Know your Community this time of Year
Justin Bathon on Monday, December 6, 2010 at 11:44AM 
We've had that debate and if you are a regular reader you know that I am fine with Christmas trees in classrooms. They have crossed some undefined boundary to me from religious symbol to secular cultural symbol. But, not everyone agrees. Thus, the key in these instances is to know your communities. Obviously, Ames being a liberal college town is going to have less tolerance for Christian symbols during the holidays. Some rural Kentucky towns around me want those symbols, so it is all relative for you school administrator types out there.
So, while we lawyers fight over secularity, the Lemon test, etc ... just do what you think is best by your community and most of you should have a fine (and quiet) holiday season.
Church-State 
Reader Comments (27)
While this might be somewhat practical advice for administrators who don't care about the separation of church and state (at least until they get sued by some community individual/group in the minority), isn't this horrible legal advice? The Constitution doesn't vary by community. So while you might get away with unconstitutional behavior because your community wants you to, that doesn't mean it's right / professional / moral / ethical / legal / responsible. We have numerous Supreme Court and lower court decisions affirming the primacy of the Constitution over local preferences otherwise when it comes to religious expression in schools. Why on earth would you advise school administrators to 'do what you think is best by your community' instead of "do what is required under the law?' It's not all relative, it's what's legal, and administrators have a professional responsibility to comply with the law.
The Constitution does vary by community - and I feel the Supreme Court has been pretty clear on that. What is a disruption in one community is not in another, and the Constitution is cool with that - our entire First Amendment student speech analysis is based on that variation. That's just the simple practicality of the democratic situation. Scalia and the purists (or purists on the other side too) might not love that, but historically a majority of the Supreme Court has been fine with that kind of flexibility. To make this a functional country, we have to be.
Even if you don't love that argument, though, the Constitution on the issue of the Establishment Clause in schools does vary by community because the 6th Circuit doesn't have the same interpretations as the 9th or the 2nd Circuit. Legally, my advice for New Yorkers cannot be the same as my advice for Kentuckians. The Supreme Court has articulated such a vague and variable standard in the Lemon and related tests as to almost encourage that kind of regional, if not local flexibility.
I'm not saying blindly ignore the Constitution. What I am saying is within the broad strokes of the Establishment Clause, interpret "coercive" or "entanglement" in a way that appropriately balances the requirements of the law with the practicality of the specific situation. In that way, yes, it is relative. If an administrator behaved the same way in Lexington v. McCreary County ... that person would not be an administrator for long in at least one or the other places. Obviously that difference is even wider in New York and Arizona.
Plus, who gave you, or me, or some Supreme Court justice the right to say whether having a Christmas tree in a rural Kentucky community is ethical or moral or professional or responsible? You know damn well there is no real definition of those things that is functional in our democracy. And, honestly, you don't want their to be. Is wearing a burka to teach class professional? Do you want an actual answer to that question?
We only have the right to speculate as to whether or not it is legal and that is only because I was willing to sit through 3 years of the Socratic method and spend a summer cramming for the Bar. I find it difficult to sit here in Lexington, with our relative wealth, gay mayors, strong schools, religious diversity and everything else ... to sit here in my 5 bedroom suburban home with 3 cars and yet proscribe how a teacher or principal in the hills should interpret a functional meaning of a coercive religious experience in her school. I just need to be able to trust her judgment on that in that situation.
And, thus, yes, I'm for practicality within the confines of communities. I have no choice but to trust both that principals will make generally good decisions and also that when they don't someone will bring that before our collective (the judiciary) and it will be overturned. I know that you and Jon and others don't like that kind of practical view of the implementation of the Establishment Clause ... but whether you like it or not, that's reality for our school administrator partners.
The Supreme Court of the United States - not to mention Circuit Courts, District Courts, and various state courts - has stated quite clearly, on countless occasions, that public school and/or state actions that favor one religion over another - or religion over nonreligion - are unconstitutional. So a 'Christmas tree in a rural Kentucky community' is just as illegal as a student's Christian prayer before a public school football game (Santa Fe v. Doe), a silent prayer law in Alabama (Wallace v. Jaffree), or a Jewish rabbi's invocation at a public school graduation ceremony (Lee v. Weisman). [see also cases listed at http://bit.ly/bdDSzi]
It doesn't matter what the community wants. The First Amendment exists to protect the minority against the majority. As now-retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor noted, "We do not count heads before enforcing the First Amendment." There's no way to square the Constitutional requirement of religious neutrality with the display of an overtly Christian symbol in a public school absent other accompanying religious and nonreligious symbolry. Moreover, there's no way to square the solo display of a Christmas tree in a rural Kentucky school with a school administrator's professional, moral, and ethical responsibility to be welcoming to ALL students (see http://bit.ly/dpzm3x).
As school law instructors, we have an obligation to make recommendations to the school leaders that we serve that are practical, legal, and facilitative of students' well-being. I don't see how telling a rural Kentucky (or Iowa) administrator to engage in holiday festivities that are clearly Christianity-oriented - and thus both violative of the Constitution and unwelcoming to students who aren't Christian - is okay until they get challenged. Are you going to pay the legal bills when the district loses before the Supreme Court? Are you going to repair the broken relationship between the student(s) and the school district?
I don't think the regional variations to which you allude regarding First Amendment speech and/or educators' private behavior protections apply here since the Court's First Amendment religion protections have applied nationwide, regardless of one's particular community. Can you cite Supreme Court jurisprudence that says one's religious protections vary by geographic location?
First, I'll concede your point on the Supreme Court and geographic differences. But, there are a limited number of Supreme Court opinions - and none on the hot button issue we seem to disagree on which is Christmas (or holiday or giving or whatever) trees in the classroom. In this instance, like many others, there are 2 Constitutional provisions pushing in opposite directions. Thus, there is a play in the joints (http://goo.gl/15oOK) which is considerable and acknowledged by the Court. When those occasions present themselves principals are left in the middle and they have multiple different factors pulling on them.
For instance ... you tell me there is a professional responsibility to not put a Christmas tree in a rural Kentucky community and then cite an Iowa DE policy saying the exact opposite? Really? So, what about the school administrator's responsibility to follow state policy guidance? Is that overruled? Which professional responsibility trumps the other? And, who gets to decide that? The principal? The superintendent? The school board? The state? And, would that be ... the legislature or the courts? Perhaps the school law instructor at the flagship university? Ultimately, perhaps, God? (whoops, back to square one).
I feel like we are approaching the position differently. I do not view myself in my school law instruction as a guardian of liberty. Perhaps that is more my job in my P20/CASTLE service and research (who knows). When I'm teaching, I am a state employee, just the same as my students in their jobs. Is that not what Garcetti and the Supreme Court is saying to us? Thus, in my teaching, me and my students are partners and I am a resource for them, their schools, and the State of Kentucky. Thus, my advice is highly practical. The practicality (and I'm fine with you disagreeing with me on this) is that school leaders need to understand their communities and make subtle adjustments to those standards. That's all I am saying. In the enormous gray areas (and clearly there are because you and your own state department are clearly in very different places) they need to make the best decisions for their communities weighing all the factors. They are, after all, paid by and serve at the discretion of those communities.
Enjoying the discussion, though, Scott. Love to have a lot more of these, preferably over beers (wink).
I didn't cite the Iowa DE policy. I disagreed with it in my post, both legally and morally/ethically/professionally.
I agree with you that we should be resources for the administrators that we serve, but you're not allowed to cite the Nuremberg defense ('I'm just a state employee, doing my job.'). Even if we disagree about the legality of 'Christmas trees in rural Kentucky' (a point I'm not willing to concede since it's overtly religious), you also have an obligation to advise administrators to be sensitive and welcoming to the religious (or nonreligious) expression of ALL students. This is a critical issue that you have yet to address. It's like for gay/lesbian students: sure, they have lesser legal protections in many locales but that doesn't mean you shouldn't stand up for them as an administrator.
I don't feel like I'm being the 'guardian of liberty.' I feel like I'm being sensitive to students who are in the minority, who already have a tough road and now some school law instructor's telling administrators 'don't worry about the feelings of those non-Christian kids.'
Sorry, friend. I'm enjoying the discussion too but your argument fails due to insensitivity if nothing else...
Justin and Scott, no law degree here, so I won’t be citing any cases. I’m just going to write as a someone who grew up in Kentucky (albeit in Lexington, which as Justin points out is not representative of Kentucky as a whole), and currently lives in Douglas County, Colorado, whose school board just approved moving forward with a plan to give vouchers to parents that they can use to enroll their student at any private school, including religious ones, that agree to give the school district a 25% cut of the state money.
For me, the basic issue is what’s right for kids. I know, I know, but still. For me, a Christmas tree in the classroom, pretty much by definition, is wrong for kids. Folks can try all they want to argue that it’s secular, but we call it a Christmas tree for a reason. Now, if a classroom wants to put a tree, preferably a non-evergreen one, in their classroom year round and not decorate it with anything resembling ornaments, and use it as for non-religious instruction, then we can talk.
When we put a Christmas tree in the classroom we marginalize some students who are typically already marginalized by society as a whole. Not just the Jewish kids (I recall having tons of Christmas decorations and a couple token Hanukkah displays around schools when I was growing up), but Muslim students, Hindu students, and, oh yeah, students who don’t have any religion at all.
Surely we can agree that students who celebrate Christmas have plenty of reinforcement in American society as a whole, not even counting what they presumably get at home and in church. Yet students who don’t celebrate Christmas are not only inundated with it on television, in the malls, and among their friends, but now we want them to come to school and be told yet again that they don’t fit in?
At this point someone usually says, “Well, what if all the students in the classroom celebrate Christmas, then isn’t it okay?” My answer is still no, because how many little kids are going to speak up and say no? And even if every single student in that classroom celebrates Christmas, it sets a precedent of other classrooms to coerce (yes, that strong of a word is appropriate) the children to go along. Students – and their families – can celebrate Christmas all they want outside of school, why do we need to do it at school as well?
Or they say, “Chill out, it’s not such a big deal.” I think it is. Every single day I went to school as a student, and, for that matter, every single day that I go to school now as an adult, I’m made to feel different. And, yes, I realize that everyone is different and it’s okay to be different, but that’s not the same as telling someone that we approve of this one religion, and we tolerate the rest. A state-supported faith is antithetical to all I believe about public education.
I know this argument is unlikely to convince anyone who disagrees with it. But I would ask those folks to consider how they would feel if they sent their child to a public school where they only celebrated Ramadan, and when each day they said the Pledge of Allegiance they said the words, “under Allah.”
America is supposed to be the place that’s different, that accepts children for who they are. That doesn’t use the power of the state to subtly – or not so subtly – promote a single state-approved religion (well, other than high-stakes testing). Who gave me “the right to say whether having a Christmas tree in a rural Kentucky community is ethical or moral or professional or responsible?” I believe Jefferson said, ironically enough, that the Creator did.
Justin, what if I walked into the school in Kentucky? What are the bounds of their "community?"
It'd be just like the high school here I walk into every Thursday night to teach, where they post a Christmas tree right in the main entryway. It makes me sad and feel marginalized.
Note what the folks at the First Amendment Center say: "Interestingly, a majority of the justices has stated that Christmas trees, unlike creches and menorahs, have attained a secular status in our society and can be displayed standing alone. This does not mean that schools should erect Christmas trees during the holiday season, but only that they probably can. Many Americans continue to view Christmas trees as religious symbols, and for this reason schools may wish to be more sensitive than the law requires." (http://tinyurl.com/27ahkgj)
So, not surprisingly, I'm with Scott here. I believe you're teaching your students that it's OK to be insensitive, you know, until someone complains. I teach my students to consider what's towards the bottom of that First Amendment Center piece:
"Any teacher or administrator should ask herself the following questions as she plans holiday activities:
1. Do I have a distinct educational purpose in mind? If so, what is it? It should not be the purpose of public schools to celebrate or observe religious holidays.
2.If I use holidays as an opportunity to teach about religion, am I balanced and fair in my approach? If I teach about Christmas and Easter, for example, do I also teach about non-Christian holidays?
3. Does the planned activity have the primary effect of advancing or inhibiting religion? Does it, for example, promote one faith over another or even religion in general? Remember that the school’s approach should be academic, not devotional. It is never appropriate for public schools to proselytize.
So, why *should* schools allow Christmas trees to be erected? Seriously, what's the educational purpose?
@Karl - I love your opinions. Extremely well stated. I even agree it is coercive, but a majority of the Supreme Court probably doesn't ... at least not coercive enough to pass some practical threshold. But, and I hate this, I have to take issue with "supposed to be" ... as in "America is supposed to be" -- I wish it was ... but it is not. It can't be. At least not on this blog, others perhaps. Unfortunately, there is no such place. All there is are practical solutions to everyday problems that balance interests, giving extra weight to the minority. At least for me, democracy, unfortunately, is not that high-minded. But, it is practical ... and in it's practicality ... it is strong. That we have administrators that make practical decisions to everyday problems in the best interests of kids is the strength of the system. Drawing a hard line, on either side, I think makes us weaker. I do wish it was not that way and many days I wish I didn't have to think like that. I do hate that (see my private concern @Scott, below).
@Jon - First, the First Amendment Center is a private advocacy group. As state employees, I'm not sure we have that luxury. - As to educational purpose ... it doesn't have one in my opinion. I'm not going to try to argue that it does. But, it is not my opinion that matters and I am sure lots of school leaders could come up with one, probably including the principal of that school you teach in. Still, it's a fair point and a good question, but you and I both know a great deal of the things that happen in the school day have no educational purpose. But, I do like that question and I might use it with my students.
@Scott - Yep, insensitive. I worry about that. I worry that I am going to be that hard-ass, old, white school law professor some days. I know it is insensitive - and I don't like that. But, I believe there must be a balance and that I have some role in helping my school partners find that balance. This is not an a-religious society. We say a prayer every time that Congress opens and the President, even this President, implores God at the end of every speech. This is who we are. There are other places that are less religiously inclined and there are places that are more. It is not my job to change that. Perhaps other profs in my department have more freedom in that regard. But, even this President, who is apparently no fan of church on Sunday's (not like I went today either), has little inclination to change that. Thus, all I can do is to help my school partners find a practical balance that respects both positions, and respects the position of the people as stated in their democratic institutions. I don't like this current Supreme Court. And I don't like many of their positions, including that I personally don't like Christmas trees in the classroom. But like your administrators in Iowa and even, as Jon points out, like the First Amendment Center, I find no legal issue with them. Thus, that's why in many ways, I see my original post of knowing your communities as actually a very liberal post giving school administrators the ability to go against the prevailing legal wisdom to do what's best for kids in their communities.
Justin, you say that you're worried about insensitivity, but nothing in your words here indicates that you really are. So I guess all that I can say on this is that I'm glad we have the First Amendment, which protects the religious minority - particularly vulnerable minor students - against folks like you who aren't concerned about them, and I'm glad that we have people like Sandra Day O'Connor who recognize that certain freedoms aren't - and shouldn't be - subject to tyranny by democratic majority vote.
Great discussion! Justin knows from several (sometimes heated) discussions that I am with the purists on the legal question. Every time we take another step to privilege the role of religion in our secular enterprises, we take another step toward devaluing both our constitutional framework and, ironically, religion itself. For instance, the whole idea of "ceremonial deism"--the removal of sanctity from a formerly purely religious expression or symbol--ought to be patently offensive to those who see spiritual value in such expressions or symbols. We used to take umbrage at the secularization and commercialization of Christmas, but now, it's the prime basis for the current weight of opinion holding that a Christmas tree has "secular status," and is thus permitted to be displayed without the usual token adornments from other religions and cultures. That's the legal question, and the answer, much to the chagrin of us purists, is that the display of a Christmas tree is likely completely legal.
However, Justin's general guidance (it's not legal advice--check the blog's disclaimer) goes to the more political question of the school's place in its home community. Like it or not, administrators exist within a political community, and they are political actors. Especially in small towns, adherence to the local mores could make the difference between a productive career influencing lives and unemployment. Like Scott M. and Jon, I am troubled by the implications of the political advice in Justin's post, but Justin is merely recommending that administrators pay attention to their own political environments in determining whether to erect symbols which they may legally erect (under any fair predictive reading of what this current Court would decide on the issue). If the bahavior itself is legal, then the only question that remains is whether erecting a tree is a good idea or not administratively. Justin's position is that the answer to that question depends on the community, and he's clearly right about that.
Thus, I think it is misguided to characterize administrators who follow the guidance (along with Justin himself) as insensitive to the rights of religious minorities. Such a characterization assumes that religious minorities have the right to expect that a Christmas tree is not erected. It gives me no pleasure to say so, but based on the direction this current Court and the preceding Court have taken on religious symbols, it appears that religious minorites have no such rights. I hope to be surprised at being proven wrong on that question one day, but I'm not holding my breath.
Not-so-great-moment in an alternative history:
Justin: “Barack, no you can’t. The United States is not ready for a black President, especially one with a funny name like yours. It’s not practical for you to run this year.”
Justin: “Martin, stop dreaming.”
Justin: “Jack, you can’t ask them what they can do for the country. You have to pander to all the special interest groups and perhaps something good will eventually happen. And the moon? Come on.”
Justin: “Susan, you can’t be serious. They’ll never give women the right to vote.”
Justin: “Abraham, do not issue this proclamation. Freeing the slaves? Really?”
Justin: “Thomas, those ‘truths’ may be true, but they clearly are not self-evident to the majority of the people.”
“America” is constantly in a process of “becoming.” We should strive – in both spirit and in law – for the ideals that folks say they believe in, but are not willing to stand up for. If administrators want to make “practical decisions to everyday problems that are in the best interest of kids,” then they will protect each and every kid, not just those in the majority.
What is the educational justification for having a Christmas tree in a public school? There is none.
What harm is caused if we don’t have a Christmas tree in a public school. None.
What harm is caused if we do have a Christmas tree in a public school? We undermine the very foundation of our way of life, and we injure countless number of students who are forced by law to attend the very institutions that are causing them that harm. It is very much your job - and mine - to stand up for those kids.
So, our fifth grade daughter comes home today and tells us that one of her classmates asked the teacher if they can do Secret Santa in class. He then turns to the class and says . . . wait for it . . . "Raise your hand if you celebrate Christmas."
My wife and daughter just left the house to go buy secret santa gifts so that she isn't ostracized.
Sorry, Karl. But, thanks for bringing it back down to the practical, everyday level. We were in the clouds a bit with Nuremberg and Lincoln and Congress and everything else. These are just real people and everyday situations like Secret Santa. We just make the best of it and move forward.
Like I said, I wish it wasn't that way. Your points are excellent (I knew when you started commenting my arguments were in trouble) and perhaps this is something that we should examine more closely and advocate more vigorously for.
I have a sincere question: are there not some aspects of this holiday season that are completely cultural? I know this is a sticky question -- religion, law, government, economics, language all contribute to make this "culture".
But, seriously, how do we separate the things of this holiday that are decidedly religious from the things that are decidedly part of the culture at-large?
I guess I've always just thought that so much of Christmas isn't really part of Christianity. (Especially Secret Santa...geez, just shoot me...)
Jarrod's question resonates with me. Christmas trees are a cultural icon for the holiday. Christmas trees are not a required element of the religious Christmas experience. I can find nowhere in any religious manuscript that "Thou shall have a decorated evergreen tree in remembrance of me". I can't get my head around how a fir tree decorated with paper snowflakes and snowmen undermines the foundations of our way of life...
Nativity scenes in the classroom, sure I can see how that might offend someone as it is overtly religious, but the tree... I don't get it. And perhaps I'm being naive here and it isn't really about the tree, maybe it's really just about being right, in which case no one wins.
Jarrod - Geez? You realize, of course that "Geez" is short for Jesus . . .
Yes, there is certainly much about Christmas as celebrated in our culture that has little to do with Christianity, but when kids ask what Christmas is, I think you'd be hard pressed to leave Christ out of that discussion. I think if we want students to learn about religions in school (historically), that's great, as long as it's in context and we learn about all of them. (Although then, of course, you have to set the limit somewhere - who's going to decide which religions make the cut?) But we aren't talking about learning about it, we're "celebrating" it, and we clearly elevate it above all others.
Tim - We clearly will not agree on this. I don't get how you can possibly look at a Christmas tree, inside or outside of a school, and say it has nothing to do with religion. Outside of school that's a choice, inside of school it's not. Once again, if you want a tree in the classroom all the time, not just at Christmas, and it serves an educational purpose, great. But don't bring in an evergreen in December, decorate it, have Secret Santa's and sing Christmas Carols at all school-meetings, and try to tell me it's just "cultural."
Karl- Did I say we need trees at school? Did I support Secret Santas? Did I advocate for the Singing of Carols anywhere? I said, "I can't get my head around how a fir tree decorated with paper snowflakes and snowmen undermines the foundations of our way of life..." So let me try it this way...
I understand that Christmas trees are directly related, in name, to a religious holiday. I understand that practically there is very little that can be done, educationally speaking, with a dying fir tree in ones classroom. What I don't understand is how that tree, "...undermines the foundations of our way of life." Can you help me understand that statement?
You said you can't see how I don't see it as religious. It's not. The first Christmas trees were decorated and danced around and then set aflame, just for the fun of doing it. It's like the yearly bonfire at a football game. Even a vague biblical reference to trees being adorned (Jeremiah 10:1-5) is more likely referring to the wood of trees used to create idols. Other trees in the bible would be images of life, growth and rebirth. (Christmas trees are usually fake or dying) And if anything, the song, "Oh, Tennenbaum" sets the tree up as an idol to be worshiped, which isn't very Christian...
Anyway, I was just trying to see it from your perspective... I'm still interested if you care to articulate it.
Tim - Ignoring the Native Americans (which we're good at), why did Europeans originally come to this country? Lots of reasons, I suspect, but an important one was to flee religious persecution, to get away from countries where there was one state-supported religion, where minority views were not only not respected, but were actively suppressed (or worse). Then when we actually decided to become a country we incorporated that belief into our system of governing and our way of life. It's foundational. If we have a state-supported/encouraged/sanctioned religion, it changes everything.
Yet now we have a country that appears, at least in some ways, to be getting more and more extreme in their views of majority and minority. A country where the leaders of the United States Senate object to working in the two-week period around Christmas because it's "sacrilegious." Funny, they didn't appear to mind working through Hannukah, and I imagine that Ramadan won't be much of an issue.
I fully understand that the Christmas Tree didn't spring from the Bible, but it clearly is related to the celebration of Christmas, and it just as clearly doesn't have any educational purpose. It also just as clearly leads to Secret Santa and teachers asking their students to publicly declare if they are Christian or not, and if any student declares they are not the rest of the students will miss out on something they would like to have.
I'll go back to my earlier comment. What is the harm in not having a Christmas tree in school? I see none. What is the harm in having one? I see plenty of opportunities (which doesn't mean those opportunities always occur), and experienced it again this week.
Again, I have little hope of convincing anyone that doesn't agree, but I think folks in the majority (and that usually includes me) are often oblivious to what it feels like to be in the minority. It would be interesting to go though a day and log all the references to Christmas you come across, in personal conversations, in the media, at work/school, decorations, etc., and then try to imagine if you then lived in a place that believed very differently, and also inundated you with their beliefs. Then imagine being 10 years old and living in that place. I'm not against Christmas, I just don't think kids should be subjected to it - or any other religious celebration - at a place they are required to go to by law and that is paid for with public money.
Thanks Karl- I have a clearer picture of where you are coming from and what you were getting at in your previous comments. I have some things to think about. I appreciate you taking the time.
Karl - yes, I know that "geez" probably originated from "Jesus". I was being a bit ironic... Hard to pull off in a blog comment. I guess I'm still not sure about this topic. If I moved to Japan, there are aspects of the culture that have religious roots, symbolism, and deep meaning, but I may find myself adapting and adopting many of those cultural practices despite my own religious beliefs (or lack thereof). I don't believe that we are being insensitive to people by participating in cultural traditions or norms. That may be impossible to find the line on because of the way American culture (as you point out) was so heavily influenced by Christianity in its beginnings.
Regardless, educators should be stop pushing a religion on students. I would never argue against that. In fact, I prefer that Christian teachers not try to teach my kids about Christianity because I would rather my kids not be confused about the Jesus I love so dearly.
But, I do not connect Secret Santa with anything remotely Christian. A tree, I can concede is probably to closely tied to the religious holiday, as well as stars, nativity sets and scenes... But the giving and exchanging of gifts, an elf who delivers gifts to children, a reindeer with a red nose, jingle bells, and songs about snowmen, while they are referred to by the name of tr Christian holiday, can't seriously be considered "Christian", can it? I'm going to have to think about that and ask some friends of mine who do not call themselves Christian to help me see my blind-spot on this.
As a teacher in a largely African American, urban school where there is high number of students who celebrate Christmas, a fair number of Muslims and zero students who celebrate Hannukah I think we need to remember that schools should be a place that celebrate diversity. My students think Kwanzaa is a Muslim holiday and they have no clue what a Jew even is. Most of our Muslim students will not be attending our Holiday Concert because, as we have no auditorium, it will be held in a church down the street.
By placing a Christmas tree or any other symbol of a religious holiday in the school (how can we ignore the word "Christ" in Christmas?) we do marginalize students, but we also perpetuate the idea that there is only one 'right' holiday. I had a frightening conversation with some of my 3rd graders and 5th graders to clear up what the different holidays mean and why they are celebrated, including the fact that Kwanzaa is not even a religious holiday (truly frightening that a room of African America students had no clue what it was!). By having a conversation about holidays I learned about a Muslim holiday, Eid that occurs in the Spring/Summer, during which families exchange gifts in a similar fashion to Hanukkah and Christmas.
By erecting symbols of the holiday celebrated by the majority of the students (which is what my school has done) we lose out and our students who are in the minority, as Karl states, are marginalized. We also lose out on the opportunity to broaden our students horizons and break down stereotypes that hinder understanding, collaboration and cooperation in their adult lives.
@Jarrod That Santa Claus guy is called Saint Nick for a reason. Santa Claus is Saint Nicholas, a bishop of the church in Greece in the 4th century (by way of the Dutch incarnation Sinterklaas). I think the religious implications/origins of that are pretty clear. Even the present-giving is based on the deeds of St. Nicholas.
@Karl I think you're playing a little fast and loose with American history. While it's true that some colonists came to the American continent looking for the ability to practice their own religion, they often were far less than tolerant of those who wanted to practice differently. Ask the Baptists who were whipped or Quakers who had their ears cropped in the New England colonies prior to the Toleration Act's passage in England. The oppressed often became the oppressors. Also, don't forget that several of the states had established churches into the 1780s. So while the American colonies were places where the ties between church and state loosened compared to their European counterparts, I'd be careful basing your Establishment Clause arguments
@Meredith - Hey, good to see you here. I wasn't suggesting that the folks that came over were very good at practicing tolerance, I was suggesting that the reason many of them came here was to escape intolerance. Heck (can I say that?), the very phrase "Separation of Church and State" is problematic, as it should be something more like "Separation of religious institution/practice/observance and State," since Church most often refers to a Christian place of worship (as opposed to synagogue, mosque, temple, etc.).
And, as I stated back at the beginning of this mess, no law degree here, so I'm really not trying that hard to make legal/constitutional/historical arguments, I'm talking about what I think is best for kids and what honors the ideal that we (well, maybe "we" is presuming?) are striving for in America. After all, the Founders were wrong about quite a few things, so I think basing our arguments too much on what they believed/intended/practiced isn't completely helpful.
Tim - Sorry if I come off as too . . . something (angry? confrontational?). But the sheer amount of Christmas stuff this time of year is potentially overwhelming for some kids who are often already somewhat isolated from mainstream American culture. So when it spills over into schools, which should be the one place they always feel safe, it's frustrating.
I don't think those of us who grew up with Christmas just being "normal" can ever really conceive what it feels like for these kids. I remember when I was a young teacher (oh so long ago) going to an awards banquet for one of my African American middle school students (actually, my only African American middle school student). She invited her teachers and when we walked into a room of maybe 500 people, we were the only white people in the room. Now, I was raised to treat everyone equally and have always considered myself to be non-racist and reasonably empathetic, but for the first time that day I think I truly felt what it was like for my student every single day, except for the fact that I walked out two hours later and back into my "white" culture.
While religion is different than race, I think they're similar in how they can isolate (and sometimes alienate) our students. If I'm going to err, I'm going to err on the side of protecting the minority viewpoint.
Jarrod - OK, I thought that might be irony, but just wanted to be sure :-)
Yes, there are cultural things we should expose ourselves to, but I would argue strongly that religion is not one of them. Not here.