I guess a similar sort of question is: what is the difference between a single class with integrated secular and religious components, and an entire program of study with integrated secular and religious components. Is that difference - a difference of quantity more than of quality - of constitutional significance? I'm uncertain about this, but I have difficulty seeing why it should be, without reference to the specifics of what is being taught, and in which way, and to what end.
At first blush, it seems to me that an entire course of study, comprising many more sorts of 'mixed' courses, might be more constitutionally problematic if what we are concerned with from a constitutional perspective is ensuring that the secular authority does not credit any education with (predominantly? many?) religious features. I guess what I thought problematic about crediting Sunday school classes is that their purpose and curriculum is (at least in my own experience, though I recognize that this will vary) overwhelmingly devotional. The curriculum and purpose of most accredited religious schools is mixed. And the nature of the course in the 4th Circuit case is unclear. Marc From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Marty Lederman Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2012 10:55 AM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Providing public school credits for release-time religious classes To put the question another way: Like many of you, I received my religious education after school, and on weekends. It was academically rigorous, I can assure you. I even learned some valuable secular skills, such as speaking another language. Would it have been constitutional for my public school to award me credits for those late afternoon and Sunday classes? On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 10:47 AM, Marty Lederman <lederman.ma...@gmail.com<mailto:lederman.ma...@gmail.com>> wrote: Rick, The statute says that the school district must use "secular criteria" to determine whether the release time education qualifies for credits, but those criteria have nothing to do with fulfillment of any of the secular educational objectives of the school (they include the number of hours of instruction; a syllabus that reflects course requirements; a "method of assessment" used by the religious school teachers"; and whether the teachers are certified). The School District here, for admirable nonentanglement reasons, "entered into an arrangement with Oakbrook Preparatory School, an accredited private Christian school, by which Spartanburg Bible School could submit its grades through Oakbrook to Spartanburg High School. Under the arrangement, Oakbrook agreed to review and monitor Spar- tanburg Bible School's curriculum, its teacher qualifications, and educational objectives, and to award course credit and grades given by the Bible School before transferring them to Spartanburg High School. In carrying out the arrangement, Oakbrook reviewed syllabi, spoke with instructors, suggested minor curricular adjustments, and satisfied itself that the Spar- tanburg Bible School course was academically rigorous." To my mind, this delegation raises a serious Larkin problem. But that aside, the fact that the accredited school is an intermediary that "transfers" the grades based on an assessment that the religious course was "academically rigorous" does not cure the problem, which is that this education is designed to be religious in nature, and not to advance any of the secular objectives of the public schools. You quote with apparent approval Judge Niemeyer's "governing principle" that "private religious education is an integral part of the American school system." But that stated "principle" is the problem, not a virtue. Providing families with the option of achieving the society's secular educational objectives at a private school of their choice, religious or secular, is a "governing principle" of the American school system. (And securing the freedom of families to provide or obtain a private religious education outside the American school system is surely a "governing principle" of our constitutional order (Meyer, Pierce, etc.).) But "religious education" as such not only is not an integral part of the American school system -- as a constitutional matter, it can't be part of that system at all. On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 10:29 AM, Rick Garnett <rgarn...@nd.edu<mailto:rgarn...@nd.edu>> wrote: Dear Marty, In this case, if I am reading the opinion correctly, the credits in question are coming from "Oakbrook Preparatory School, an accredited private Christian school." In my view, the decision is "welcome" because -- as Marc says, below -- I think it would be the wrong approach to say that, when a student transfers from a non-state school to a state school, he or she may only receive "credit" for courses with the requisite "secular" content. As Judge Niemeyer wrote: Also important to our conclusion is the governing principle that private religious education is an integral part of the American school system. Indeed, States are constitutionally obligated to allow children and parents to choose whether to fulfill their compulsory education obligations by attending a secular public school or a religious private school. See Pierce v. Soc'y of Sisters , 268 U.S. 510, 534-35 (1925). It would be strange and unfair to penalize such students when they attempt to transfer into the public school system by refusing to honor the grades they earned in their religious courses, potentially preventing them from graduating on schedule with their public school peers. Far from establishing a state religion, the acceptance of transfer credits (including religious credits) by public schools sensibly accommodates the "genuine choice among options public and private, secular and religious." Zelman v. Simmons-Harris , 536 U.S. 639, 662 (2002) (upholding an Ohio voucher initiative for this reason). The court was careful to note that the school district had not encouraged students to participate or inappropriately endorsed religion. Like Marc, I can imagine some abuses, and hard cases, but this one does not seem (to me) to be one. Best, Rick Richard W. Garnett Professor of Law & Associate Dean Notre Dame Law School P.O. Box 780 Notre Dame, IN 46556-0780 574-631-6981<tel:574-631-6981> (office) 574-631-4197<tel:574-631-4197> (fax) ________________________________ From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu> [religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu>] On Behalf Of Marc DeGirolami [marc.degirol...@stjohns.edu<mailto:marc.degirol...@stjohns.edu>] Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2012 10:13 AM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Providing public school credits for release-time religious classes One conceivable difficulty is the entanglement problem. When a student transfers in to public school from a religious school, there may be several different sorts of courses that the student will have taken which may combine, in various degrees, "religious" and "secular" components. I'm not sure I agree with Marty that it is always the case that the transferred credits are awarded solely for purely secular courses. Segregating out the secular and religious components can be difficult. And getting the school district involved in determining which are purely secular, and which are mixed, and which are purely religious, might risk excessive entanglement. Having said that, I agree that awarding credits for, e.g., CCD class or equivalent education is problematic. Marc From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu> [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu>] On Behalf Of Marty Lederman Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2012 9:58 AM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Providing public school credits for release-time religious classes www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/111448.P.pdf<http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/111448.P.pdf> A South Carolina school district set up a Zorach-like release time program for religious instruction at an unaccedited religious school. Then it decided to give the participating students academic credit for their purely religious studies in the release-time program. The Fourth Circuit upholds this program, on the theory that it's no different from recognizing credits from a private, accredited religious school when a student transfers to the public school. But in that latter case (or in the related context of giving "credit" for home-schooling), the credits presumably are awarded based upon the showing or the presumption that they reflect the student's completion of the necessary secular curriculum. Here, the education in question is specifically religious in nature (that's the point, and there's no indication in the opinion of any secular content). That is to say, the credit is being offered for the religious education simplicitur. Is this holding defensible? On Mirror of Justice, Rick Garnett calls it "welcome," but it's not obvious to me why that might be so. _______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
