.gif)
The title to my earlier article on Oregon’s SB 786 "Move over France: Oregon wants to ban teachers from wearing hijabs in public schools” should really read: “Move over France: Oregon wants to continue to ban teachers from wearing hijabs in public schools.”
Oregon Revised Statute 342.650 states “No teacher in any public school shall wear any religious dress while engaged in the performance of duties as a teacher.” A teacher violating this provision SHALL be suspended or dismissed by the district school board (ORS 342.655).
SB 786, known as the Oregon Workplace Religious Freedom Act, amends ORS 342.650 to make clear that public school teachers still are prohibited from wearing religious attire. But it does give more rights to employees wanting to wear religious garb in other workplaces.
Seems like a missed opportunity to me. Instead of amending the old law to clarify its continued viability, why not just repeal it? The law is ridiculous. I suspect the answer is political realities, and comments to my earlier article remark that SB 786 is a step in the right direction. Nevertheless, leaving the provision in place seems to contradict the spirit of the Oregon Workplace Religious Freedom Act.
And I repeat what I said in my first article:
Will a student seeing her Spanish teacher wearing a headscarf suddenly feel the urge to convert? I highly doubt it. I know a hijab-wearing Muslim Spanish teacher. She never mentioned that any of her students converted.
Will a student realize that her Spanish teacher is Muslim? Maybe, but so what? Religious affiliation is not a contagious disease that needs to be masked.
Everyone’s choice of dress sends a message—isn’t that point? The whole fashion industry would crumble if that were not so. Just a hairstyle sends a message...
Apparently, distinguished jurists disagree with me. In Cooper v. Eugene School District (1986), the Supreme Court of Oregon upheld the law against a First Amendment challenge from a Sikh school teacher. The First Amendment Center specifically discusses Cooper in answering the question:
May a teacher wear religious garb to school provided the teacher does not proselytize to the students?
Probably not. It is likely that many courts would allow a school to prohibit teachers' religious garb in order to maintain religious neutrality...Pennsylvania and Oregon have laws that prohibit teachers from wearing religious clothing to schools. Both laws have been upheld in court challenges brought under the First Amendment and Title VII, the major anti-discrimination employment law. The courts reasoned that the statutes furthered the states' goal of ensuring neutrality with respect to religion in the schools...
In its 1986 decision Cooper v. Eugene School District, the Oregon Supreme Court rejected the free-exercise challenge of a Sikh teacher suspended for wearing religious clothing — a white turban and white clothes — to her special education classes. The Oregon high court upheld the state law, [writing] that “the aim of maintaining the religious neutrality of the public schools furthers a constitutional obligation beyond an ordinary policy preference of the legislature.”... (to read entire answer)
President Obama stated in his speech in Cairo this June:
Moreover, freedom in America is indivisible from the freedom to practice one's religion. That is why there is a mosque in every state in our union, and over 1,200 mosques within our borders. That's why the United States government has gone to court to protect the right of women and girls to wear the hijab and to punish those who would deny it.
Indeed. What’s up Oregon and Pennsylvania? Get with the program!
For more info: President Obama's historic speech in Cairo - when was the applause?
Comments
Is the Oregon ban limited to clothing? Are teachers allowed to wear crucifixes or other religious jewelry?
This issue came to my attention 10 years ago when I interviewed to enter a Masters in Teaching program at a university in Oregon. They couldn't assure me that I would be hired upon graduation, because of hijab. I was accepted into the program, but chose to go elsewhere and have been teaching in private schools. This law deprives Oregon's students of a lot of excellent, motivated potential teachers.
Hi Margaret,
According to the First Amendment Center's "A Teacher’s Guide to Religion in the Public Schools", “teachers are permitted to wear non-obtrusive jewelry, such as a cross or Star of David. But teachers should not wear clothing with a proselytizing message (e.g. a ‘Jesus Saves’ T-shirt)."
Salaams Huda,
Great point. What an unfortunate experience--but unfortunately not surprising considering the law. You would think that diversity of teachers would promote tolerance and understanding, break down stereotypes, and be an enriching experience.
SB 786 was a significant step forward for religious free exercise in Oregon, the first such step in many years. Oregon House Speaker Dave Hunt (who is a past president of American Baptist Churches USA) sponsored this bill and he has already pledged his commitment to go even further next year attempting to overturn the decades-old ban on religious garb in schools.
Hi Oregonian,
Thanks for the update--it's great to hear that there are efforts planned to repeal the old law. Having not known the history of SB 786, I feel that I was unfair to the bill's sponsors in my first posting, "Move over France..." Apologies and lesson learned. :)
I am to assume then there aren't any references to Christmas by way of decorations or song (recitals, choir) in the Oregan Public Schools?
Dear Lynn,
I wouldn't be surprised if there are, now that you mention it. :)
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!