This article was published in The Register Guard in Eugene, Oregon, on Feb. 10, 2010
On Jan. 1, workers in Oregon got a boost in the protection of their religious expression when the state’s Workplace Religious Freedom Act went into effect. Public school teachers, however, were left out in the cold.
Even though the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbids workplace discrimination on the basis of religion by employers with 15 or more employees, the U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted that provision so narrowly that employers generally do not have to accommodate religion if it would cause even minimal inconvenience.
For example, employers are not required to allow employees to use their vacation leave for religious observances or to allow employees to wear clothing called for by their religion.
Oregon’s Workplace Religious Freedom Act protects employees by requiring employers to provide accommodation for religious belief as long as it does not impose an “undue hardship” on the business.
The Oregon legislation, however, specifically excludes the right for public school teachers to wear religious clothing. Section 4 of the act (Oregon Revised Statutes 342.650) makes sure Oregon law continues to prevent all public school teachers from wearing “any religious dress while engaged in the performance of duties as a teacher.”
The punishment for doing so, according to ORS 342.655, is suspension or dismissal from his or her job.
Allowing teachers to wear religious clothing is vital to protecting their religious freedom, and it would not interfere with our country’s wise separation of church and state. The Baptist Joint Committee was proud to join a coalition of various faith, citizenship and legal organizations in sending a letter to Senate President Peter Courtney and House Speaker Dave Hunt to call for the repeal of these statutes.
The letter makes clear that repeal will not hamper religious neutrality in the classroom. In most other states, public school teachers are allowed to wear yarmulkes, hijabs and other items of religious dress.
Public school teachers have a specific set of rules to follow because they are instructors and government employees; as representatives of the state in their classrooms, they cannot endorse religion in front of their students.
The First Amendment’s first 16 words have two distinct clauses relating to religion: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” It is important that true religious freedom is not compromised by a governmental establishment of religion.
Teachers do not have to leave their faith at the schoolhouse door.
However, they also cannot advance or otherwise threaten to establish religion in the public schools, because this would imply governmental establishment.
Public school teachers should be allowed to wear non-obtrusive jewelry and clothing that reflects their personal faith, but they still cannot wear anything that proselytizes.
There is a big difference between wearing a cross on a necklace that has personal religious meaning, and wearing a T-shirt or button with an undeniable and direct religious message to others, such as “Jesus saves.”
The Workplace Religious Freedom Act is a huge step forward for Oregon, but it did not go far enough.
House Bill 3686 would repeal the ban on religious garb for teachers, thereby extending workplace religious freedom to all employees in Oregon by protecting teachers’ rights. It will be another means by which the government allows all persons to choose their faith through the dictates of their conscience without forcing others to share their beliefs.
The First Amendment — and true religious liberty — demand no less.
The bill is scheduled for a House vote today.
J. Brent Walker is executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty in Washington, D.C.
