School religious accommodation

On May 9, 7:48 am, David Chesler <ches...@post.harvard.edu> wrote:
>   What is the current thinking on the conflict between accommodation and
> requirements that public schools not discriminate on religious, or in
> most cases, gender bases?

They must do both: accomodate religious needs where that can be done without undue disruption, AND protect against discrimination on religous or gender grounds.   But obviously, that wasn't your question: you want to know _how_ they can do both, where those requirements apparently conflict.

>   For instance, a public elementary school has a "No hats" policy.  Set
> aside whether the policy flies under Tinker, or under its state's
> "Student Free Expression" statute (Massachusetts - MGL C. 71 s. 82).  It
> is likely not a safety issue, because the school from time to time
> allows students to wear hats, either if they've donated to a particular
> teacher's favorite charity for the privilege, or on designated "Silly
> Hat" days.

Yes, we'll put that aside for now, but keeping in mind that they _do_ make exceptions to the policy for various reasons, which shows that it is not unduly burdensome to make such an accomodation where needed for other reasons.

>   The school makes an exception to accommodate a Moslem girl who for
> religious or cultural reasons wears a headscarf.

Since the school is willing to make other exceptions to the no-hat policy, it is not an undue burden on the school system to allow this too.  Therefore, they are required by law to make this accomodation.

> There are no observant
> Jews in this school.

All that means is, they have never been asked to accomodate a Jewish boy wanting to wear a yarmulke (religious skullcap).  But if they were, the same result should ensue.

>   Suppose a student wishes to wear a cap, because the overhead
> fluorescent lights give him a headache.

That is not a religious reason, and so they are not required to accomodate that request.   OTOH they may have to do so if the student comes in with a doctor's note confirming that he is medically afflicted by direct flourescent light and requesting them to accomodate his DISABILITY.   It would have to rise to that level to impose a legal duty on the school system to accomodate him under the Americans with Disabilities Act, or if the student (thru his parents and lawyer) showed that he needed accomodation as part of an Individualized Educational Plan (IEP) for a student with special needs under the laws requiring equal educational opportunity for special needs students.

>   It seems that if he is being treated differently on account that he's
> a non-Moslem boy rather than an observant Moslem girl.

That's a very superficial reading of the situation that has nothing to do with the reasons for either decision.   He's being treated just like every other normal kid in the school unless he can come up with either a religious or a disability reason why his special needs should be accomodated, if that can be done without undue disruption to the school.

>   In addition (now suggesting Tinker or that statute), does the fact the
> school finds indoor hat-wearing for other than religious reasons to be
> disrespectful make it expressive?  That is, the school holds that a
> student who is wearing a hat for his own reasons is expressing
> disrespect by that act?

IIRC the reason schools started banning hats was that they were being used as gang symbols and could (in some cases actually did) lead to violent incidents between rival gangs (or attacks on innocent victims who cluelessly wore symbols "belonging" to some gang they had nothing to do with).  In that case, the schools can limit free expression of what amount to symbolic "fighting words" just as they can prevent use of inflammatory racial epithets, etc.

--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a private communication.

Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685      (fax) 410-740-4300