North Carolina dispute offers lessons on teaching about religion

By K. Hollyn Hollman

Church-State Intersection
August 28, 2002

Public schools have always provided fertile ground for church-state debates. Indeed, many of the Supreme Court's most famous decisions interpreting the extent of free exercise and the boundaries of no establishment have arisen in that context. While these cases commonly address hot-button issues such as organized prayer or public funding of religious education, this year's back-to-school dispute centers on an equally sensitive topic: how schools treat religion as an object of study in the classroom.

As it does every year, the University of North Carolina (UNC) this summer assigned incoming freshmen a book for discussion during orientation. To initiate them into the university's intellectual life, UNC asked the freshmen to read passages from the book, to write a one-page essay in response to one of four general questions and to discuss the reading in small groups.

The university's choice of Approaching the Qur'an: The Early Revelations by Michael Sell guaranteed that faculty and students would discuss not only the reading, but also the First Amendment. A selection committee chose the book in the wake of September 11th, with the stated purpose of introducing students to the unfamiliar beliefs of more than one billion Muslims around the world.

UNC's actions were challenged in court by the Family Policy Network, a conservative Christian organization dedicated to informing churches and families "on the moral issues of the day." The plaintiffs argued that it is unconstitutional for a publicly funded university to require students to study a specific religion. In several respects, their case appears to lack merit. Worse, it invites confusion about what teachers can and cannot do in educating students about religion.

First, the UNC assignment is not compulsory. While the university described it as a "requirement," roll is not taken, grades are not given and there is no penalty for failure to participate. Reports noted that in past years about 50 percent to 60 percent of incoming students took part. Nonetheless, UNC responded to complaints about this year's assignment by stating that students who objected could write a one-page essay explaining their objections.

Second, UNC does not seem to be promoting Islam. The general constitutional rule, often affirmed by the Supreme Court, is that public schools cannot sponsor or promote religion. Schools cannot do so even if students are allowed to opt out of the activity. Yet the Court has also noted that teaching about religion is an important part of a complete education.

The dispute over whether the university was simply teaching about religion or unconstitutionally promoting religion thus centered on conflicting evaluations of Prof. Sell's book. The plaintiffs charge that it is a biased account of Islam, in that it omits controversial passages from the Qu'ran. Of course, no single text could provide a comprehensive study of Islam, and brief orientation sessions allow faculty to cover only limited material. Perhaps anticipating this problem, UNC recommended no fewer than 19 supplemental books in the assignment.

Third, allegations of hypocrisy are overstated. Critics argue that if the university assigned excerpts from and commentaries on the New Testament, rather than the Qu'ran, a court would strike it down. Although claims involving the promotion or endorsement of Christianity are more common, the legal standards are the same. Schools may teach about the Bible as long as the course is presented objectively as part of a secular program of education.

Schools often avoid teaching about the majority religion unnecessarily for fear of litigation, but there is no reason to believe that the law disfavors Christianity. The divisive and misleading charges in this case underscore the importance of improving understanding of not only diverse religious traditions, but also of the proper place of religion in the classroom.