|
THE SECULAR HUMANISM ALLEGATION
by C. Paul Smith July 23, 1990 In early 1987, an U. S. District Court in Alabama issued a 111-page ruling barring 44 history, social studies and borne economics textbooks from use in the Alabama public schools. These particular books were censored because an U. S. District Court Judge determined that they promoted the religion of secular humanism in violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Smith v. Hoard of School Commissioners, 655 F.Supp. 939 (S.D. Ala. 1987). The Board of School Commissioners immediately appealed, and within six months the ruling was overturned by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta. This case stirred up considerable anxiety among many educators, fearing that religious radicals were gaining too much control over public education. Before the Eleventh Circuit's opinion was released in late August, 1987, many education journals contained articles addressing concerns on both sides of the secular humanism issue. Now, three years after the Alabama textbooks case, the issues raised in that case continue to be at the focal point of two current movements affecting public education: (1) To what extent should the public schools teach morals? (Adler, 1981) and (2) To what extent should religious facts and religious motivations be included in course curricula? (Oaks, 1990; Schott, 19g9; & Haynes, 1989.) A review of the Alabama textbooks case and the current Supreme Court interpretation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment yields several guiding principles to help educators in grappling with these delicate, contemporary issues. I. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE ALABAMA TEXTBOOKS CASE To many educators the Alabama textbooks case represents only an unsuccessful attempt by religious radicals to censor public books that they find objectionable. It is indeed alarming to think that four dozen textbooks could be excised from a curriculum by the mere stroke of a pen. But a thorough examination of the Alabama case reveals that it is much more than a radical censorship case. In fact, the censorship aspect that brought the case national headline coverage, was anill-conceived answer to a legitimate issue. Predictably, the censorship decision was overturned on appeal; but the underlying facts and analysis of the case are of great significance for educators. The legitimate issue in the case has to do with "secular humanism"; what it is; why it is objectionable; whether or not it has infiltrated public school texts; and whether it is given preferential, unconstitutional treatment in public schools. A. What Is Secular Humanism? The cartoonist Powell editorialized the original Alabama textbooks decision by depicting a student standing in his school library (with many empty shelves, but only a few books), and the student then asks the librarian: "Well...do you still have a dictionary? I'd kinda like to see exactly what a secular humanist is." (Reprinted in Hulsizer, 1987.) Understanding what secular humanism is certainly the starting point of this discussion. Humanism is "a modern, nontheistic, rationalist movement that holds that man is capable of self-fulfillment, ethical conduct, etc. without recourse to supernaturalism." (Webster's Dictionary) The word "secular" that is frequently tacked on in front of "humanism" is an adjective that is merely redundant when used with "humanism." Nevertheless, "secular humanism" is the popular label by which this philosophy is identified today. The increasing use of the term secular humanism seems to have paralleled the growing extent at which the public schools began addressing more and more social issues. In the 1960's and 1970's, public education wrestled with the question of whether and to what extent sex education should be incorporated in school curricula. Over-population, third-world poverty, and problems incidental to unwed mothers were all advanced as bases for the schools to do a better job at teaching students the fundamentals of sex and the availability of birth control methods. Later, to this debate was added whether or not abortion and masturbation should be included in sex education courses. Most recently, the issues surrounding AIDS and homosexuality have been added to the debate. And, while the sex education issues have been openly debated, other social-moral-religious issues have slid into curriculum, escaping public scrutiny. This would include: (i) home economics texts that teach different life styles and discuss the roles of men and women in society; and (ii) history texts that have omitted traditional references to the religious aspects of our nation's history. Before the public schools began to be involved heavily in solving social problems, a teacher would have to go out of his way to present a religious or an anti-religious point of view. However, with the established acceptance of sex education courses in public schools around the nation, schools undertook the theoretically impossible task: To teach about moral and religious matters without presenting a religious point of view. Ignoring the impossibility of the task, educators proposed to teach youth the facts they "needed" by excising out of all texts and instructional materials any and all references to God and religion. This, it was reasoned, was an objective approach that would not give preference to any one religion. But the predictable development was that it gave preference to the point of view that man's problems can be solved without God--precisely what secular humanism is: an anti-Godly solution to social problems. The treatment of social issues in public schools has grown significantly in the last thirty years, and this growth is likely to continue. Current concerns with drug abuse, global warming, the greenhouse effect, AIDS, homosexuality, a now-established world economic system, the demise of communistic economic systems around the world, the continuing expansion of hi-tech knowledge and the ever- changing economic structure that accompanies it will all combine to demand that the public schools teach about social matters. Because of this, the secular humanism allegation must be addressed and resolved. It won't just go away. B. What Is Objectionable about Secular Humanism? The allegation made is that the secular humanistic point of view is an anti-religious point of view that is given preferential treatment in public school textbooks and curricula. For example, a school sex education course that teaches about birth control methods and abortion and adoption, and which does so without any mention of God and religion presents the point of view that these issues can be resolved without any input from God. This is objectionable to many people because it implicitly teaches that these problems in life can be satisfactorily handled without God and without religion--an anti-religious philosophy. Allegations that public schools are giving preferential treatment to secular humanism should not be surprising. It is only a new name for an old argument that schools should stay out of the domain of moral and religious issues because it cannot treat them objectively. Educators have proceeded to attempt the impossible, anyway. And some educators do not seem to grasp the theoretical difficulty of making such an attempt. (See, e.g., Schott, 1989.) For example, even the Editor of Educational Leadership expressed a glaring misunderstanding of the basis for Judge Hand's censoring of the 44 textbooks. Ron Brandt wrote that "the textbooks thrown out by Judge Hand in the Alabama case were condemned because they did not mention religious considerations in the making of personal decisions." (Brandt, 1987.) To some writers, the complaint against secular humanism is nothing more than merely a case of some right-winged, religious radicals who are out to save their school children from the atheists (Park, 1987 & Hulsizer, 1987.) Of course, such radicals do exist, but the Alabama case cannot be accurately described in such a simplistic way. Judge Hand identified a real problem; he only went astray in his selection of remedies: Censorship is almost always the wrong remedy; legally, it is very difficult to censor something--even in the schools. A better remedy would have been for Judge Hand to have issued an order adjudging the Alabama textbook selections to be in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, and ordering the Board of School Commissioners to correct the problem by adding and/or deleting such materials as necessary to eradicate the preferential treatment presently existing in favor of the secular humanistic point of view. While such a decision is much less precise, it is nevertheless the type of approach that judges use frequently--refraining from going too far in judging, and leaving one of the parties the burden of coming up with a precise and complex solution. In fact, it can be said of Judge Hand, that his censorship remedy served to undermine the impact of the more important foundations of his opinion. C. Is Secular Humanism Pervasive in Public School Texts? This is a factual question, the answer to which must necessarily vary from text to text. The important thing for educators, however, is not so much how pervasive the problem is, but rather to recognize and correct the problem when and if it is found to exist. And, it should be recognized that part of the problem is not so much if a humanistic point of view is expressed, but whether that point of view predominates or is exclusive of other points of view. Thus, there is a subjective element to evaluating how pervasive the secular humanistic approach is in a text or in a course. The Alabama TextBook case is significant because it is a judicial finding of fact that the humanistic point of view had invaded 44 Alabama textbooks. Whether or not this judicial finding would satisfy scientific standards of proof does not matter; the legal fact finding standard is the one that applies. And the factual findings in the Alabama case were not disputed by the appeals court. So, one possible consequence of this is that if uncorrected, those Alabama textbooks are vulnerable to further constitutional challenges. D. Is It Unconstitutional to Give Preferential Treatment to Secular Humanism in Public Schools? Presently, this question must be answered by both "Yes" and "No." This is a complex and evolving issue in both the legal and educational arenas right now. The first legal principle that applies to school curricula is that the courts are reluctant to interfere with them. Because public school curricula are presumed to be established pursuant to laws made through democratic processes, courts will usually leave them undisturbed if they can. (Mawdsley and Mawdsley, 1988.) The heavy burden of proof is always on the one attacking an established curriculum. On the one hand, educators can legally use texts and curricula that employ the humanistic approach because no court case that has squarely condemned it has yet to survive on appeal to an U. S Circuit Court. On the other hand, the legal precedents are all in place to condemn secular humanism if the right legal theories are used, and if a proper factual basis exists to support them. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Thomas Jefferson coined the now commonly used phrase of "wall of separation between Church and State." But this characterization was not used by the Supreme Court to describe the Establishment Clause until it endorsed that language in Everson V. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947). And even then, the meaning of that phrase was never perfectly clear, for in the Everson case itself the Supreme Court upheld a New Jersey law that used State money to pay for bus transportation for students attending parochial schools. (Id.) Historically, the "wall of separation" analogy has never been accurate--a better description would be a minimal entanglement relationship. Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985)(J. Rehnquist, dissenting). Whether or not a public school system's preferential treatment of a philosophy violates the Establishment Clause is usually determined by application of a three part test set forth by the Supreme Court in the case of Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 612 (1971). Under that test, a state (in this case a public school system) policy or practice violates the Establishment Clause unless it satisfies the following three criteria: (1) it has a secular purpose; (2) its principal effect neither advances nor inhibits religion; and (3) it does not foster excessive government entanglement with religion. (Id.) The second prong of the Lemon test was determinative in the Alabama textbook case. Judge Hand found that the humanistic materials violated the Establishment Clause because he found that a principal effect was that they inhibited religion. Smith v. Board of School Comm'rs, 655 F.Supp. 939. But when the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals got their opportunity to review the texts, they held that Judge Hand was "clearly" wrong about this; in their opinion the textbooks were neutral. Smith v. Board of School Comm'rs, 827 F.2d 684 (11th Cir., 1987). Since the outcome of the case hinged upon a very subjective criteria, it may very well be that the final outcome of a dispute will depend upon who has the final say on whether a primary effect is to inhibit religion. Given the Supreme Court' s current make-up with four Reagan appointees, plus Byron White, plus an immanent Bush appointee, the Supreme Court could be expected to agree with Judge Hand that secular humanism was both pervasive in textbooks and that those books had a primary effect of inhibiting religion. And this, in turn gives greater credence to Judge Hand's point of view about the precarious posture of humanism in public school curricula today. II. SECULAR HUMANISM WILL WANE Public opinion winds are changing, and they are on a course to blow away secular humanism. Why will secular humanism at least be thinned out? Because no one wants to be a secular humanist--today it seems to be a philosopher without a spokesman. And while some deny its existence or its effects, no one steps forward to defend it. Like the devil himself, there is no question that secular humanism is bad; it is just a question of whether or not it really exists. And the public is coming to agree that secular humanism does exist. This is the important contribution of the Alabama textbooks case to public education today. Judge Hand's District Court opinion articulated a creative legal theory for attacking humanism--that is labeling it to be a species of religion and subjecting it to established First Amendment requirements that take away the preferential treatment that it had been given. With the broad national coverage given to this case, the secular humanism secret was exposed. And while the censorship aspect of Judge Hand's ruling was not popular, nevertheless his identification and analysis of a concern shared by many people was creative and to some people quite refreshing. Judge Hand's opinion exposed the fallacy of what this author calls the "moral vacuum theory"--that is the theory that social subjects can be taught in a moral vacuum, without teaching any moral point of view (Smith, 1987). The moral vacuum theory is in essence secular humanism. III. CONCLUSION Educators have an aversion to litigation--in general, they avoid it whenever they can. So, while the 44 Alabama textbooks got a reprieve from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, astute educators in Alabama and throughout the United States will acknowledge the legitimacy of the human secularism allegation, and they will begin to take corrective measures. At the same time, attentive textbook authors and publishers will also be taking note and tuning in on the concerns and desires of educators--ridding their new texts of traces of secular humanism wherever possible. Indeed, two current trends in curriculum are partially outgrowths of complaints against the secular humanism philosophy: The movement to teach moral behavior in public schools and the trend towards restoring the historical and motivational aspects of religion back into our history curricula. Religion is back. Disparaging religion is no longer in vogue--and this signals the death knell for any continued preferential treatment of secular humanism. And, while public opinion trends may be ultimately responsible for causing the demise of secular humanism, this trend is fully supported by concurrent developments in the Supreme Court's interpretation of the First Amendment. As public school systems continue to get more and more involved in addressing social concerns that are inextricably connected with religion, educators cannot escape dealing with the allegation that they give unfair preference to secular humanism. At least they cannot escape it unless and until they stop using it. Educators must recognize the fallacy of the theory that it is possible to teach social values without making implicit moral and religious judgments about such values. And in particular, educators must acknowledge that teaching how to solve social problems without recourse to God expresses a religious point of view that is subject to First Amendment limitations just like any other religious statement. The time has come for educators, authors and publishers to take the heretofore intentionally avoided approach, and begin to include different points of view in social studies curricula. FOOTNOTES 1. For example, also in 1987, a U. S. District Court in Tennessee ruled that students did not have to be indoctrinated by texts in the public schools that were objectionable to their religious beliefs; the court awarded damages to the protesting families to allow them to get an education for their children somewhere else. This case was similar in that it too represented an attack on a public school curriculum that was alleged to be infiltrated with secular humanism. This case was also overturned on appeal. Mozert v. Hawkins County Public Schools, 827 F.2d 1058 (1987). These two cases represent the closest a public school curriculum has come to being declared unconstitutional. But while the curriculum in each case was spared from a specific and costly consequence, in neither case was the curriculum pronounced good. In neither case did the Circuit Court vouch for the acceptability of the curriculum. Both Circuit Court's overturned the lower courts' decision because of defects in their legal bases. For example, in the Alabama case, the Circuit Court said that it does not reach the question of whether secular humanism is a religion within the meaning of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. They decided the case on other grounds. REFERENCES Articles and Books Adler, Mortimer J., The Paideia Proposal. Collier Books, MacMillan Publishing Co., New York, NY (1982). Adler, Mortimer J., Six Great Ideas. MacMillan Publishing Co., New York, NY (1981). Brandt, Ron, "Defending Public Education from the Neo-Puritans," Educational Leadership. Vol. 44, no. 8, p. 3 (May 1987). Haynes, Charles D., "Religious Freedom: It," Educational Leadership. Vol. 47, no. 3, (November, 1989). Haynes, Charles C., "Resources for Teaching about Religion," Educational Leadership. Vol. 47, no. 3, p. 27 (November, 1989). Hulsizer, Donna, "Public Education on Trial," Educational Leadership. Vol. 44, no. 8, pp.12-16 (May 1987). Mawdsley, Ralph D. and Alice, "Religious Freedom and Public Schools: Analysis of Important Policy Areas," West's Education Law Reporter. Vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 15-43, August 18, 1988. Oaks, Dallin H., "On the Issue of Public Prayer," BYU Today, pp. 2-3 (July, 1990). Reprinted from the Wall Street Journal, May 23, 1990. Park, J. Charles, "The Religious Right and Public Education," Educational Leadership. Vol. 44, no. 8, pp. 5-10 (May, 1987). Pritchard, Ivor, "Character Education: Research Prospects and Problems," American Journal of Education. Vol. 96, no. 4, pp. 469-495 (August, 1988). Schott, James C., "Holy Wars in Education," Educational Leadership. Vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 61-66 (October 1989). Smith, C. Paul, "Federal Court Rules Scular Humanism Is a Religion," The East Coast Addendum. Vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1-4 (1987). Cases Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947). Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 612 (1971). Mozert v. Hawkins County Public Schools, 827 F.2d 1058 (6th Cir., 1987). Smith v. Board of School Commissioners, 655 F.Supp. 939 (S. D. Ala., 1987). Smith v. Board of School Commissioners, 827 F.2d 684 (11th Cir., 1987). Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985). |
© 2006 C. Paul Smith
Contact the Web Master, Jimmy Smith, at jrs76@hotmail.com
or visit his website at www.jimmyandheather.com
Contact the Web Master, Jimmy Smith, at jrs76@hotmail.com
or visit his website at www.jimmyandheather.com