Oklahoma schools in standoff as local districts balk at state’s new Bible policy
Oklahoma schools in standoff as local districts balk at state’s new Bible policy
Lawsuits appear unlikely until state superintendent tries to enforce his rules
Questions about the constitutionality of directives requiring Oklahoma public schools to extensively use the Bible as “instructional support” remain unanswered as Oklahoma students begin returning to school next week.
What appears most likely to happen is that the new regulations will not be addressed in a courtroom at least until the state’s superintendent of public instruction, Ryan Walters, decides to enforce his directives to greatly expand use of the Bible in multiple areas of school curricula. School superintendents of most of the state’s largest school districts have said they will not comply with the directives, either because they believe Walters did not have the legal authority to issue them or because they question the constitutionality and/or appropriateness of what they’re being directed to do.
Some of the local school leaders have pointed out that that their teachers already refer to the Bible when doing so is called for — such as, for example, when it is closely tied to historical events or used an inspiration for classical art and music. But many of them fear that the new rules go too far, potentially putting schools into the job of religious indoctrination. Several of them have said they will continue to follow the state’s 2019 curriculum standards, which, among other things, allows for teaching on “the origins, major beliefs, spread and lasting impact of the world’s major religions and philosophies, including Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, Confucianism, and Sikhism.”
Walters, a Republican, was elected to the state’s top school job in 2022 after running on a conservative platform that included opposition to critical race theory and pandemic closures. This year, he has made use of the Bible one of his top priorities, issuing a series of directives on how the Bible should be used in grades 5 through 12.
The new directives have drawn the opposition not only of local school officials but also of various interest groups that have been involved with litigation over church-state issues. For example, Rachel Laser, president of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, has said:
Public schools are not Sunday schools. Superintendent Walters has repeatedly made clear that he is incapable of distinguishing the difference. His latest scheme – to mandate use of the Bible in Oklahoma public school curriculum – is a transparent, unlawful effort to advance Christian nationalism and indoctrinate and religiously coerce public school students. Not on our watch.
What the directives say
In issuing the new standards, Walters justified them by declaring that the Bible “has played a significant role in the development of Western civilization and American history.”
On their surface, the standards seem to have been crafted in a way to give cover to the idea that they have a secular purpose. The introduction of the most recent directive declares:
This document provides guidelines for teachers on how to approach incorporation [of the Bible] in a manner that emphasizes only its historical, literary and secular benefits, ensuring compliance with legal standards and precedents.
Throughout the document, teachers are told specifically that they “must not promote or favor any religious beliefs, focusing solely on the historical and literary aspects of the Bible” and that the use of the Bible in classrooms “is not an endorsement of any religious belief.”
The body of the directive closes with an admonition that the “Bible must be used in student instruction for its historical, literary and secular value and is not to be used for religious purposes such as preaching, proselytizing or indoctrination.”
Among the specific demands of the latest directive are:
“Teachers must focus on how biblical principles have shaped the foundational aspects of Western societies ...”
“Teachers must highlight key historical moments where the Bible played a role, such as the Mayflower Compact, the Declaration of Independence, and the speeches of leaders like Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King, Jr.”
“Teachers can use biblical texts to illustrate” literary techniques such as allegory, metaphor and parable.”
“Teachers must introduce students to famous artworks that depict biblical scenes or themes ...”
“Teachers can explore how composers and musicians have interpreted and expressed biblical themes through music ...”
Teachers can “foster an environment where students can engage in critical thinking and discussion about the historical and literary aspects of the Bible.”
At the high school level, teachers should “facilitate discussions on the ethical and philosophical ideas presented in the Bible and their influence on Western thought.”
What the ACLU is doing
The American Civil Liberties Union appears to be taking the lead in legal challenges to the directive. Although it has not filed a lawsuit, it has submitted a formal request to the Oklahoma State Department of Education to provide copies of all government records related to the directives and related actions taken by Walters.
The ACLU is joined in the request by Americans United, the Freedom from Religion Foundation and the Oklahoma Appleseed Center for Law & Justice.
It appears that the ACLU’s strategy is to get access to documents that could be used in later legal actions. Such documents might be used to show religious motivations behind the directives despite what their texts state.
Traditionally, in cases involving allegedly unconstitutional acts under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, courts have looked at, among other things, whether the acts have a secular purpose. This has been part of the so-called Lemon test, named after the Lemon v. Kurtzman case of 1971.1 Although it is not clear how closely today’s U.S. Supreme Court would look at religious motivations behind Walters’ directive, evidence of religious motivations certainly would be raised by challengers in any legal action.
Lemon v. Kurtzman was a case related to financial aid given to religious schools. The U.S. Supreme Court in that case established a three-pronged test to determine whether government actions relating to religion are constitutional: 1) The action must have a secular purpose. 2) The primary effects are to neither inhibit nor advance religion. 3) The action must not require excessive government entanglement in religion. The Lemon test has fallen out of favor with the Supreme Court in recent years, although it has not been completely abandoned. In recent cases, the Supreme Court has looked more closely at how government actions relate to “historical practices and understandings.”