Aberrations as anecdotes support falsehoods about important issues

By K. Hollyn Hollman

Hollman Report
January 2004

"Tell me a story," my son pleads while we navigate Washington traffic. Not surprisingly, it is a favorite refrain. As a parent, as well as an advocate, I know that hearing a compelling narrative can be very satisfying. It can make us think, feel, and even spur us to action. I have often seen people join the battle for religious freedom inspired by the stories of others.

While an interesting story can bring a principle to life, it can also be exaggerated or misused to support a falsehood. An isolated anecdote can give the appearance of legitimacy to an outrageous claim. For example, Focus on the Family's James Dobson recently cited the Supreme Court's school prayer decisions as part of "a concerted effort by the federal judiciary to drive God out of the public square."

I am confident that Mr. Dobson could cite a story or two that ostensibly support the old saw about God being kicked out of the schools. Paradoxically, an outrageous claim of this sort — when repeated frequently enough — can become a self-fulfilling prophecy, leading to the very types of events Mr. Dobson and other critics of the Supreme Court routinely condemn.

A recent Associated Press story about an incident in Zachary, La., is illustrative. A second-grade teacher told one of her students that he could not read his Bible at school. The child had brought it from home to use during a quiet reading period. After confirming with their state representative that the teacher was wrong, the parents contacted an attorney who wrote a demand letter to the school superintendent. The superintendent responded immediately, correcting the teacher's mistaken impression of the law.

It is a simple, unfortunate story. There is no general prohibition on taking religious material into public schools. The fact that the student brought the Bible for a quiet reading time, when any book of the student's choosing (other than obscene or otherwise disruptive material) is presumably allowed, makes the teacher's mistake more egregious. The public humiliation of the student who was rebuked, the implicit message of disapproval of religion conveyed to other students, and the fact that the incident could easily have been avoided all make it a regrettable story.

Ironically, the family's lawyer at the Alliance Defense Fund, a group that lists Dobson's Focus on the Family as one of its "founding ministries," blamed the unfortunate incident on "radical groups like the ACLU and its allies using fear, intimidation and disinformation." A quick review of the ACLU's website, particularly the section affirming the rights of religious students, discredits the attorney's assertion. It seems far more likely that the misinformation came from those like Dobson who use outlandish claims about the law to push a religious agenda in the schools.

The obvious lesson of the story is that 40 years after the Supreme Court's decisions on mandatory school prayer and Bible reading, many still do not understand the sensible lines drawn in those cases. More important to people of faith, many fail to see the positive ways in which those lines protect religious liberty for all students. The story simply demonstrates the continuing need to disseminate accurate information about the law on religion in public schools and to correct those who misinform.

Another lesson is that when stories capture our attention, we might want to pursue follow-up questions. My toddler's other favorite refrain — "Why, Mommy?" — is a good place to start. Why do some who claim to want to promote religion actively perpetuate falsehoods about the law? Might it be because they believe it serves their political agenda to change the law? Maybe it does, but it may also hurt the very people whose interests they claim to serve: religious students who want to exercise their rights, and religious public school teachers who want to abide by the law.