And I am a member of the Steering Committee of Bloomington United. I'm also the Rabbi of Congregation
B'shalom. And I'm sort of facilitating this meeting tonight. We're set up kind of formally with microphones and
But this is really meant to be a town meeting where we get to talk to one another and dialogue about
issues that are important. I will say that the microphones here are very important. We're being taped.
And so when the time comes for community discussion, I will ask that you find a microphone to speak
from so that you'll get taped as well.
Just a sense of what you can expect this evening. I'll have a few brief words of introduction and then
I'll turn the program over to our panelists who will each make a short presentation.
After their presentations, we'll have, I hope, about 45 minutes for general community discussion. Then,
I'm pleased to say that the Reverend CJ Hocking, who's also standing outside holding a sign telling
everyone where to go, was kind enough to bake cookies for us.
So please stay after the formal program ends. We can talk a little bit. These gatherings of Bloomington
United are often great places to meet people with similar concerns and interests and network a little
bit. So please stay for cookies. We need to be out of the room by about a quarter of nine to help the
library close up. So that's what you can expect this evening.
According to my count, this is the fourth town meeting that Bloomington United has sponsored in recent
years. Bloomington United is a coalition of diverse community members that emerged in the summer of
1998 to respond to some acute hate activity in Bloomington.
Since then, we've tried to respond quickly and responsibly to other acts of hate, and most recently,
Bloomington United led the Every Minute Count effort in response to a very hateful message that people
were bringing into People's Park from outside our community.
That's primarily what Bloomington United is known for, and you might have seen lawn signs sprout up
around Bloomington at critical times. But in between those crises, we try to have meetings such as this
one, gatherings where concerned citizens can talk together about issues of diversity.
So in the past we've had a forum on hate crimes, we've had one on issues of special interest to the
black community in Bloomington, and we also had one on issues concerning the Latino community. And tonight
our topic will help us touch on issues of special relevance to religious minorities.
I'll share with you Bloomington United's mission. Bloomington United is a coalition of community members
whose mission is to promote educational opportunities that affirm the value of all human beings, bridge
the differences between people, and respond to hate activity in our community. There are several sign-in
sheets being distributed now. When they come to you, please give me your name and your email.
There's a possibility that interesting information might emerge from tonight's meeting. And so if I
have your email, I'll try to share it with everybody. Also, Bloomington United does keep a distribution
list so that when there are future activities, if you are on the email list, you'll be sure to find
out about them. Also, I'm happy to say that with the help of the Safe and Civil City program, a new
and improved Bloomington United
United website is now coming soon and so you can soon check on the web for more information about Bloomington
United and also we have some resources about tonight's topic to share so at the end of the meeting we'll
put those out for you as well.
It's Bloomington United, our meeting tonight. We called, this is an hour and a half meeting with a very
long title, Religion, Public Life, and Civic Values, Living with Diversity in a Democracy. Our gathering
was specifically times
to come at a time when so many of our neighbors are preparing for the Christmas holiday at home,
in church, and also in their public spaces, in our public spaces. And actually driving here just tonight
I was hearing on the local news that today students in the Monroe County Schools were working on ornaments
for the downtown Christmas tree. So the topic that we're discussing tonight is
very relevant and very real and something that many of us are concerned about. To what degree is it
appropriate to bring such observances into public spaces and in particular into our public schools?
What is the experience of those who do not celebrate Christmas at this time of year? And how can we
as a community best honor the religious diversity, including those who are not religious at all,
our citizens and our students. These are some of the questions that I've asked our panelists to address
and that we'll be discussing together shortly.
I'd like to thank all those organizations that are co-sponsors of tonight's event, so thanks for your
support and also for your help with publicity. Co-sponsors include the Bloomington Human Rights Commission,
the Bloomington Safe and Civil City Program, the Center for University Ministry, Parents, Family, and
Friends of Lesbians and Gays, that's the Bloomington chapter, the Progressive Faculty Coalition, the
American Association of University Professors,
the Social Justice Coordinating Committee of the Unitarian Universalist Church, and the Bloomington
chapter of the ACLU, the American Civil Liberty Union. Thanks, all of you, for your help. Speaking first
tonight will be Jeff Isaac, who is a professor of political science at Indiana University. After his
comments, Annette Briggs will offer a perspective rooted in her own theological commitment
This is Annette, and she is pastor of University Baptist Church. And then Sarah Franklin will offer
a perspective from the ground, speaking about how issues of church and state are put into practice in
the context of a public school. Sarah Franklin is principal of Bloomington High School North. So I won't
interrupt again until they're all three of them finished talking. Again, thank you all for being here,
and thank you panelists. So Jeff.
My comments will be brief. I would like to start by telling a story about Bloomington United and then
tell a story about something that has to do neither with Bloomington nor being united and then go from
there and just make a couple of points about the topic of what I'll simply call civic values in a democratic society.
Many people in the community are aware of Bloomington United's existence because of the sign campaign
that we organized first in the summer of 1998 in response to the distribution of hate literature in
our community. And we organized these actually very aesthetically powerful signs, white cardboard with
black lettering. And it said on the front of the sign, no hate speech, not in our yards, not in our
town, not anywhere.
Shortly thereafter, the people involved in that effort found themselves, at least some of them, me,
found myself often having interesting conversations with people at Indiana University and elsewhere
about what we mean when we say no hate speech. Are we trying to abolish certain forms of speech? Are
we calling for the banning of certain kinds of speech? And that can't be good.
We have a First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and we believe in freedom of expression in this
democracy of ours. We tried to clarify this. In fact, our second sign eliminated the phrase no hate
speech. But I guess the point I want to make about this very poorly told story is that when we said
no hate speech on our sign, those of us who put the sign together, what we meant to say was not
certain kinds of speech ought to be prohibited by the government, but rather certain kinds of speech
are unacceptable in our community, that we as citizens of the community are articulating a moral voice
that we're standing for certain values, that the promotion of bigotry and hatred in our community is
wrong, not because we regard it as illegal to promote bigotry and hatred, but because we think it is
morally wrong and detrimental to the values of our community. And that while we recognize the right,
the constitutional right of people to say vile things, we stand for something else, the values of pluralism,
civility, and equal respect. And when people say vile things, we will say positive, constructive things,
hopefully in a louder and more constructive and more civil way.
Today I want to talk a little bit about what I'll call the ethics of citizenship. Now the ethics of
citizenship is a topic that's closely linked to questions of constitutional law. And in this conversation
I'm sure we're going to quickly move to certain discussions about what kinds of things are appropriate
or inappropriate in a public school according to interpretations of the First Amendment.
And these are important questions. There are legal questions at stake here that are adjudicated in the
courts and that are discussed by lawyers. It's important for us to be aware of them and as citizens,
it's important for us to engage them. I want to talk about briefly about a different set of questions
which are related but not the same that have to do not with the topic of what the law permits or does
not permit but the topic of what I'll simply call the civic values of a democratic society might
be understood to permit or not permit. I want to talk a little bit about the topic of civility. And
now I'm going to tell my second story. Briefly, I'm reading from a BBC newswire from the 8th of May
of this year, and it's about violence in Gujarat, which is an area in India. It's a state in India.
This is what BBC reported.
Mobs of Hindus and Muslims set upon each other overnight in several areas. The army was called in after
police failed to disperse the crowds which were armed with pistols, iron rods, stones, homemade explosive
devices and acid bombs. The latest clashes brought the number of dead to at least 23 since Sunday. This
was Wednesday, so within three days. Some of the violence was reported to have been in retaliation for
the death on Tuesday of a Muslim teacher who was burnt alive after being dragged off his scooter on
his way to work.
More than 900 people, mainly Muslims, have been killed since late February when Hindu mobs went on the
rampage to a vengeance attack on a train carrying Hindu activists from the disputed holy site at Ayodhya.
I'm almost done. Right-wing Hindu organizations say the violence represented a spontaneous retaliation
for the train attack which left 58 Hindus dead. But human rights groups and foreign observers have alleged
the wholesale complicity of state authorities
in what they say was a systematic campaign targeting the Muslim majority. Rights groups also say that
at least 2,000 have died and many more have been forced to remain in refugee camps in Gujarat unable
to go back to their homes. That is taking place pretty much today in India. And there are many other
parts of the world where similar things are going on. A couple of weeks ago there was a similar kind
of episode in Nigeria that was widely reported.
These kinds of things that are going on in other parts of the world now were going on in Europe in the
16th century as a result of the Reformation and the Counter-Reformation. The 16th century is one of
the bloodiest centuries in the history of Europe and had a profound effect upon European civilization
and also upon our culture, which was forged in part as a result to escape some of the nastiness and
brutality of the religious wars of the 16th century.
So I want to talk a little bit about the idea of religious toleration and the idea of pluralism that
is associated with it and be very brief, turn it over to the other panelists and hopefully we can then
talk further. The idea of religious toleration emerges in response to these types of things in Europe
in the 16th and 17th centuries. And it emerges as what we might call a rational response to religious
persecution and violence.
What emerges is a new idea of religious liberty, the idea that people ought to be free to practice religions
of their choice and they ought not to be encumbered by the state or by practitioners of other religions.
The idea is that the state should remove itself from religious devotion and religious practice as a
way of assuring to individuals a maximum amount of freedom
for them to believe as they believe and to practice the religion of their choice without fear of coercion,
without fear of persecution. The idea of religious liberty initially serves a protective function. The
whole idea of separation of church and state was designed in the first instance to make it possible
for people to practice the religion of their choice without fear.
This involved to some extent the domestication, what we might call the domestication of religious enthusiasm
in two senses, you know, domestication in the sense of taming and domestication also in the sense of
privatizing. What is going on is a new conception of religious practice, but I think what needs to be
understood about this is that its purpose is to make religious freedom possible.
The purpose is not to drive religion from society, but in fact to create spaces of freedom where religious
practice is protected by the state and where the state is not used as an instrument for religious minorities
to persecute, majorities to persecute religious minorities. This is a very important idea, which was
the foundation of the modern constitutional state, which was the foundation of
the American Revolution and the foundation of the U.S. Constitution. The development of this idea of
religious liberty was associated with a new political vocabulary that was largely secularized. It's
not that people were no longer interested in God or no longer talked about God or the Bible, but they
increasingly complemented this language with a new language, a language about universal human rights
and a language about the secular interest that human beings share as people who take an interest in
themselves and who take an interest in their worldly advancement and their property and their families,
a new idea of individual privacy. And the concept of religious liberty is closely associated with a
more robust conception of individual privacy, which assumes increasing prominence in the early modern period.
Associated with this is the idea of what a couple of historians have called the godless constitution.
The idea that the function of a constitution is not to enforce any religious orthodoxy, but to protect
a series of basic rights which allow individuals the freedom to practice whatever religion they choose.
The idea of a godless constitution does not mean a godless society. It means, in fact, that religion
is free to flourish in society as individuals choose to practice religion. A very important idea. Now
this is the next idea that I want to talk briefly about is the really important thing from the vantage
point of this panel. Associated with this new idea of religious liberty and the idea of a godless
constitution is a new language of the common good. The idea that individuals as citizens
all individuals are holders of rights and bearers of responsibilities, that individuals are primarily
responsible for themselves, that all individuals have a primary interest in their own freedom, and because
each of us wishes to live our life in accordance with our own deeply held values and our own personal
plans, we agreed to join together on the basis of mutual respect. The idea here sometimes is called
the social contract.
The social contract assumes that difference between individuals is ineliminable, it cannot be eliminated
and that individual differences are valuable and ought to be respected by the law within certain broad
limits and that within those limits, individual citizens ought to be respectful of one another.
Now, this idea of the social contract, the idea that individuals ought to be respectful of the values
of others even when they do not hold those values is not natural. It is not easy. It does not come easy.
It's very hard. It's the product of a historical learning experience. In order for people to behave
in this way, they have to work very hard at it. One of the motivations for doing this work is the experience
of what happens when,
When this fails, what happens is people get very nasty with each other and people begin to feel very
vulnerable and threatened. The social contract requires us to treat others even when they are very different
from us and even when they subscribe to very different beliefs than our own with a basic respect. And
it also requires us to treat our own deep commitments as good for us and perhaps even as ultimately
good for everyone.
but at the same time as our commitments and not as universal commitments. It requires us to understand
that what we hold most dear is not necessarily what others hold most dear. It also requires us to acknowledge
our own partiality and fallibility. We are not gods and because none of us is god, we must be wary of
condemning others or looking askance at the ways in which they are different or the ways in which they
think differently or the ways in which they behave
differently. An acceptance of difference is very, very central to the ongoing functioning of this kind
of a social contract and it makes very strong demands on people. It requires a great deal of self-restraint
and moral self-discipline. It's very easy to imagine that what you think or what you believe or what
you worship is clearly what everyone else ought to think or believe or worship and that if they don't
believe it, there's something wrong with them and they need to be somehow brought into line. It's very easy.
to believe that. It's also very damaging to the kind of society that we have. Now, this idea that there
needs to be a respect for others who think differently, who behave differently, and who are different
is true in general. And it's especially true with regard to religion, which is perhaps the most deeply
held and ultimate commitment for most of us.
Because of the depth with which it is held and because of the extent to which it's linked to certain
ideas of transcendent authority, it's particularly difficult to live religiously and to practice religiously
in an authentic way that also allows one to be accepting of others who are different. But it's indispensable.
Now, this kind of awareness that I'm talking about, this ethic of respect, this ethic of civility is
not inconsistent with public displays or expressions of religious values or symbols, nor is it inconsistent
with a desire to act politically to advance religiously-based moral values. In fact, most of the progress
that's been achieved in our country in the past 200 years has been motivated in large part, not exclusively,
but in large part by people who were grounded in religious traditions.
It's not inconsistent with what I'm talking about, to act on the basis of one's deepest moral values,
even when these are religiously based, but it is inconsistent with the effort to institutionalize any
particular religious creed or to justify values or policies simply on the basis of the religious foundation
or mandate. It is perfectly appropriate for individuals to support and even to justify political positions
because of their beliefs about what the Bible or another religious text
for sensibility requires. But it is not appropriate for citizens in a democratic society to press political
positions solely on the basis of the religious sanction for this presumes what is not the case and what
the democratic value of civic pluralism refuses to presume. What it presumes is that other citizens
share or must share the same religious values as we subscribe to and that those who believe other than
what we believe
by this very fact prove themselves not worthy of dignity, respect or political recognition. If we're
going to have civic pluralism, we cannot presume that others share or must share our values and that
if they don't, there's something wrong with them. I just want to say a couple of other things. I have
some more planned but I think I'm just going to can it. The key point here is that it has to do with
what we presume
and the way in which what we presume affects the way we treat others in the public sphere and how we
talk with others and how we talk to others and how we talk about others. The point is not that drawing
upon a religious tradition or religious text is suspicious, but the point is that only making reference
to what we think is our truth is really a sign of civic disrespect. It's not illegal.
Nor do I want to say like it's the most immoral thing that you could do. On the scheme of things,
you know, given what's going on in other parts of the world, the kinds of letters that we read in the
HT every day which say like the school corporation ought to do this because it says this in Jeremiah
4 or we ought to have this public policy because Thessalonians says why, okay? I'm not saying that these
are like profoundly immoral statements.
And they're certainly not illegal or unconstitutional statements, but they're contrary to the ethos
of civic pluralism, which is central to a democratic society. Not because they articulate sincere and
deeply held religious convictions, because they do so in a way that is necessarily alienating to and
offensive to, and in fact fails to resonate with other people who think differently. It makes a presumption.
It makes the presumption that that text speaks the same way to everybody and that's everybody's text
and pointing to that text is a sufficient basis for us to live together and for us to govern ourselves
together. That presumption is I think what we need to be wary of and what we need to be constantly thinking
about, talking about and I think working against. The public schools are I think one very important
domain in a democratic society for doing this kind of civic education.
constantly alerting us to the danger of that presumption. Thank you. I have been hanging out with African
people for the last few months and what I've learned is that you don't begin your talk until you have
greeted everyone in the room and described your appreciation for them. I will limit that to say that
Rabbi Mira is my neighbor, my colleague and my good friend.
Dr. Franklin has been a big help to me as I have worked with some of these Africans in the last few
months and I read Dr. Isaac in the newspaper and before I went back to Weight Watchers, I used to see
him every day at Howie's Bagels. But I want all of them to know I'm honored to share this time and this
topic with them.
In particular, I'm interested in the question, how can we as a community best honor the religious diversity
of our citizens and students, and in particular, in a public school forum? I want to speak to this question
in three ways, as a Christian, as a Baptist, and as a citizen. Christianity is my fundamental worldview.
An ongoing interplay between God and humanity is my basic assumption in all things.
In this interplay, God is always courting human beings, and it is a seduction, of course, of sorts.
God loves humans, and God wants to be loved by humans. Humans do not initiate in this interplay. Humans
only respond. Humans choose to accept God's love. They choose to love God back or not.
And as I watch and listen and read the ministry of Jesus, what is apparent to me is that every person
chooses freely without coercion. In Christian theology, this is called the priesthood of the believer.
The priesthood of the believer means that every human possesses as part of his DNA or her DNA the God-given
right to respond to God freely out of his or her own sense of God's call upon his or her life,
her conscience, and her will.
That means that every human being is in a constant experience of considering how we are going to respond
to God. And my basic Christian worldview is that we have the God-given right to make these choices without
the coercion of others, particularly those in authority over us, be they kings, presidents, priests,
preachers, or second grade teachers. I am also a Baptist.
I may be the first Baptist to ever speak at a program sponsored by the list that Mayor read. In those
1600s that Jeff described, my Baptist ancestors, men and women, were among those jailed, executed, and
chased out of some of the nicest cities in Europe for refusing to participate in or conform
to state-sponsored religion. Baptists were among those, he described, that changed Western culture,
into what he described. Those Baptists also got into trouble with religious folks because they refused
to sign their creeds, believing that Jesus was the only standard by which they could be judged as faithful.
They were a stubborn bunch and many of them were burned at the stake being stubborn. And while my fundamental
citizenship is in the kingdom of heaven, I am also an American citizen.
And one of the tasks that American citizens have assumed for ourselves is public education. As a people,
we have determined that every child shall have free access to the best education our property taxes
and our bake sales can buy. And so it is within that publicly funded classroom that my Christian faith,
my Baptist identity, and my civic responsibility coalesce. In the realm of civility, children are the
least equipped to protect their own freedoms.
and in their public school classroom they should not have to. Unfortunately that is not the case and
that is particularly not the case at Christmas time. Right now kindergartners are learning to spell
reindeer. Third graders are shopping for the voluntary three dollar secret Santa gift exchange. Fifth
graders are building gingerbread houses and high schoolers are learning the four part harmony of God
rest ye merry gentlemen.
I am unconvinced by the suggestion that these are unreligious activities. They are rooted in the stories
and the traditions that surround the birth of Jesus. And if my children, who are Baptist preacher's
kids who cut their teeth on our wooden activity set, cannot separate these as religious and non-religious,
how is a Hindu or a Jewish child going to separate them? Does an eight-year-old realize that her teacher
is no longer teaching
when she explains that the holiday gift exchange is voluntary? I don't think so. Is that same eight-year-old
going to realize that suddenly she is not being evaluated for class participation when she chooses not
to participate in the gift exchange? However well intentioned the teachers are, and I know they are,
I think a backhanded sort of coercion is at work when public school students experience even the slightest
pressure to participate in religious activity they have not chosen.
The Christian and the Baptist in me believe that their God-given right to come freely to faith or not
has been violated. The citizen in me believes we have failed in our promise made toward fellow citizens
called public school children. Which brings up the brass tacks or where the rubber hits the road. We
Baptists like to talk of the extreme separation of church and state.
You'll know the difference between the extreme separation Baptist and the not extreme by whether or
not they have an American flag in their sanctuary. In this case, that would mean that preachers preach
and teachers teach. The study of religion as a component of culture has its rightful place in a public
school classroom. Connie Austin is a Tri-North teacher who does a beautiful curriculum every October
and does a field trip with that. That is appropriate, I do believe.
Parochial schools abound. Bloomington has good ones for parents who want their children to be involved
in Bible-based curriculum. But in public school, surely there are enough ways to study math without
counting Christmas trees and candy canes. And I suspect there are other songs to sing. It can be done.
I have seen it done. And every single time it's done, it is the children and all of the children who
are winners. Thank you.
I appreciate the opportunity to talk to you this evening about Bloomington High School North and what's
happening in the other schools. I think we fundamentally believe that schools are a safe place for students
to learn and we work very hard to make sure that that environment is maintained regardless of the beliefs
that come through our door. We talk about civic responsibility.
and that's something that we look to our teachers to provide and to guide and something that we address
on a daily basis. But we also have to look to a balance in all the things that we talk about. We bring
a wealth of information from our students. Information then can help students grow and learn and share
and expand their horizons
and be supported in those discussions. We keep emphasizing that we want a safe, civil, and positive
learning environment. And in those discussions, when students bring their passion about a variety of
issues, it's up to the teachers to be able to work with those issues, talk with the students, educate
at all times,
to help students appreciate the many different factors that are brought into the classroom and to teach
respect. Not just tolerance, but teach ways of collaborating with others in the school, classroom, and
in the community to grow as civic and civically minded and responsible individuals. With 1,400 students,
I am fortunate enough to have lots of teachable moments.
And at Bloomington North, we've had our share of situations where we will question and talk about different
issues that are presented to us. But the bottom line, and as the other panelists have pointed out this
evening, is that we respect each other and each other's right to feel and believe the way they choose.
And when it comes to school,
Coming into the building means that we have an opportunity to discuss those issues in positive ways.
We can't control what's happening out in the world. We can't control all the things that are said in
the community, the protests, the arguments. What we can control is what happens in our building. And
we continually emphasize to stop, talk to each other, listen to each other,
and grow with the information. This isn't a place to judge, it's not a place to criticize, but it is
a place to learn, it is a place to grow, and it is a place to question when there is confusion
or misunderstanding, regardless of religion, race, any issue that comes into the school. We go through,
with students they have deeply held
passions, not so much values, but passions. And to funnel that into positive energy and positive ways
of approaching things, it takes a lot of support from teachers. And we've tried to find ways of channeling
those passions, whether it's working together to build a house, whether it's working together to develop
a program that's inclusive of all individuals in the building, whether it's a student forum
where we talk about how to make the school a better place. We channel those energies because fundamentally,
we're not looking at differences and ways of excluding people. We're looking at ways of including people
and making sure that within the building, everyone feels welcome and safe. We've had lots of experiences
at North where things have crossed the line.
And we've always wanted to have lots of discussions about those various issues. But we emphasize repeatedly
in a civic, in a school where we emphasize civility, concern, and care for others, communication is
the most important factor. And regardless of the disagreements, bringing those disagreements to the
table and talking through those issues is the best way for all of us to grow in this community.
to thank all three of you for being here, for bringing your expertise here, and for staying here now.
What's going to happen now is a community discussion. And so if you have something to say, please come
up, find a microphone. You might want to share a comment, a question for one of our panelists, or a
question for the gathering at large. Is that all right? Jenny, please.
Hi, my name's Jennifer Bass, and I'm a concerned citizen and a parent, and I appreciate... They're just
for the... They're for the videotape and not for us, so if you're having trouble hearing, just let everybody
know. Okay, I can speak loudly. I appreciate everything that you all have said tonight, and my experience
has mostly been in the school in this past
semester actually, I feel like in the school system I've just become very aware of the majority rule
mentality of the leadership in my children's school. And I've never been quite so aware of it before.
Maybe it's never been so dominated by white Christian children as it is itself, high school.
And I think that the smaller the minority, the easier it is for the teachers to not really understand
that there are other children. I don't think anyone does anything deliberately. But there have been
three or four actual situations that I can report this last year. And we've made lots of waves.
You know, it's hard when you're a few parents making a lot of waves. But my question is for you, how
do we get the leadership in the schools
to help the teachers understand what this is all about because the teachers are coming from our own
community. They've been educated the same way in a very homogeneous situation and I don't blame anyone.
No one does anything deliberately to hurt any other children but I've seen it several times this year
and I'm just wondering what can we do to have the leadership do some diversity training with our teachers?
I think the kinds of things we need to look at and as I said I'm an educator first and that's whether
it's working with teachers or students and I think it's very important that we address these issues
very directly. As a teacher
We need to remind the faculty that we have, we're celebrating, we finished celebrating Ramadan, Hanukkah,
we have Kwanzaa and it's a matter of educating all, everyone involved in the school that all these different
things are going on. When the choir teacher talks about I'm going to sing Christmas carols, well that's
fine but what else are you going to add to the program to make sure that it's a balanced,
and that all students and cultures are represented in the presentation. But we need to do it in such
a way that it is not, we don't immediately get resistance. I don't want to stand up in front of a faculty
and say, we're going to have diversity training now because the wall goes up and it makes it very difficult
to really get to the place that we need to be.
as a faculty and as a school community. So it's a matter of education on a daily basis from little things
to students working with faculty members, students making presentations at faculty meetings and really
bringing it home to understand what does it feel like for a student to go to school when X is happening.
And that cuts even across,
Veterans Day celebrations, you know, having maybe 30 different countries represented, how do those students
feel as we're doing an incredibly patriotic presentation? How do we make sure that things are inclusive
and not exclusive? And it's a matter of ongoing education, not just for the students, but for everybody
involved in the school community.
One of the things, and I guess this is sort of where we would part company, because part of what I would
suggest is rather than try to do every single religious piece, do none of it. My husband is a IU professor.
I don't know if you get this list, but he gets the list at the beginning of the school year of all the
religious holidays. And he said, the first day of school should say no class for anyone if I'm going
to honor every single religious holiday. So he gives everybody one free Friday for a quiz, and he says,
You know, the Jewish kids can take the Christian holiday if that's better for you, but, you know, this
is how we have to handle it. It's stressful for me when we compare. I get frustrated because when we
say, well, Christians have Christmas and Jewish people have Hanukkah, well, those are not comparable
religious experiences for those two groups of students. And so I don't see how the Jewish kids don't
feel slighted still.
on that. Easter is our greatest or our highest holy day, but it's not the best retail holiday. So we
don't get two weeks then. And they don't put Easter on the front of the Lays potato chip bag because
nobody buys potato chips for Easter. We only buy those for Christmas. But the point being, the simpler
solution for me, but I'm not a principal, is eliminate all of it like they do.
at some schools, our preschool, for example, eliminates all of it. It works beautifully. Now, where
it's child-generated curriculum, when you talk about students' passions, that becomes another forum,
I think, and another discussion when children are bringing to the classroom, you know, their stories.
But that would be the piece of that I would want included into that question. If I could just speak
briefly to it, I feel kind of like somewhere between the two of you on the question of
to what extent should diversity be represented in school activities and to what extent should it be,
should certain kinds of differences be eliminated in the name of just a commonality? You know, should
there be exemptions for every kind of possible experience or not? You know, I would just say two things
about that. The first is that we need to distinguish between kind of common curricular issues and the
way that teachers make exemptions for students
I make all kinds of exemptions for students if they're sick, if their grandmother dies, whatever. And
it seems to me it's possible for any individual teacher to be maximally flexible and sensitive to a
whole range of student concerns, including religion and lots of other things, and at the same time,
you know, adhere to some sense of a common curriculum and certain common expectations. You know, the
other thing that I want to say is that in addition
to asking the question how does diversity get represented in the school, which is a very important question.
When do we represent it and are we representing diversity in a truly diverse way? When is it best not
to represent it? You know, is it appropriate to represent it by simply having a kind of additive approach?
Well, if you do this, then you have to do this, this, this, this, this. You know, the other question
is what content and seriousness we give to the idea of a common culture.
So that the question is not simply how we represent what distinguishes us from one another, but how
we understand and construct what we have in common. You know, what does it mean to be an American citizen
or to be a citizen? You know, what are the freedoms that we enjoy? How did we get them? How do different
diverse people from a whole variety of experiences struggle with each other, against each other, to
create a set of freedoms that we all enjoy and can appreciate? That's not a question of how we represent
diversity.
but a question of how we understand our commonality as citizens. And it seems to me that it's equally
important to do that as it is to worry about the diversity question. The diversity question in my experience
in the public schools generally comes up when you have this boundary crossing problem, like something
that seems to cross the line of separation of church and state or something that seems to offend someone
is done. And then the question is how do we manage that most effectively? It seems to me that like the
nature of life,
is that there's constant crossing of boundaries, transgressions, offenses, and what we need to do is
have a robust idea of civic education that teaches us how to deal with all of these things so that what
it means to be a citizen is not simply kind of like waving to a flag or saying yes or no to whatever
the president says, you know, but that has a richer meaning.
If I may broaden the discussion beyond public schools because we have voucher programs that are increasingly
found to meet constitutional challenges and
we have lots of institutions that are not exactly state, but they're directly or indirectly state-funded
and nonetheless faith-based. These institutions are likely to be growing. The question is, in between
the desire to communicate diversity and teach and train people in habitual use of mutual respect and
so forth, there is the countervailing desire to have homogeneity, to protect a certain focus on a set
of values, and so you have
You have in New York City Yeshiva University, and you have Fordham University, and you have schools,
and you have Catholic schools, and so on. And these particular institutions, of course, have something
else in mind and can be seen in the mosaic of similar institutions to, in fact, represent a certain
form of diversity. But I just want to submit that it is not easy to separate state from other social
functions. The idea of simple-minded separation of church and state doesn't define
any major social function that is exercised in society with or without direct government funding has
certain elements of shaping our collective social life and that gives it a role that is akin to a public
policy, a public face, a public utterance, a public statement. So what I like particularly Jeff and
Annette to address is the question, do you accept a vision of diversity
that consists of mosaic stones that are quite homogeneous in their own training and their experience.
Does that somehow add up to a tapestry that you find agreeable? Or what would you do to prevent the
emergence of such an alternative model? Because the public school model is a monolithic model by its
conception. And rightly so, perhaps. And I'm certainly not trying to make a point one way or the other,
but just to raise this. Thank you so much.
Your question is very profound and I agree with the sentiment behind your question and I offer an overly
simplified account of the origins of the idea of religious liberty. We don't live in the 17th century
anymore and in all kinds of ways in the 21st century we have interfaces between state and society for
good and ill that
enormously complicate the model of individual liberty, religious liberty, and otherwise that emerged
in the early modern period. I believe, first of all, that
I believe in associational freedom, but I think your question cuts deeper than, it's easy to say, well,
these things, people are free to create Fordham University or Yeshiva University or Yeshivas or,
you know, religious institutions. The question is how they function in a democratic society. Certainly
they ought to be tolerated and people ought to be free to form them. I think the real hard and interesting
question has to do with the extent to which they're publicly subsidized as they are.
And I personally am not against the public subsidization of a whole range of civil society institutions,
including faith-based institutions, okay? And in fact, I've done some work on the area of faith-based
initiatives. I mean, you ask a complicated question, I don't want to kind of go too deeply into it.
The really interesting discussions about faith-based initiatives, for example, that raise the general
question, when is it appropriate for government to subsidize in some way or another
a faith-based community kitchen or a faith-based employment center or a rehabilitation center for drug
addicts, et cetera. I mean, there are certain criteria that are taken seriously in the law.
And that are also, by the way, even taken seriously in the charitable choice provisions of
federal legislation that have to do with to what extent these institutions adhere to federal
nondiscrimination law. Do they require the recipients of the service that's being subsidized to,
you know, to be a member of the religious institution that's providing the service? It seems to me that
it is important to recognize that a whole range of institutions serve positive functions in a democracy.
We need to have spaces of homogeneity.
And they need to be not only valued but sometimes supported. But they only should be supported when
they're consistent with certain basic democratic values. When they're not, I believe, people should
be free. If you want to have, you know, if you want to have a social service agency, for example, that
discriminates against, let's just say the Boy Scouts may be a good example, you know, that discriminates
against gay people,
Okay, on freedom of association grounds within certain parameters, you may be free to do that, but such
institutions, in my opinion, are not to be subsidized by a democratic state, which is in the business
of maintaining certain basic principles of equality and mutual respect, in my opinion. So it seems to
me there need to be certain lines that are drawn in certain parameters. There are certain basic values
that need to govern how we think about these things.
Tony Campolo is a fairly well-known, in Baptist circles, Baptist preacher and a teacher at Eastern Baptist
College, and he told a group of Baptist pastors in North Carolina last spring that we should be very
wary of faith-based initiatives because it's like mixing manure and ice cream. It won't hurt the manure
that much, but it'll ruin, ruin the ice cream. His point being, of course, that that is probably a one-sided
approach. Government is the winner because we, as the church, assume some of their liability and debt.
Now, as a Christian who believes I ought to be serving the poor, serving the needy, it's a debt I ought
to be carrying anyway, so I shouldn't need that initiative. I am very, very leery, probably more leery
of faith-based initiatives just because I know where that can go and the abuse
possible on the part of the church from the abuse of other people. I said something in my presentation
that I'm now reconsidering and that a case in point that I think you're referring to. I believe that
public school is our country's best opportunity to be the kind of society that we want to be. A public
school classroom is the labyrinth of American culture that we all imagine could be.
But one of the things that's happening in families like my family, conservative Christian families,
is that they are taking their children out of public school and either putting them in parochial school
or homeschooling them. They have academic reasons for doing that and social reasons for doing that.
Taken to its logical extreme, that ends up with what I think you're describing, a society where everybody
is free as long as they hang out with people who believe exactly what they believe.
Well, you know who ends up left there. It's the kids who are not being sort of cared for and raised
by people who have any interest in how they grow up. And public school is those kids' best hope, I think.
And so I think that, I don't know if I'm getting at what you're saying, I think that
I think that parochial schools and those kinds of things are everybody's free choice. But I think that
carried to their logical extreme, they create a society that nobody really probably wants. And that
is where we all retreat and live in our own little sort of hovel. If it's a social hovel or a political
hovel or an ethnic hovel, I don't know what kind of hovel it is. But we don't have to interact anymore.
When I grew up in Bedford, 30 miles from here, I knew no Jewish people, and I knew one family of African
Americans, and they had three boys, all brothers, and we all thought that we were the most racially
open and diverse community we'd ever been in. That turned out actually not to be true. And, you know,
my children are growing up in a much different arrangement, and have the opportunities
four and five and six years old that I didn't have until I was out of seminary until I was 25 and 26
years old because of where they go to school and where they live. So I don't know if that touches that
or not at all. I go to South.
And before that, I went to Jackson Creek Middle School. And in all honesty, I really need to say that,
I mean, not to demean your very intense efforts on combating these problems, but I don't think they're
that big a problem in elementary schools. Some people make them out to be, or in middle school, and
especially not in high school. First of all, no matter what you do to improve the diversity in school,
kids are always going to encounter these obstacles in life because you go out in the world outside of
school and you see the department stores with the Christmas sales and you see all the houses around
you lit up with the Christmas lights. I'm not exactly sure why Jews don't maybe think about putting
up blue and white lights for Hanukkah, but they don't. Anyway, you see Christianity all around you and
when you're a non-Christian, you can't escape from it.
America was founded as a Christian nation, and that's the way the founding fathers intended it to be.
And although it's a nation of a lot of diversity, Christianity is such an integral part of our culture
that there's really no getting around it. And instead of an effort to really improve religious and cultural
diversity in school by the kind of additive approach that you've discussed, the best way to do it is
to honestly incorporate intense cultural
education into the history curriculums. And instead of teaching about the Islamic faith, for example,
as a faith, instead the Arab culture should be presented to students. And especially in this day and
age where Arabs are getting a bad rap big time.
by the media. It's important for students to see the Arab empires of the past and see the glory that
they once had and that in many ways many of them still have. And the truth is that the majority of Arab
countries are not terrorist countries. And the majority of Arabs and Islamists are not terrorists at
all. And honestly, I don't know anybody that celebrates Kwanzaa. And I know many blacks and they're
all Christians.
There are people out there I think instead of simply putting up Kwanzaa decorations everywhere, maybe
the history classes should make an effort to show us what Kwanzaa is because I'm not sure anybody knows
what it is. I think that's important because I'm curious. I'd like to know. No, I see they have this
thing that looks like a menorah that I see sometimes somehow connected to Kwanzaa. I'd like to know
more about this. In any case, in conclusion, all I want to say is that it's important to kind of,
incorporate religious diversity into schools but the planet is not going to explode if it isn't and
I am 16 years old and I grew up without any Jewish influence in school and I didn't die I didn't kill
myself I'm Jewish and I'm proud of it and I know I'm Jewish I don't care about anybody else and what
they want me to be I mean school didn't have any effect on me there and I mean it didn't have any effect
on most of these people I mean all of you I'm sure grew up in an environment
where Christianity was the norm, especially in school, and if you weren't Christian, okay, you felt
alienated sometimes, all right, then you grow up, you know who you are, and you're secure in that, and
it's important to be secure in what you are. I mean, that's all I really have to say. Also, to address
the question of gays in the Boy Scouts, I'd like to point out that straight men have a much bigger chance
of molesting kids than gays do. Anyway, thank you.
I need to do my job as a Christian pastor. That's a good word for me. Dan, please, yeah. I really want
to address this to Dr. Isaacs. You're a bit about respect and allowing one another to be what we are without
without being violent to one another. I'm sure you read recently, probably sick of having read all the
commentary about the recent report of the decline in the Jewish population of the country and the world.
And many religions, well especially Christianity and Islam at least, are very much interested in converting
the world to their perspective. So one part of
the nature of religion, of deeply held values, is the spread of this. And even as Jews, we're concerned
not so much with spreading, but at least with not shrinking any. How do you incorporate this idea of
letting people be what they want to be, and yet including the fact that one of the things that they
want to be is evangelists? That's a hard thing for me to come to terms with. I don't know what to...
I don't know what to say about that. I'd like to hear your perspective on that. Well, Dan knows me as
Jeff. I'll respond as Jeff, not Dr. Isaac, OK? I am Jewish. Dan knows that. That guy was my son. I'm
concerned about all kinds of evangelism. I guess as a Jew, I'm concerned about evangelism. But I'm mainly
concerned about just the evangelical impulse in many aspects of life.
And I don't know that I personally am more revolted by certain ways in which Christians seek to evangelize
Jews than I am by the ways in which certain kinds of political ideologues of the left or the right might
seek to evangelize on behalf of their points of view. It is a fundamental paradox of, let's just say,
the modern conception of freedom that our society is constructed on the basis of that
On the one hand, we talk about these values of pluralism and respect, equal liberty, whatever. On the
other hand, the freedom that people enjoy also gives them the freedom to evangelize. And the evangelical
impulse is not inherently, it's not understood by its practitioners as oppressive at all. In fact, it's
liberating. There's a term that the theologian Stanley Hauerwas, he called killing with compassion.
You know, the evangelical impulse is like, please let me save you. You know, please, let me save you.
You know, I love you, let me save you, please, you know. But I don't have a solution to that problem.
It seems to me that there we have a tension between certain understandings of religious practice, which
are very important in the culture, and then other kinds of civic values, which, quite honestly, have
some importance in the culture, but probably aren't as important as I wish they would be, and Bloomington
United wishes they would be, and some other people in this room wish they would be. And what we need
to do is to promote
those values, but it doesn't seem to me there's any kind of shield that we can invoke to protect ourselves
from the evangelical impulse. And it is true on some level that the freedom that particularly Christians
in this country have, certain kinds of Christians, to imagine that people who don't share their religion
are damned, and that only if they save us, you know, through various means, including coercive ones,
can we not be damned. That impulse is like
on like a deep level, a deep cultural level at odds with certain aspects of democratic citizenship.
On the other hand, the desire to extirpate that or ban that or abolish that or prohibit that is also
profoundly inconsistent with the values of a democratic society. And so what we live with is a world,
you know, again, I'm going to quote Adam Kent Isaac, a world that,
You know, that presents us with all kinds of insecurity and vulnerability. There's no quick fix. There's
nothing that we can draw upon to kind of guarantee us that we can be who we want to be or protect ourselves
from others. We need to learn how to interact better with others. We need to develop thick skins and
at the same time develop a spirit of generosity that I think, you know, is in short supply. Wasn't that
flowery? I'm not sure I said anything in response to your question. Yeah.
as confused about it as I am. Oh, yeah. I had to make a profession of it. I want to invite people to
respond to the comments that were from the floor, as well as to the panelists. I mean, I'm still thinking
about the various points that Adam made. And we'll talk about the blue and white lights later. But I'm
thinking now, I didn't know that it was Father and Son until he spoke. And then I knew. I was like,
of course they're related.
Not at all. Not at all. But he and I were going to have a talk. It was wonderful. Aren't you supposed
to be watching your sister now? A couple of reflections on the concept of evangelicalism
I might be accused by some of you of being a practitioner myself. But I think if we look back to Abraham
and Moses, you could say that Moses was in front of Pharaoh, that he was being evangelical in his practice.
And there is a very dynamic, creative process in the major divine religions, which are coming in and
grabbing hold of the existing thought process, the existing order.
and putting some heavy muscle to it. Now the issue is whether we're going to kill ourselves or do we
say everybody puts the cards on the table and each person has a right to pick up which cards to pick
up. As an evangelical, I would like at least one of the statements to be on the table is that there
are lots of kinds of evangelicals.
And there are those, like myself, I hope, who attempt to practice that piece of our faith. And evangelism
is a core piece of Christian life for me. But it is possible to do that with respect, without violating
the integrity of another person. And in the context of what I described as the priesthood of the believer,
and it becomes my privilege to share faith back and forth,
together, you share, I share, but both of us walk away from that free and with our integrity intact.
And so, you know, I don't want to take responsibility for people who don't do that, but I also don't
want to deny that, you know, that I, too, am an evangelical of that. If I could just, I honor what you're
saying, and also Dan's comment, Dan's comment, Dan just spoke, is also a
Dan Ensloh, not Dan Price, also another profound Dan, is a very important comment. I mean, religion,
even in its evangelical forms, is a very powerful thing. And, you know, it has power to do great good
as well as not, you know? And I do think that we need to learn and think more deeply about practices
of respect and acceptance of difference, but I also think we need to learn about how to have a thicker
skin, you know?
And I'm not afraid of you. I mean, you know, I mean, in other words, I, you know, you, you know, be
evangelical. That's okay. I can deal with that. You know, I could also deal with, you know,
passion in, in, in, in public life is a very important thing. It's also the source of a lot of justice
movements, you know, and sometimes it becomes like overwhelming, but you know, any love can be overwhelming.
Anything good can be overwhelming. We have to learn how to kind of manage it, but I don't think we should
try to, to eliminate it. So there, all these,
very powerful forces in our society need to somehow be brought into some synergy which isn't destructive.
Your way of being evangelical seems to me perfectly hospitable with the pluralism of a democratic society.
There are other ways of being evangelical which are, you know, which are not as hospitable and they're
also part of our world. We need to figure out ways of dealing with them. That's one of the reasons we
have events like this.
This recently happened to me and I'd love some responses. A parent that I know was telling me about
their glee in visiting a classroom in December where unlike all of the other elementary school classrooms
down the hallway, the theme of the decor in the classroom was under the sea.
So there were seaweed sort of pasted everywhere and octopi hanging from the ceiling and little starfishes
glimmering here and there. It was really impressive, they thought. But what made it truly impressive
was that as you walked down the hallway, all of the other classrooms were red and green and had
all kinds of seasonal things going on. And I told this to a few people, and I said, isn't that exciting
that that can happen, that there are teachers who are doing that? And they said, Jewish people said
to me, doesn't that seem kind of wrong? Isn't it wrong not to acknowledge the season at all in any way?
And it made me think, and Adam's comment makes me pause also,
Is this too much to do about maybe not such a big deal? But I'd love to hear from other people on this
question. My foundation was completely based upon hatred of the sea. Right. They were discriminating
against me. They're trying to offend me with this ocean paraphernalia. And I'm not terribly hurt by
this. What am I going to do? Does anyone else want to share some responses?
Tomorrow is the annual Christmas dinner where I work. You pay $8.50 and they hire a caterer and it's
a wonderful affair. I personally won't be participating, but not because it's Christmas, mostly because
the meal itself is a unique combination of sugar and traife, but I'm not at all offended by that. I
work in a building of, there's a couple hundred people that work there, and there are
There are no other Jews that work in the building. In fact, at all of Crane, I know of one other now.
There were two until Susan moved away. But I don't feel the least bit put upon by that. Now, in part,
it's because, as you said, we live in a society in which respect is pretty much the order of the day.
If I were forced to work in a smaller cubicle than everybody else or something, that would probably
be a different matter.
I don't, like Adam, I don't find that to be problematic for me. Now, I understand that for a little
kid, that's a different matter. And I'm not sure what to make of that exactly, except to say it's really
up to the parents. I'd like to congratulate you for your parenting skills, by the way. You seem to have
done a fine job. But I have a thick enough skin, in fact, not only
not only does it not offend me, I almost feel kind of special being one of the people who stands out,
not like everybody else there that attends this Baptist church or that Presbyterian church, and I don't
attend any of that. I think that's a very different situation. And it doesn't make me feel isolated
at all. It doesn't bother me. Nor does putting up Christmas decorations or anything like that.
I don't like the idea, in fact, of including every holiday in order to be able to include Christmas.
That's partly because I don't want Jewish holidays to get scooped up along with Christmas and ruined
the way Christmas has been by the commercial interest. But it's also because I don't think that you
have to tell the children you can't celebrate Christmas without acknowledging that
somebody celebrates Ramadan or Pesach or whatever, Christians have their holidays and they're welcome
to celebrate them. And since most of the people around here are Christians, that's going to show up.
When high holy days come along, we have to take our kids out of school and get their assignments for
the day and so on. And that's a problem and we live with it and they learn that
grow up that way and that they're a little different than everybody else. And I don't think that's a
problem. As Adam said, that's a life lesson that they need to learn anyway. So I'm going to say go ahead
and celebrate Christmas and put up snow bells or whatever in the classroom and maybe even have Santa
Claus come visit. And that's OK. It doesn't really bother me.
well taken, if we look at it from a cultural perspective, then you can bring in lots of different things
to the discussion. And when I was talking about recognizing other religions, when students are asked
to be excused as allowed by state attendance laws, then there shouldn't be a criticism attached to that.
Why are you getting out of school? Students shouldn't have to defend those family decisions. So again,
when I take a
a moment to educate and say, this holiday is happening as they do at IU. There's a website at IU that
lists all the holidays. What does it mean? How will students be affected by that? Those are the same
kinds of teaching things that we do in the schools. This holiday is coming up. Students may be asked
to be excused. This is the reason why. And it's not a point of criticism or exclusion. It's a point
of family choice and celebration in a particular way.
Another comment? I think one of the problems with these kinds of discussions is that so often they're
centered around how people feel. You know, the reason why we should have religious pluralism is because
some people feel offended if we don't. And I don't think that from the state's point of view that that
makes any sense. You know, the state is not in the business of not offending people. The state is in
the business of making sure that we have a society that functions.
So I think and especially with the anecdotes and things like that, well, I don't feel offended by it
so it should be okay or whatever. Some other kids might feel offended by it so we shouldn't do that.
From a civil society standpoint, I don't think that's a very valuable or viable argument. I think it
has to come down to what are the state's interests? And the state's interest is not to promote one religion
over another. So if the reason why somebody wants something to happen is because it's based on some
religious text,
It's not in the state's interest to support that. If it's based on something having to do that will
support the society overall, if it's based on a value that the state can use as a foundation, then that's
the reason why we should do it. You know, whether you're in the school or whether you're in the workplace
or whatever, that all comes from the state. It all comes from law. You know, employers are not going
to start having, you know,
you know, diverse events just because they feel like it. It's generally because of cultural trends that
have happened, part of which has been the legal side of it. So, I think, I guess bottom line is to just
try to clarify in these discussions when you're talking about things that have to do with the state,
get away from the personal and the sort of feeling side of it, that part of the discussion is valuable
but in terms of,
making decisions for the state, I don't see that as a viable argument. Whenever someone says the state,
I feel I must comment. It's my profession. I think I agree with you particularly in so far as you're
wary of having public discussions or making public policy on the basis
basis of sentiments or the articulation of sensitivities or grievances or something along those lines.
On the other hand, I don't know what the interests of the state are and it depends in part on what kind
of state we're talking about and how we define the state and part of how we define the state depends
on how we act to create or to sustain a kind of state. It seems to me a democratic state is based on
the idea that there are certain fundamental rights
And if we push the question, where do those rights come from, we're going to start talking about how
it is that people feel a sense of indignity or indignation, which derives from a sense of being offended.
So it seems to me the question of offense should never be the center of discussion. And it's quite boring,
you know, for people to just have these rap sessions where they talk about how badly their feelings
are heard and couldn't we
organize things in a way that no one's feelings will hurt. I completely agree with you, but I also think
we need to be clear about what a democratic state is. And a democratic state is a state in which citizens
are recognized as having a certain integrity and a certain dignity. And I don't think we can completely
separate that from the question of offense, you know. This is sort of in line with what you just said.
I just wanted to say we all have a right to speak out.
And it is so important if someone makes an offensive remark or gives a faulty comment, it is so important
that we call them on it. You can do it politely, but nevertheless, you do not get a fallacious statement.
You don't let it go out to other people because it will be believed. So when something is said that
you feel is wrong, the time to correct it is then. Now take the person aside later privately
You do it as much as you can within the group in which it was stated and you correct them with it and
you just try to put things straight. And we're all individuals, we all have a right to say what we want
but we should be very considerate of the other person and occasionally we have to set things straight.
Ruth and her husband Bob were founding members of Bloomington United
I mean, this whole thing is taking place in part because a small number of people, including them, did
that with the first pamphlets that led to the formation of this group. I mean, they did that individually
but also with other people. Thank you, Ruth. That's why I suggested that his description of evangelical
was not entirely accurate, that he needed to sort of, right?
You. I was responding to someone else's question, but whatever. Go on. You go on. You're talking. I'm
just listening. But I keep feeling like these Bloomington United things, what we preach needs to happen
inside the discussions that we're talking about. So you made some comments about evangelical. And I
felt myself saying, oh, that's not entirely true. But then I thought I'll let it go. But then I thought,
no, I can't let it go. That's OK. Because that's what we're doing here. Don't let anything go.
That's OK. But when you look at the tape, you'll see that I said some evangelicals.
And so, those kinds of qualifications are the way that I talk. And so, I mean, and I'll stand corrected
if I didn't. But if you took offense, I apologize and I'm glad you're calling me on it now. Let's so,
I mean, yeah. Yeah, that's okay, obviously. But I want us to be able to dial on here, so. Yeah. Yeah,
please. I'm trying to think about how to make this comment without giving,
Adam more press. He's gotten so much attention for his comments here, but, uh, this is, uh, uh,
for Sarah, I think, um, I've been reflecting tonight on what it was like for me as a member of, uh,
as a child in a small lumber town in Southern Oregon that was totally homogeneous.
completely unlike any college town. Growing up, learning only about the point of view that reflected
that community. And then when I was older, 12 or 13, moving to the San Francisco Bay area and starting
to go to school, which saved my soul.
because I had to encounter ethnicity. I had to encounter all sorts of diversities. I had to encounter
the dirty speech that became free speech movement from Berkeley. I had to encounter the gay movement,
the anti-war movement. I had to encounter all sorts of things that I had learned tacitly to be subversive
and wrong and different. And while I think it's very important
for us to think about the sensibilities of the minority members of our community. I think it's important
for the majority members of the community to learn more about the diversity that is our world if we're
going to have a pedagogy for democratic citizenship where we can encounter one another robustly, we
can be agonistic short of antagonistic,
and we can be respectful of one another. And so I guess this statement has kind of a tacit suggestion
and question to you about what's at stake for the majority population of your student body to learn
about these issues of diversity.
As you pointed out, I see it only as an advantage where the majority has that opportunity to share ideas,
to talk openly in a safe environment, to see, hear, and appreciate the differences that are around us.
As Jeff pointed out, a basis for doing that is the commonality. All students
in this building are attending this school for the sole purpose of graduating from high school. That's
what's out there. But on that path of reaching graduation, there will be lots of opportunities to gain
new knowledge and get new information and share in different experiences that they might not have at
some other place. When we look at our student population and the
and the activism in our student body. You can't shy away from things. You are involved in some way,
one way or another. It's in posters. It's in different meeting announcements. It's providing lots of
opportunities to observe initially, probably, and hopefully,
participate in some way but I only see that as an advantage with the student population and with the
teaching staff who is supportive of those kind of conversations. We make mistakes. We, all of us do
and there have been times that we've had to step back and rethink an event or something that may have happened.
But I think it's very important, as you pointed out, when we see something that's not right, we take
the time to educate and make sure it doesn't happen again. And we use those opportunities to discuss
issues. But again, it's a growing opportunity for everybody in that school. I think we'll have just
one more comment and then our time is almost up.
My name is CJ Hawking. I'm a part of Bloomington United and felt compelled to follow on the gentleman's
comment. I moved here almost four years ago to the date in the opposite direction you did. I moved from
Chicago to what I came to learn as being the Bible Belt. And I didn't know that. I didn't know that
Bloomington was a part of the Bible Belt, but indeed it is.
I'm also a United Methodist pastor. And coming out of a context where it's very eclectic in Chicago,
it's been very shocking to me to see ornaments being made in the schools, to see Secret Santas, and
to hear about a choir, a public school choir singing Christmas carols.
boggles my mind. And because we are an educated, somewhat sophisticated community with the influence
of the university, I wonder if Bloomington cannot elevate not only the discussion but the practice to
be much more true
to what a public school is designed to be and it's not designed to be a church or a synagogue or any
of those things. My daughter is five years old and she's in a private kindergarten right now and I'm
just bracing myself for when she hits first grade and is inundated with Christian arrogance
and dominance because that's not at all how we intend to raise her. So it's very difficult for me to
come into this environment even though my faith dominates and to somehow feel comfortable in what I
perceive to be a very closed, exclusive, almost hostile,
environment to anyone who doesn't fall in this 96% majority range. I have three children in public school
in Monroe County and so cumulatively we're in our tenth year, you know we're in our tenth classroom.
I have a sixth grader, a second grader, and a kindergartner and in the same school I find this experience
is brand new the next year.
It has everything to do with what teacher is in that classroom. We will have one child in one classroom
where there is nothing, you know, nothing. It is not present, and then we'll have another child in that
same year in that same school in a classroom where, you know, the Santa Claus display, you know, the
Santa Claus collection is there. And we, the very first question that was asked is what can we do as
parents, and I don't know that we ever answered that, but I think what you do is go to the teacher and explain
and express your concerns. Now, as a Baptist pastor, I go and express these concerns, and they just
stare at me with their mouth open like, what are you talking about? We were going to have you come sing
or something. So it just depends on that. But it's very interesting because our school is populated
by the families of IU professors, which would have made me think we would be the school to sort of elevate
the discussion.
And then I have two teachers in my church who are the music teachers in Greene County School System.
And there, if they don't do Christian music, they hear about it from their parents. So it's, I mean,
it all depends on what school, what classroom you're at, I think. And I'm sympathetic to a principal's
predicament because she's got parents coming in saying, why is the Santa Claus display up? And then
the teacher is the next one in saying, why can't I have my Santa Claus display up? It's my classroom.
So it's a predicament. It seems to me, though, that the issue really isn't the managerial question of
how to deal with those delicate situations, but really the question of what is the function of a public
school. And, you know, I think you articulated a very powerful understanding of that. It's not clear
to me that that is the Monroe County School Corporation's understanding.
It may be its understanding at the level of some mission statement somewhere in someone's drawer or
something, but it's not clear that that's the understanding in terms of public policy. How the school
corporation is run, you know, how every school principal understands his or her mission or vocation,
you know, and it seems to me that there we need to work much harder to deal with the school corporation
and to continually raise these issues, you know, and I,
If anyone has ideas about this, by the way, you know, people in Bloomington United have talked about
this for a couple of years and we used to have a subcommittee trying to work on this and in some small
way this event is the outcome both of that process and the failing of that process to come up with anything
more substantial beyond a conversation like this, which is a wonderful conversation. If people do have
ideas or desires to become involved in this, I think this is a really, really important question, you know.
how do our schools understand their civic mission? And I'm going to be really quick because we're probably
running out of time, but it seems to me this is partly a question of diversity issues, but it goes beyond
that. You know, I just want to say, you know, my friend Bob Ivy, who asked the question before, spoke
on the courthouse today, on the courthouse lawn at a small demonstration about a potential war in Iraq.
And, you know, it was a decent-sized crowd. I'm sure you'll see a paper about this on the,
cover the H.T. tomorrow and there was some media there. There weren't that many people there. We could
have an interesting conversation about why there weren't more people there. Obviously a lot of people
don't share that point of view, but there was an effort to participate in a public discourse about whether
our country is going to go to war. This is a really important thing. Today is International Human Rights
Day in December. It doesn't have to do with Christmas, but arguably it's something of some significance.
How many classes
In this entire school corporation, do you think had a discussion about International Human Rights Day
or should we go to war in Iraq or if there's a demonstration on the square, what do you think about
it? How many schools are going to talk about this? How many classroom tomorrow? I'll bet like none,
you know. There's too many other important things to talk about. There's something wrong with this.
everybody for participating tonight and I see someone who might want to say a quick word standing up
is that right John? A quick quick word. First of all I'm John Malloy I'm superintendent of schools for
MCCSC and I appreciate the dialogue this evening especially when public schools are always the topic.
One thing in coming to Bloomington that somewhat disappointed me is the diversity of the community.
I really thought with the university that the schools would be more representative of the community.
And quite frankly, we're only about 17% when we talk about diversity. And so in some ways, our schools
are reflective of the community and the culture in which we live.
And unfortunately in this community because many individuals were born and raised here and many of our
teachers are in our schools teaching from the standpoint of their experiences. And many schools around
the country not just in Bloomington are extremely reflective of the teachers in those schools and generally
those teachers come from a close community if not that community.
I can say that the communities where I have worked have been very diverse, much more so than Bloomington.
I've been in Pike Township in Indianapolis. We were roughly 45% minority. Michigan City was roughly
30%. And one thing that was very important in the schools where I operated is to have not just tolerance
but teaching acceptance. One of the things that we've done as of November 21st is we have kicked off
what I call Human Understanding and Diversity Advisory Committee. It's made up of approximately
30 individuals, half of which from the MCCSC, who will be responsible for implementing curriculum and
directing any kind of recommendations coming from the advisory committee. And the other half are from
a broad base group in the community of which the Bloomington United is represented. Also, Rabbi Wasserman is
member of that committee. And the idea is at least to give a charge to that committee to focus in four
particular areas and certainly they have the flexibility to go into other areas as well. But very quickly,
looking at the professional development for administrators and teachers. Secondly, to look at integrating
multicultural education into our curriculum.
K-12. Looking at the issue of attracting, hiring and retaining people of color, we only have about 3
percent of our adults that represent people of color. The state average is 6 percent and certainly that's
a whole other topic talking about trying to
to attract people of color into the field of education when we know that many of them see the pay as
being very low and not competitive with other areas. And the fourth, probably the most important of
all, is sensitivity training to the adults and students of our community. So I can tell you that the
school system as well over the next few years during my tenure will take this issue very, very seriously.
And hopefully over the course of time, we can move to an awareness with our faculty, not in the area
of trying to push acceptance of religion, but an awareness. We can certainly focus on study of religion
and not the practice, and certainly the academics and not
a devotion and so I think it's a very important piece that at least the schools begin to address and
I think over the course of time if we were to reconvene this particular August group that maybe when
we talk about public schools, especially here in Monroe County, we'll have an entirely different picture
than we do today.
for a great dialogue. Thank you. Don't leave without a cookie. Also, there are some materials on the
table there that I'll invite you to look at and even to take. They're from a website called freedomforum.org
and it has some wonderful materials from the First Amendment Center on public schools and the teaching
of religion. So thank you and good night.