A law backed by the Ku Klux Klan nearly a century ago to keep Catholics out of public schools is still on the books in Oregon, one of the last states in the nation to prohibit teachers from wearing religious clothing in classrooms. Both Pennsylvania and Nebraska have similar laws. Oregon's law, originally aimed at priest collars and nun habits, survived a legal challenge in the 1980s by a Sikh convert who wanted to wear her turban in the classroom and was recently upheld by the state's Legislature.
A Muslim teacher in Pennsylvania lost a similar challenge in 1991 for the right to wear a headscarf at school.
That such a law still exists was a surprise for many Oregonians who learned about it when Gov. Ted Kulongoski signed the Oregon Workplace Religious Freedom Act in July, allowing workers to wear religious clothing on the job. But the did law did not change the ban for teachers enacted in the 1920s.
The laws' existence also surprised Mona Elgindy, a law student at Loyola University in Chicago who wrote a paper on the issue. She is a Muslim and a former teacher. "I kept doing research and research, and thought I must be finding something that's overruling this, or repealing the law, and there was nothing," Elgindy said. The recent legal history has been created by teachers trying to keep their jobs after administrators confronted them.
Court rulings in both Oregon and federal court in Pennsylvania rejected the claims by teachers and pointed out conflicts with the First Amendment: Teachers have a constitutional right to freedom of religion, but school districts must avoid supporting any religion. Laws banning religious clothing used to be fairly common. But there has been a gradual shift away from them to protect teachers' religious freedom as long as it does not disrupt the classroom.
3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously in 1999 that Muslim police officers in Newark, N.J., must be allowed to wear beards. Oregon House Speaker Dave Hunt wanted to include teachers in the new workplace law. But it was opposed by the ACLU during a legislative session dominated by the recession and one of the highest unemployment rates in the nation. Dave Fidanque, ACLU executive director for Oregon, said the law helps ensure religious neutrality in public schools. Pennsylvania voters passed a law in 1895 aimed at preventing nuns from wearing religious clothing in schools. Rajdeep Singh Jolly, legal director for the Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund, and Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, both say the laws are not only unconstitutional, but discriminatory because their enforcement now tends to fall on minorities.
The best way to deal with any problem involving religion in classrooms is to discipline teachers if they try to proselytize students or advocate favoring a particular religion, not for the way they dress.
But when it comes to a Sikh turban, Hijab, Mennonite style covering, capedresses or other clothing, Why should teachers have to surrender something that is such an integral part of their life in order to pursue a career? What are your thoughts on the issue?
True 
Lifetime
Comments (18)
Are they going to start scheduling classes around the muslim prayer schedule as well? What about installing wash rooms large enough for prayer mats? I think it's silly that Christians can be expected to find a way to worship and serve God and still abide by the law while muslims refuse to back down. What if my child being raised with only Christian influence is an integral part of their life? And furthermore, separation of church and state is an integral part of American life. Or does that law need to be modified to separation of the Christian church and state?
I also wonder why the law should even be considered to be changed, simply because a law student half-way across the country found out about it and wrote a paper because they think it's unfair or it hurts her feelings.
@MichaelCavaness@xanga - This law doesn't only affect Muslims...It also affects Christians. There are many Christian women (Amish, Mennonite, Charity just to name a few) who cover their heads. Also there are sects of Jewish women who cover their heads. This affects them too.
I guess I am a bit torn. On one hand, there are plenty of jobs where people don't get hired because of the way they look...their tattoos, long hair, horrible fashion sense, etc.
Appearance is important for many careers, and if you aren't willing or able to compromise the way you present yourself, some careers are just gonna be off limits for you. This has always been the case and I think it is fair enough.
On the other hand, when the issue of appearance has to do with something as integral as faith, and doesn't necessarily get in the way of job performance, I think it may need to be reconsidered. I don't think allowing a teacher to wear a bonnet or turban communicates that the school district supports their religion. I think this is yet another case of "separation of church and state" being improperly implemented as "hiding religion on state property".
I understand the need to protect a public school's religious neutrality. But enforcing a law like this essentially means that any teacher of a religious persuasion whose religious beliefs affect their appearance (via hijab, yamulke, beard, etc.) would essentially be barred from teaching in public schools.
Think about it. If your beliefs tell you that no male but your husband should see your hair, and you wish to be a teacher, is it right for you to be essentially barred from an entire profession?
It should not be considered an school endorsement of a particular religion simply because a teacher openly practices that religion.
You will find in issues like these I am the most adamant defender of the rights of Muslims and Jews at Buddhists to not have to compromise their beliefs because of their workplace--because the rights that protect them are the rights that protect me as a Christian.
Who determines "religious clothing"? I could make up a bunch of religious convictions about being only able to wear bikinis all the time...would they have to let me do that, too?
How far is this going to extend? Are we going to include religious jewelry like crosses and purity rings, too?
I had a Muslim student teacher once, and she was awesome! She wore her clothing and no one thought anything of it (I live in Texas). Banning religious clothing is stupid in my opinion. There is a big difference in practicing your faith and wearing your clothing and talking about it and trying to convert children.
@NightCometh@xanga - Considering that "religious clothing" generally involves more clothing rather than less, as in covering the head before God or covering the hair before men... A more accurate metaphor would be: what if American society decided that ONLY bikinis were acceptable clothing for female teachers, and you said that because of your religious convictions you didn't feel comfortable with that. Should you be forced to wear a bikini--i.e., go with less than you feel ethically comfortable with?
Such an example might seem ridiculous to our American minds--but then consider that for many generations in many cultures (Western included), head coverings were of great importance to both men and women, often for religious reasons. To those who still believe such things are important, this insistence that they must join in a more libertine dress code must seem the ridiculous side of things.
@ChrisRusso@xanga - You might like it in England, then. They are terrified to offend anyone.
my concern would be that if an instructor was overtly religious, their opinions of students could be influenced by that. my children will be raised hardcore agnostic (yay oxymoron) and i often wonder whether they would be discriminated against by people who believe they are damned.
@Morningstarrising@xanga - I was going to ask the same thing! It stands to reason that even jewelry can be considered part of one's clothing.
And considering what @NightCometh@xanga said about sects that endorse bikinis, I wonder if there is a Christian sect out there somewhere that thinks it's forbidden to wear clothes since God made us naked...hmm...
It's a fine line when trying to preserve the individual's right to practice their religion and the non-endorsement of a religion. I don't care if my teachers wore their religious articles, I am secure in my athiesm to not have articles of clothing alter my beliefs. However if those teachers swayed from course curriculum that would be a different matter. But I think any good teacher should be able to have a short conversation with the class explaining why it is important to them and to field any lingering questions about it. Of course that conversation should not be a preaching speech as more of an encouragement of understanding.
No one is forcing a teacher to work for a school or district that happens to have restrictions on what to wear. Don't like the dress code? Find another place to work. Employers offer employment and THEY set the terms. They are not a social welfare provider. But wait, our schools are, aren't they...yes, they have become a cesspool, to which we submit our little skulls full of mush 6-8 hours a day...and, yes, kids are influenced by the way a teacher dresses. Whether its a cross necklace, a burka, a Mennonite head scarf, a priest's collar, or in my case, in the 70's, hot little 24 year old teachers wearing miniskirts and sheer blouses. Try keeping your mind on Algebra when she reaches up to write on the blackboard, or leans over your desk to look over your work. Try not looking over her...work...
You want to wear your burka and teach? Fine. Find a school that wants teachers to wear burkas and apply there. Remember, the Constitution provided for a separation of church and State, based on the dislike and unfairness of a State mandated church in England. The founding fathers did not write it to be a segregation of church and state....a fact that is overlooked, ignored, and misunderstood. God's involvement in our country and government is historical. As long as our country has existed, God has been a part of it. Our constitution simply didn't allow for a government-endorsed brand of religion to be used as an "Official" religion.
The atheists and leftists and socialist have been relentless in their efforts to drive God out of our schools, classrooms, government institutions, public life, etc. Yet our Congress opens every session with a prayer, we have a paid position for a "Reverend, Father, Pastor, whatever-you-want-to-call-him-or-her" in Congress. And yes, we have "In God We Trust" printed on our money. If having God in our government lives offends you so much, send your money to me so you won't be offended. I can print up some money to send back to you that doesn't have "In God We Trust" wirtten on it...
Yay for Oregon, Pennsylvania and Nebraska. Shame the other 47 don't take notice. I want my kids teachers to be neutral on religion. That's what the church is for, what my home is for. When they go to school, I want them to learn "reading, writing, 'rithmatic"...if they have an exploratory class on world religions, you bet I want them to take that, to look at all religions in an unbiased way. Pretty tough to be unbiased if your Muslim teacher with her head covered stops to pray to Mecca 5 times a day...
So... many jobs require uniforms. Should random people be permitted to wear whatever they claim their religion requires rather then follow the same code as the rest of the employees?
The expectation of religiously neutral dress would quite logically fall into a type of uniform...
I don't mind religious clothing. I just wish we would focus on what some kids are wearing.
@NightCometh@xanga - Excuse me? How did "not forcing someone to choose between their job and their religious conviction" equal "terrified to offend anyone?" (Also: way to make a sweeping generalization.)
To follow your train of logic to its natural conclusion--I hope you don't support that nurse who is suing the medical center that forced her to choose between her job and her pro-life beliefs. Otherwise you might like it in England too. The same principles that should be protecting Christian medical staff who don't want to assist with abortions would also protect Muslim women--or Mennonite women--who don't want to show their hair to strange men.
i would prefer, actually, my children (if i had any) to be educated in a place where people weren't afraid of showing that they actually had different beliefs from each other. which is way, way different from preaching or trying to convert kids. i think it would be a great way to even teach the kids, introduce certain topics or spark conversation or different things..same as with traditional ethnic clothing. oh, alternative schools..
@ChrisRusso@xanga - Heh, nice.