Arizona Ed Legislative Update

by David Safier

Here are two legislative items to mull over while we wait for the State to pass a budget.

First, Steve and Mariana, members of the Blog for Arizona community, report the disheartening news that their bill to mandate a 30 minute recess in elementary schools is dead in committee. According to Steve, “The Democrats wanted to include charter schools in the bill but the Republicans objected.” Which raises the question, would it have passed without the inclusion of charter schools? And if so, should the Dems have added a deal breaker? My advice would be, get recesses in public schools and worry about charter schools later. But I don’t know the whole story.

Second, a bill claiming to protect religious expression in public schools is working its way through the State Senate. The purpose of HB2713, according to its Republican supporters, is to assure that schools follow the requirements in the U.S. Constitution guaranteeing freedom of religious expression.

The problem this bill and similar legislation they’ve tried to pass is, what they really want to protect is forms of hate speech in the guise of religion. If people can wear T shirts saying they support gay rights, the bill’s supporters say, someone else should be able to wear a shirt saying their religious beliefs teach that homosexuality is wrong.

There’s a clear distinction here. A shirt that is for gay rights, to use example in the article, is an affirmation of personal belief. A shirt that makes a religious condemnation of homosexuality is an attack on other students’ ideas and possibly their sexual orientation as well.

“Jesus loves me” is fine in my book. So is “Gay and proud of it.” “Jesus says homosexuality is a sin” moves into a troublesome area, and “Gays are going to Hell” is downright offensive in a school setting. So is “Islam rocks. Christians are wrong.” So is “God chose the Jews, not the Christians.” So is “Jesus [or Mohammed or Buddha] can go to Hell.”

All of those T shirts are acceptable on the street, but a school is a different situation. A small community of young people are forced to be in close quarters with one another. They can’t simply walk away from perceived insults written across the chest of someone sitting in the desk next to them. “Free speech” has a more limited meaning inside schools walls, and, though I’m a big First Amendment guy, I agree with imposing stricter limits on speech in schools than in the outside world.

As always, the question is, where do we draw the line in limiting speech? It’s always a tough call, and it won’t be made any clearer by passing this bill.

I have to warn those God fearing folks who want to pass a law that would allow the use of religious expression as a way to condemn others. They had better be ready to see and hear the beliefs they hold sacred mocked and condemned as well. Freedom of religious expression doesn’t begin and end with the interpretations of religion preferred by the legislators writing these bills. It cuts all ways, for all expressions of religious belief and disbelief.