the law for the last two years.
Not all Virginians are happy with the new law. Mainstream Loudoun, a
Loudoun County group active in First Amendment issues, has offered to
donate posters with the motto "E pluribus unum" to all county schools.
They say that the original motto, meaning "out of many, one," that was
chosen by the founding fathers, is more inclusive and respectful of
diversity.
Bible Studies
It is perfectly acceptable to teach about the Bible in
public schools, so long as the instruction is presented objectively, as
part of secular education, and not as history or from a particular
sectarian perspective. However, across the country, school districts
are being asked to adopt a Bible curriculum produced by a private group
called the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools
(NCBCPS). The council says the aim is to foster an understanding of
literature and history, but Elizabeth Ridenour, president of the group,
has described her efforts as an attempt to "expose the kids to the
biblical Christian worldview…." The NCBCPS claims that 101,000 students
have taken the class in 195 school districts across the country,
although it consistently refuses to provide details.
In Louisiana, NCBCPS' curriculum has been approved in eight parishes
(counties) following the state's Board of Elementary and Secondary
Education's decision to leave the choice to local school boards.
[People For the American Way Foundation sent a letter urging the state
board to reject the course.]
The Louisiana Family Forum, an affiliate of Focus on the Family, has
been actively involved in lobbying the state board and urging members
to push local school boards to institute the program. Ridenour praised
the group saying, "The National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public
Schools appreciates the tremendous amount of time and work that
Louisiana Family Forum has contributed toward returning Bible
curriculum to the public schools of Louisiana. [They] have been
invaluable in the success of numerous parishes implementing the
elective Bible course and also in disseminating information to people
statewide."
Florida has seen a number of incidents regarding the NCBCPS curriculum.
The Miami-Dade County school board has recently been asked by the
United Teachers of Dade's Christians for Morality caucus to adopt a new
Bible course using the NCBCPS curriculum, and is preparing to conduct a
"feasablility study" as to teaching a secondary school Bible course.
[PFAWF has explained to the Miami school board why it would be improper
for the board to offer a course based on the NCBCPS curriculum.] They
are doing so despite the example of Lee County Florida, where an
earlier edition of the NCBCPS "New Testament" curriculum was
successfully challenged in court. The case cost the school system staff
time and money including $95,000 in the plaintiffs' legal fees. [PFAWF
was co-counsel to the plaintiffs in Lee County.]
In Rhea County, Tennessee, the same county where the Scopes trial was
held, Judge Allan Edgar decided in February 2002 that the school
district's Bible classes violated the First Amendment. The classes,
held in three elementary schools, were taught by students from Bryan
College, a Christian college in Dayton named for William Jennings
Bryan. Judge Allen's ruling said county officials, "acted with both
purpose and effect to endorse and advance religion in the public
schools." At a school board meeting following the ruling, the audience
of about 300 applauded as the board voted unanimously to appeal the
decision. Board member Bruce Majors said, "we want to teach our
children that the Bible is the truth. Our only course is an appeal."
The Right has been bashing sexuality education
programs for years. In 1981 Phyllis Schlafly wrote that the "major goal
of nearly all sex education curricula being taught in the schools is to
teach teenagers (and sometimes children) how to enjoy fornication
without having a baby and without feeling guilty." Religious Right
groups have been remarkably successful at promoting the myth that
comprehensive sexuality education programs do not discuss the merits of
abstinence, but simply give information on how to have sex. That myth
has fueled numerous challenges to such curricula in communities across
the country.
Groups like Schlafly's Eagle Forum, Focus on the Family and the
Christian Coalition have developed two strategies in fighting sex
education in public schools — pushing to have it removed from the
classroom altogether and taking control over what is taught. The first
strategy had little success, since large majorities of people want
schools to provide comprehensive sexuality education. Since the
mid-90s, the Religious Right has made serious inroads with the latter
strategy. Through skillful lobbying and influence, the Right has
radically changed funding for sex education, shifting congressional and
state subsidies to programs that do not provide vital health
information.
Sex education curricula generally follow two basic models.
Abstinence-only education instructs students to "just say no" to sex
until marriage and severely limits — or omits entirely — information
about birth control, abortion, sexually transmitted diseases (STD), and
HIV/AIDS. Comprehensive sex education, sometimes known as
"abstinence-plus," emphasizes abstinence in addition to providing
medical and scientific information about contraception, abortion and
STD, and often discusses sexual orientation.
Early Religious Right programs — then known as "chastity education" -
were challenged due to their patently religious instruction, for
example, the suggestion that students "take Christ on a date as a
chaperone." Direct religious instructions were ordered removed, but
this problem still plagues abstinence-only education programs that are
supported by congressional funding and instituted by the states. In
1996, opponents of comprehensive sex education attached a provision to
fund abstinence-only programs to popular welfare-reform legislation.
Since then, federal funding has increased nearly 3,000 percent. As
Governor of Texas and as a presidential candidate, George W. Bush
championed abstinence-only programs, vowing that his "administration
will elevate abstinence education from an afterthought to an urgent
goal." President Bush has continued to embrace these programs and has
increased their federal funding, winning him the praise of Religious
Right leaders like James Dobson. Dobson's Focus on the Family reported
in February 2002 that President Bush's budget increase for these
programs brought their funding level to nearly that of comprehensive
sexuality education.
Not surprisingly, many states with education budget problems have
welcomed the increase, which has led to the widespread
institutionalization of "abstinence-only" education. With the increased
federal funding for abstinence education in recent years, a
multi-million dollar industry was born. The abstinence-only programs
first pushed by Religious Right groups are now created by businesses
and bought by school districts and states using federal tax dollars.
Since the Right succeeded in getting its agenda subsidized by the
federal government, the focus has largely shifted from attacking
comprehensive sexuality education programs towards promoting
abstinence-only curricula. The Abstinence Clearing House, a Religious
Right group that "serves agencies on a national, state and local
level," recommends that parents have their children opt out of
comprehensive sex education and lobby their school board to adopt
abstinence-only curricula. What follows is a snapshot of current
battles over sexuality education in local communities.
Louisiana
In Spring 2002, the American Civil Liberties Union sued the
state of Louisiana for using its annual $1.6 million in federal funds
to promote religion through "abstinence-only" curricula. The suit
contends that the state has spent money on "Christ-centered" skits,
religious youth revivals and biblical instruction on purity. "Passion 4
Purity" was one of the programs Louisiana supported, a program that
teaches abstinence through "scriptural concepts" by instructing
students that "God desires sexual purity as a way of life." In another
case tax dollars were used to support a special kind of field trip — in
the name of abstinence — to take children to abortion clinics for
prayer vigils.
North Carolina
In May 2002, after a public hearing and debate, the Wake
County School Health Advisory Council reviewed and adopted
recommendations for changes to its "Healthful Living" curriculum that
would allow teachers to discuss topics such as contraception. In 1995,
North Carolina passed a law that mandated
abstinence-only-until-marriage education across the state and Wake
County has become one of the few school districts that has challenged
the legislated "abstinence-only" curriculum. Throughout this debate in
the country, a group of parents have organized to reject the
comprehensive sex education program by sponsoring petitions and
lobbying local politicians. While this is a step towards changing the
curriculum, these recommendations are not official policy. In Fall
2002, there will be more debates in Wake County and possibly a final
decision on the curriculum.
California
California is the only state that has never accepted federal
"abstinence-only" program money. The state based this decision on its
statewide evaluation of abstinence-only education in the early 1990s,
which revealed that the program wasn't effective. However, even a
state-level rejection of federal funding for abstinence-only education
doesn't mean students are getting comprehensive information.
One example reveals the demand for comprehensive sex education by
parents and students alike. In May 2002, the Modesto Board of Education
voted 4-3 to ban a discussion of teen pregnancy, contraception, and
abortion in the human relations class, arguing that the "sensitive"
subjects should only be addressed "in a health class where abstinence
is the key message." The teacher proposed the changes to the class,
which focuses on diversity and conflict resolution, at her students'
request and received a parental permission slip from 34 out of 35
students. The primary complaint of the students was that their official
health class "glosses over" sexuality and that the class is restricted
to examining the physical aspects of sex and sexuality while ignoring
critical issues such as peer pressure and personal beliefs. One
sophomore emphasized the need for the school to address this issue more
directly by stating that "there are just too many students out there
having sex." Another student asked, "Is preaching abstinence effective?
Ask the teens." Students have voted unanimously to address the school
board and challenge the district's decision.
Virginia
Saving America's Foundation Enterprise (SAFE) has launched
what the group calls a "campaign of truth" whose goal is to require
schools to teach students who are questioning their sexuality or feel
they are gay or lesbian that they can make themselves straight, a
highly controversial idea rejected by the American Psychiatric
Association and American Medical Association. In February 2002, the
Virginia Senate Education & Health Committee stalled an anti-gay bill
that would have prevented any discussions of homosexuality except as
"crimes against nature." However, the group of parents who have
organized to defeat the "pro-homosexual agenda" say they'll be back,
stronger, for the 2003 legislative session.
"From Hollywood, the media, the government, the public schools…right
into our churches, we are now seeing the rotten fruit and stench of the
sin of homosexuality in our land." — Stephen Bennett, Stephen Bennett
Ministries
The Religious Right may have become more circumspect in its language
when it comes to creationism and textbook censorship, but its anti-gay
rhetoric is as strident as ever. Of course, this does not mean that the
landscape for gay students remains the same as it was a decade ago. On
the contrary, many public schools have made great strides towards
becoming safer and more open places for lesbian, gay, bisexual and
transgendered youth, largely due to the strength and courage of such
students and their friends and supportive family. But along with a
stronger gay rights movement come new Religious Right strategies to
counter every advance.
Over the years, the Religious Right's anti-gay activity in schools has
taken many forms — from challenging gay-themed books to barring all
mention of sexual orientation to challenging the very right of lesbians
and gays to be teachers. While it may not be as easy to stoke anti-gay
bias or to threaten the jobs of gay teachers as it once was, the Right
is nothing if not inventive. As with sexuality education and
creationism, anti-gay groups have created their own "alternative" to
objective and fair treatment of the issue.
Using 'Ex-Gay' Spokespeople
At the center of these efforts are the
so-called "ex-gay ministries." Like the creationists who now embrace
"intelligent design," anti-gay groups push "reparative therapy" and
cast themselves as brave dissenters from a politically correct
establishment. However, the real goal is the same as ever — rolling
back civil rights protections for lesbians and gays.
Bennett, a self-proclaimed "ex-gay" quoted above, was just one of the
anti-gay speakers at a Capitol Hill briefing hosted by the Culture and
Family Institute of Concerned Women for America in July 2002. The
speakers demonized gay-affirming policies of the National Education
Association, Gay, Lesbian Straight Educators Network (GLSEN) and even
the U.S. Department of Education. Karen Holgate from Capitol Resource
Institute, a California-based group affiliated with Focus on the
Family, said, "Homosexual activists have hijacked our schools," and
others blasted tolerance and diversity training as a homosexual "Trojan
Horse" that undermines students' traditional beliefs. Other speakers
included Linda Harvey from the Ohio-based Mission: America and
abstinence proponent Dr. John Diggs, also an advisory board member of
the Family Research Council.
Another national campaign to push "reparative therapy" in public
schools was conducted by the National Association for Research and
Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH). In an effort to rebuke the affirming
message of GLSEN and supportive psychiatric groups, NARTH mailed its
"Homosexual Advocacy Groups & Your School" brochure to over 15,000
school districts. Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, president of NARTH, claimed that
the brochure "seeks to correct the misinformation that is being
promoted by these homosexual advocacy groups that have an incredible
influence on the public education system."
Fighting Anti-discrimination Measures
As school officials, parents and
students have acted to provide safe and affirming atmospheres for gay
youth in our public schools, Religious Right groups have continued to
challenge progress at every opportunity. The California-based Pacific
Justice Institute, for example, has filed numerous lawsuits against
school districts in that state over gay-friendly policies.
The Bay County, Florida, school board unanimously "denounced
homosexuality" despite the fact that no specific issue was before the
board. One board member called homosexuality "a sin" and another said
"We are morally, ethically and Christian based. We stand tall, we stand
firm and we will not support any homosexual [issues]." According to
news reports, the board action was the result of parents motivated by
publicity about National Education Association guidelines on gay and
lesbian issues. The local spokesperson for the teacher's association
said, "We're still not sure what [the parents] are after. It seems to
me that they think there is some hidden gay agenda that's going to
corrupt America. We don't have a position because we don't know what
the issue is."
The Maryland state board of education and Fairfax County, Virginia,
school district both faced right-wing challenges when they addressed
anti-discrimination issues covering sexual orientation. The Culture and
Family Institute, TakeBackMaryland.org, and Virginia Family Foundation
all claimed that protecting gay youth from harassment and
discrimination would undermine traditional values and free speech
rights. Peter LaBarbera has resurrected his anti-gay Americans For
Truth group (formerly Americans for Truth About Homosexuality) to alert
Fairfax County residents to a proposed nondiscrimination policy and
hold a "pro-family rally featuring former homosexuals" outside the
school board meeting. Neither the Maryland nor Fairfax County programs
have been implemented and both await further review.
Focus on the Family, the West Virginia Family Foundation, and Mission:
America have lined up to criticize the West Virginia Attorney General's
office and participating public schools over a program to reduce
bias-motivated harassment and violence. Similar "Dignity for All
Students" legislation failed to pass in the Florida and New York
general assemblies.
By all accounts, the Religious Right appears to be focusing
its energy on policy issues like school vouchers, anti-gay harassment
policies, and the minutiae of textbook approval. But there is still
plenty of organized activity to ban books in public school classrooms,
and some Religious Right groups remain committed as ever to fanning the
flames of censorship.
Harry Potter
During the last school year, right-wing groups sought to
remove books from the Harry Potter series from schools across the
nation by alleging that they are luring students into witchcraft and
the occult. On a December 2001 700 Club, host Pat Robertson followed up
an interview with an anti-Harry Potter activist by warning that God
will forsake nations that tolerate witchcraft. Robertson advised his
audience that the Bible said that, "there's certain things that he says
that is going to cause the Lord, or the land, to vomit you out. At the
head of the list is witchcraft….Now we're welcoming this and teaching
our children. And what we're doing is asking for the wrath of God to
come on this country….And if there's ever a time we need God's blessing
it's now. We don't need to be bringing in heathen, pagan practices to
the United States of America."
Several national religious right organizations, like Concerned Women
for America, the Traditional Values Coalition, the American Family
Association, and Focus on the Family, have warned their supporters
against the dangers of the Harry Potter books. And across the country,
parents and religious groups worked to try to get Harry Potter books
removed from local schools.
In York, Pennsylvania, a parent, along with a local pastor and
elementary school teacher, urged the Eastern York School District to
ban the Potter series from district schools. The parent, Deb DiEugenio,
complained that the Potter books were "against my daughter's
constitution, it's evil, it's witchcraft. I'm not paying taxes to teach
my child witchcraft." Tony Leanza, who is a pastor at the New Wine
Christian Center as well as a local elementary school teacher,
attempted to argue that "Wicca is a religion" and thus the Potter books
should be banned because they violate the separation of church and
state. The school board eventually voted 7-2 to allow teachers to
continue to use the Potter series, provided that students first
received a parent's permission.
In July 2002, parents in Cromwell, Connecticut sought to have the
Potter books, along with Newbery award-winning book The Witch of
Blackbird Pond, removed from a local middle school because they
supposedly expose children to spells and witchcraft and provide a
negative portrayal of Christianity. Dr. J Michael Bates, a pastor in
the Emmanuel Baptist Church, urged taxpayers to protest such books,
even if they do not have children in the school system. "The public
school needs to know that there are people out there who resent this
stuff," Bates said. The objectors plan to petition the school board at
an upcoming meeting.
These sorts of attacks on the Potter series were not isolated
incidents. Right-wing groups in cities around the country attacked the
series. In Florida, Kansas, North Dakota, Ohio, Maine and California,
individuals and organizations attempted to keep Harry Potter out of the
reach of children.
Perhaps the most intense attack on the Potter books came from the
Christ Community Church in Alamogordo, New Mexico, where an actual book
burning was held on Dec. 30, 2001. Hundreds turned out to join Pastor
Jack Brock's "holy bonfire," where they smashed CDs, videos and records
with a baseball bat and burned magazines and books, including the Harry
Potter books, which Brock called "a masterpiece of satanic deception."
Play Cancelled
In Fall 2001, a high school production of "Dark of the
Moon" was cancelled because of complaints over the play's subject
matter and sexual content. The play was mere weeks from it first
performance at Knappa High School in Oregon when some parents and
community members raised objections to the play's portrayal of
Christians, as well as to a scene that implied rape and the cremation
of a stillborn baby. The play was produced on Broadway eight years
before Arthur Miller's "The Crucible" explored similar themes of
intolerance and religion. Mark Acuna, pastor of the Knappa Assembly of
God, urged that all future plays have content appropriate for a family
audience and "not violate the dignity of race or religion."
Book Removed
In April 2002, the Horry County Board of Education voted
to remove The Drowning of Stephan Jones from the shelves of all eight
school libraries in the South Carolina county. The vote came as a
result of a complaint by Eugene Carroll Craig, a local barber and
born-again Christian.
The book, about a gay man who is harassed and killed by a group of
Arkansas teens, initially came to the school board's attention after
Craig made 1200 photocopies of passages of the book and passed them out
at local businesses on Easter Sunday. Claiming that the book promoted
the homosexual agenda, Craig sought to have it removed from district
schools. He argued that the book had an "anti-Christian, anti-social
agenda" but a twelve-member panel of parents, teachers, librarians and
principals voted to keep the book. Not all panel members agreed, with
Reverend Ricky Donaldson claiming that he couldn't get past the first
chapter of the book because it "offended my Christian beliefs."
Craig appealed this decision to the school board which then determined,
by a vote of 7-3, that the book, was "educationally unsuitable and
[contained] unacceptable language." It was therefore banned from all
Horry County School libraries.
PABBIS
An organization was formed in late 2001 in Fairfax, Virginia
with the purpose of challenging the use of "bad books" within the
Fairfax County school system. Parents Against Bad Books in Schools
(PABBIS) has created a web site that now lists hundreds of books the
organization considers controversial and offers concerned parents
advice and support. The list includes major works by acclaimed authors
such as Toni Morrison, Alice Walker, Maya Angelou, Gabriel Garcia
Marquez, William Styron, Judy Blume, and Robert Cormier, to name a few.
Parents Against Bad Books in Schools was started shortly after a
student brought home a copy of Druids, by Morgan Llywelyn. PABBIS
sought to remove this book because of what it claimed was "graphic
descriptions of sex" and "sex magic." The group also sought the removal
of Steven Pressfield's Gates of Fire and Ken Follett's The Pillars of
the Earth. The Fairfax County School Board removed Druids from middle
school shelves and limited access to The Pillars of the Earth to grades
10 through 12. PABBIS has routinely complained about the board and
accused board members of "embracing all religions...except for the
Christian Faith." Furthermore, PABBIS alleges that "many of these books
have anti-Christian themes and are blasphemous of Jesus the Lord."
PABBIS assures parents who have found their child with "a book with
vivid descriptions of sex, violence, vulgar language or something else
objectionable" and wondered "how dare the school allow this junk," that
they "have every right to feel angry and upset" because "[the schools]
are corrupting your child." Instead of allowing the school system to
force "their values on your child everyday," PABBIS urges parents to
challenge the use of the book and offers advice on how to change the
system. PABBIS also recommends that parents "monitor what your child
reads like a paranoid hawk" or switch their children to a private
school.
This report only provides a glimpse of the many Religious
Right attempts to censor curricula or insert sectarian religion into
public schools over the 2001-02 school year. Many other groups do
extensive work on the issues explored in this report, including the
American Library Association (ALA), the Sexuality Information and
Education Council of the U.S. (SIECUS), the National Center for Science
Education (NCSE) and the Gay Lesbian and Straight Education Network
(GLSEN).
While most Americans see the schools as places where children should
learn how to think critically and be given the tools to help them
become productive and engaged members of the American community, the
Religious Right believes that the public schools should promote the
particular religious views of the movement's leaders and avoid topics
and ideas that might threaten those views.
In many instances, the tactics of Religious Right groups are unchanged
from previous years. Objections to popular and acclaimed books for
children, like the Harry Potter series, are not so different from the
complaints of a decade ago. Similarly, the same efforts that Religious
Right activists have long been known for — mandating sectarian
religious instruction and creationism for example — still persist
today. But the landscape has changed in many ways, often reflecting a
larger Religious Right victory.
In past reports, PFAWF has documented countless attempts to censor
comprehensive sex education in public schools. Those efforts have
largely been replaced by the quiet dominance of abstinence-only sex
education curricula. In this case, the Religious Right may have lost
local battles along the way, but they have won federal funding. In the
case of science education and anti-gay activity, the Right is still
drawing its battle plans. But this much is clear — the Religious Right
remains more focused on public schools than ever.
We are mindful, of course, that even without the Right's destructive
efforts, our schools face steep challenges. Some public schools,
especially in our urban areas, aren't safe and aren't working. As a
society, we have allowed devastating inequities in our public education
system to go unchallenged and we are paying the price for that apathy,
both in failing our children and in giving ammunition to public
education's enemies. People For the American Way Foundation remains
committed to improving public education through sound policies that
serve the public interest.
This is a critical moment for public education in America. A growing
public commitment to investing in our schools is making education a top
priority. The Religious Right's efforts — whether to divert money from
public schools through vouchers, undermine the quality of science
education, or gut meaningful sexuality education — all run counter to
the larger goal of strengthening public schools. The outcome of these
struggles at the local and national levels will be crucial to the
future of education in America.
Facebook
Change.org
MySpace
Twitter
YouTube
Flickr