ACS is pleased to distribute an Issue Brief by Edward Correia, Washington D.C. attorney and adjunct professor at American University's Washington College of Law, entitled, “A Constitutional Framework for Addressing Religious Viewpoints in Public School Classrooms.”


In the debate over the constitutional separation of church and state in the U.S., one ongoing issue is how religious viewpoints may be addressed in our nation’s public schools. In this paper, the author takes on this sometimes controversial subject by reviewing various possible approaches and examining those approaches in light of the legal precedent in this area of the law. Throughout the paper, the author uses the specific examples of the teaching of creationism, intelligent design, and evolution in science class to illustrate community tensions over these issues and to convey his views on what is constitutionally permissible and what is not. Correia concludes by arguing that it is possible to distinguish among three distinct classroom approaches in specific course contexts: acknowledging religious beliefs, explaining religious beliefs and endorsing religious beliefs. Under his approach, the first is always constitutionally permissible, the second may be permissible depending upon the context, and the third fails to pass constitutional muster. He advocates a thoughtful, nuanced approach that respects religious freedom, diversity and tolerance while advocating compliance with the Constitution’s prohibition on the State establishment of religion.

In Restoring Effective Protections for Students Against Sexual Harassment in Schools: Moving Beyond the Gebser and Davis Standards, Fatima Goss Graves, Senior Counsel at the National Women’s Law Center, notes the prevalence of sexual harassment in the schools, and explains that the Supreme Court has established legal standards in two cases that impose crippling burdens on students who attempt to recover damages under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 for harassment suffered at the hands of their teachers or fellow students – Gebser v. Lago Vista Ind. Sch. Dist and Davis v. Monroe County Bd of Educ. Goss Graves points out that although students often are more vulnerable to harassment than adults, under Gebser and Davis it is harder for students to prevail in Title IX sexual harassment cases than it is for employees to recover for sexual harassment in the workplace. She then identifies two avenues for reform. First, she urges enactment of The Civil Rights Act of 2008, introduced last week in Congress. This legislation, which addresses a number of Supreme Court decisions that undermine the civil rights laws, will remove the inequities created by Gebser and Davis and provide meaningful incentives for schools to prevent sexual harassment and address it when it occurs. Second, Goss Graves argues that a recent New Jersey Supreme Court decision provides a model for applying state anti-discrimination laws to improve student protections against discrimination. She concludes that both a federal legislative fix and state approaches like New Jersey’s hold promise for addressing this pervasive problem.