HomepageISTEEdSurge
Skip to content
ascd logo

Log in to Witsby: ASCD’s Next-Generation Professional Learning and Credentialing Platform
Join ASCD
December 1, 1998
Vol. 56
No. 4

Averting Culture Wars over Religion

How public school educators define spirituality and in what context they present it to students may determine its acceptance among parents and religious leaders. It may also determine its constitutionality.

When and if public education moves into the spiritual realm, culture wars are bound to erupt. "You're imposing New Age religion on our kids," one side will argue. "No, we're using spiritual in a way that has nothing to do with religion," the other side will answer. As in earlier debates about prayer, multiculturalism, and outcome-based education, educators and parents on both sides will soon begin to shout past one another. Once again, any notion of a common vision of the common good in public education will be lost in the din of charge and countercharge.
Because I spend much of my time mediating such conflicts, my plea is simple: Define terms carefully and be clear about goals before putting students and teachers in the middle of yet another culture war. If public school educators are determined to delve into the spiritual, they should do so with their eyes open.

Defining Spirituality

Taken alone, the phrase spirit of education is not the flash point for controversy. The spirit of education might mean anything from the animating principles of education to the sources of inspiration for teaching and learning. Spirit is an all-purpose word with many uses both sacred (the Holy Spirit, the spirit world) and secular (school spirit, the spirit of the Middle Ages).
But when the spirit of education is defined as the "spiritual dimension of education" or understood as ways to "nurture spiritual development," then we have potentially serious political and constitutional problems. Why? Because in the minds of many people, phrases that refer to spiritual development have to do with the life of the soul and a deepening awareness of the transcendent. And to the extent that spirituality involves some sense of the divine in human beings or in the cosmos, it is fundamentally religious (Nord & Haynes, 1998).
One attempt to avoid conflict—adopted by some advocates of spirituality in education—is to define spiritual in terms that purport to be nonreligious. This approach reflects a move in some sectors of popular culture away from organized religion and toward a more generalized spirituality. "I'm not religious," one often hears nowadays, "but I consider myself a spiritual person."
But this more universal definition of spirituality doesn't solve our problem—it merely compounds it. Separating spiritual life from particular religious traditions may make it nonsectarian, but not necessarily nonreligious. For legal and other purposes, religion typically refers to much more than faith communities with their dogmas, rituals, and places of worship. In the broadest sense, religion has to do with our ultimate concerns and awareness of the presence of the divine in nature and in our lives, which may or may not be linked to particular religions, orthodox doctrines, or institutional structures.
My point here is that educators must be cautious about equating nonsectarian with nonreligious. However we define our terms, we should keep in mind that what one person might call a spiritual view of the world may be seen by others as a religious worldview.

The Lessons of History

Throughout U.S. history, there have been various attempts to eliminate religious conflict in schools by imposing a nonsectarian approach to religion in education. Thomas Jefferson, the great separationist, failed to see that an absence of sectarian teaching in schools would not ensure governmental neutrality concerning religion. Jefferson was convinced that what he understood to be nonsectarian teaching about nature's God was simply the truth—and not an imposition of religion—and thus was the proper aim of education. As one historian has pointed out, the religious worldview that Jefferson thought appropriate for public schools just happened to correspond exactly to his own (Healey, 1962).
Similarly, in the 19th century, Horace Mann proposed what he considered nonsectarian religious practices for Massachusetts schools; indeed, generalized Protestant practices lasted well into this century (Jorgenson, 1987). Jefferson and Mann didn't see themselves as imposing religion. They mistakenly assumed that their worldviews would transcend religious differences and conflicts precisely because they were nonsectarian.

Is It "New Age"?

This history reminds us that today's definition of generalized spirituality, as long as it encourages students to explore the inner life and ultimate questions, will not free public schools from the charge of imposing religion. Some parents will view it as a religious approach to education. Specifically, many conservative religious parents will see it as an effort to infuse New Age teachings into the public school curriculum
Such objections will strike many educators as unfair because most proponents of spirituality in education may not identify themselves or their ideas as New Age. Nevertheless, it isn't difficult to see why conservative religious parents might see New Age ideas, at least implicitly, in proposals for encouraging the spiritual growth of children in public schools.
As Warren Nord (1995) has pointed out, many in the New Age movement proclaim a spirituality that is meant to transcend particular religions. Though New Age thinking is highly eclectic and diverse, it emphasizes a holistic approach to life and a belief that a higher self can be awakened within each person. In other words, New Age spirituality is itself a worldview. Like other religious worldviews, it may be discussed in public schools, but only in the context of learning about various worldviews. Those who propose that public schools address spirituality by taking a holistic approach to education or by encouraging students to seek their higher selves must expect to have their ideas identified with this way of thinking—and to be challenged for promoting one religious view over others.
Whether or not they are influenced by New Age thinking, proposals for a universal, nonsectarian understanding of spiritual life will be seen by some parents and religious leaders as a direct challenge to their own faith traditions. For some faiths, such as Christianity and Islam, inner life or spiritual growth must be guided by revelations found in scripture. Otherwise, it is dangerous and potentially demonic.
Other faiths, such as traditions within Hinduism and Buddhism, view spiritual development as a universal process that takes place over the course of many lifetimes. But here, too, particular disciplines are necessary for authentic spiritual growth. For most religious people, spirituality is inseparable from a particular revelation and practice.

Can Spirituality Be Nonsectarian and Nonreligious?

But what if we define spirituality in ways that are neither sectarian nor religious? Why not simply assert that by spiritual we mean the life of the mind and emotions, a meaning entirely removed from any conception of the soul or the transcendent?
There are at least three problems with this approach. First, no matter how thorough the attempt to separate the spiritual from the religious, many religious people will still find the terms inseparable and will continue to see schools as usurping the prerogative of the family and the religious community. Labeling public school activities as spiritual is like waving a red flag in front of many parents.
Second, removing the transcendent and the soul from the word spiritual may render the term meaningless for many who advocate a place for spiritual development in public education. I suspect that these advocates have more in mind than what is usually meant by emotional and intellectual. Doubtless they are concerned that education should not be cut off from the depths or the heights of human experience and meaning. And they sincerely wish to open students to a deeper realm in which ultimate questions are asked. After all, they might well argue, many students have little or no exposure to the spiritual or religious life, and schools have an obligation to deal with this vitally important dimension.
Second, removing the transcendent and the soul from the word spiritual may render the term meaningless for many who advocate a place for spiritual development in public education. I suspect that these advocates have more in mind than what is usually meant by and intellectual. Doubtless they are concerned that education should not be cut off from the depths or the heights of human experience and meaning. And they sincerely wish to open students to a deeper realm in which ultimate questions are asked. After all, they might well argue, many students have little or no exposure to the spiritual or religious life, and schools have an obligation to deal with this vitally important dimension.
And third, if spiritual becomes synonymous with intellectual or emotional, then why use the term at all? Why not stick with terms that have long been identified with the secular mission of public schools?

The First Amendment

However the term is defined, it is politically risky and potentially explosive to promote spirituality in public education. But is it also unconstitutional? That depends.
Educators are well aware that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment requires school officials to remain neutral concerning religion—neutral among religions and neutral between religion and no religion. We are quick to recognize violations of neutrality when a teacher leads her class in prayer—as Bronx teacher Mildred Rosario was fired for doing last spring.
But what if a teacher leads a meditation session for spiritual reflection and renewal? Right away we bump up against the ambiguity of the word spiritual. Would the courts see the session as a legitimate activity in a secular public school or as an attempt to involve students in a religious exercise? It's difficult to predict. But I wouldn't want to be the lawyer trying to explain to the judge why the spiritual development promoted by this meditation is not religious. In my view, if the Establishment Clause prohibits a school from promoting a particular religion or leading students in prayer, then it also prohibits any promotion of spirituality that involves meditation and similar practices.
Context is important. Courts have ruled against the use of transcendental meditation techniques in an elective course in a public school because the practice was seen as inseparable from its religious underpinnings. Even though the school district argued that the course, "Science of Creative Intelligence," was entirely secular, the court saw transcendental meditation as "embedded in the context of a course on creative intelligence that presented it as a technique for contacting the 'life force' that is at the basis of all growth and progress so as to achieve 'inner contentment'" (Nord, 1995). Again, religion by any other name is still religion.
If presented purely as a relaxation technique (meditation) or as an aid to active imagination (visualization) or to health (yoga), some practices associated with religion might pass constitutional muster. But if they are presented as fostering spiritual development, I would argue that a court is more likely to rule these practices unconstitutional because they function religiously in a public school setting.
Even if these and similar practices get past the Establishment Clause, they will still be challenged under the Free Exercise Clause. If the current culture wars are any guide, parents of various religious traditions will demand that their children be excused from meditation, prolonged silence, visualization, discussions about the inner life, lessons on death and dying, yoga, and other discussions and practices seen as contrary to their faith.
Of course, the fact that some parents object to a lesson or a practice does not, by itself, mean that it should be eliminated. Allowing students to opt out on religious grounds may be sufficient. But the objections should at least raise questions about the appropriateness of addressing issues and imposing practices that have traditionally been the domain of the family and religious communities. School officials should ask themselves: Is it the right thing to do?
But what about those lessons or programs that fall well within the academic and civic mission of public schools—for example, the arts and service learning—but are advanced by teachers as opportunities for spiritual growth? Again, if labeled spiritual, First Amendment concerns are likely to arise. The primary aim and purpose of the public school curriculum must be academic and civic—not religious or spiritual.
The best way to ensure that the school is consistent with the Establishment Clause is to articulate a clear academic or civic purpose for everything in the curriculum. This is more than a quibble about language. The First Amendment's religious liberty principles are a civic framework that govern what public schools may and may not do concerning religion, including spirituality. True, everything that is taught in public schools may have implications for students' spiritual lives. But it is the prerogative of parents and faith communities to address the spiritual needs and convictions of children and to integrate that dimension of inner life with the intellectual and emotional changes wrought through education.

What Can Be Done?

By raising First Amendment concerns about spirituality in public schools, I don't mean to suggest that public school educators can do nothing to address the spiritual and moral void that they see in the lives of many students. Anyone who spends as much time in schools as I do knows that each and every school day, thousands of caring, dedicated teachers and administrators—by both example and action—inspire students to find meaning and value in their lives.
First Amendment neutrality doesn't mean being neutral on values. From the moment schools open their doors, values are taught and modeled in countless ways. To ensure that schools teach the right moral and civic messages, some districts have developed a comprehensive vision for character education—a vision that is entirely consistent with the educational and civic mission of public education. Working with parents and others in the community, teachers and administrators in these districts have identified the core moral and civic virtues that the community wishes to see fostered in the schools (Haynes & Thomas, 1994).
Neither does the First Amendment requirement of neutrality toward religion by teachers mean silence about religion or hostility toward religion. In fact, it could be argued that if public schools are to remain neutral con-cerning religion, the curriculum must include religious as well as secular ways of understanding the world. Excluding or barely mentioning religion is hardly neutral or fair. There is now a broad consensus—across the religious and political spectrums—that learning about religion should be an important part of a complete education (Nord & Haynes, 1998).
The key, of course, is to neither inculcate nor inhibit religion, but rather to teach about religion objectively. Every educated human being should learn how humanity has addressed questions of meaning and purpose. By including religious perspectives, ideas, and events in teaching history, literature, and other courses, public schools enable students to learn about the spiritual dimension of life in ways that are respectfully authentic, educationally sound, and constitutionally permissible.
Character education and the study of religion are two educational and constitutional ways to take seriously the moral and spiritual dimensions of students. In addition, educators need to create a school culture that protects the religious liberty rights of all students.
Under current law, for example, students have the right to pray in public school alone or in groups, as long as the activity doesn't disrupt the school or infringe on the rights of others. Students may share their faith with others or read their scriptures. They may distribute religious literature in the school subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. When appropriate, students have the right to express personal religious views in class or as part of a written assignment or an art activity. And, in secondary schools, students may form religious clubs if the school allows other extracurricular clubs.
In all these ways, public schools can and must be places that reflect the core moral commitments of the community, educate students about the human struggle for meaning and purpose, and uphold the religious liberty rights of students of all faiths or none. At the heart of public education must be a deep and abiding commitment to the spirit of the First Amendment.
References

Haynes, C., & Thomas, O. (1994, 1996, 1998). Finding common ground: A First Amendment guide to religion and public education. Nashville, TN: The First Amendment Center at Vanderbilt University

Healey, R. (1962). Jefferson on religion in public education. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Jorgenson, L. (1987). The state and the non-public school, 1825–1925. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri Press.

Nord, W. (1995). Religion and American education: Rethinking a national dilemma. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.

Nord, W., & Haynes, C. (1998). Taking religion seriously across the curriculum. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Learn More

ASCD is a community dedicated to educators' professional growth and well-being.

Let us help you put your vision into action.
From our issue
Product cover image 198262.jpg
The Spirit of Education
Go To Publication