As Many As Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast

August 7, 2021June 4, 2023 ~ Blue Cereal

It’s generally much easier to spot the fallacy and irrationality in others than to be truly aware of our own. While most of us will confess to such imperfections in theory, we rarely accept specific examples when pointed out to us about ourselves.

Recognizing them in the culture around us is a start, however. It’s part of that whole “critical thinking” stuff we like to talk about so often in education (often without having a clear idea what, exactly, we mean). It’s not enough to point and yell “GASLIGHTING!” whenever you’re pretty sure someone’s full of it. Intellectual honestly – not to mention our own internal clarity and peace of mind – requires breaking down just what it is we think is happening.

It also means being open to others pointing out flaws in our assertions and analysis. Personally, I hate that part.

With that in mind, there’s a line of rationalization that’s been bugging me for a long time. It’s been difficult, however, to put it into words – which is usually a sign I’m not entirely clear on what’s going on, either with the irrational assertions themselves or with my reactions to them. The pattern suddenly clicked for me this morning, however, and I’d like to share in hopes maybe you’ve noticed some version of this yourself.

“Me” is me in the oversimplified dialogue below. “CA” is any conservative acquaintance I have who feels compelled to set me straight on things. CA may not have right-wing gaslighting intent. They’re a caricaturization I’m using to make a point and convey an experience. No need getting your red, white, and blue panties in a wad. I don’t have anyone in particular in mind – just the ideologies and mindsets currently making me crazy.

Me: I’m greatly troubled by this terrible thing conservatives are doing right now. It violates several foundational principles of our nation and who we claim to be.
CA: You’re overreacting. Your emotional response suggests they’re doing this horrible thing at a level of 8 or 9, when in reality, they’re only doing it at a 3 or 4 and telling their followers it’s an 8 or 9.
Me: So it’s their supporters who are horrible people? For wanting them to do these terrible things more effectively?
CA: No, Muttonhead. most of their minions don’t support terrible things. They only go along with them because they think what the other side is going to do is far worse. You’re demonizing conservative voters by acting like they support what their representatives claim to do in their name.
Me: So, which is it? Are conservative voters corrupt for demanding (or at least going along with) these terrible things or are conservative leaders corrupt for doing them even though their voters would prefer another way?
CA: Neither. The leaders have to do what their constituents want, so they can’t be blamed. The voters have to choose between the options given to them, so they’re not responsible. The real problem is you and the way you keep trying to assign blame and motives which aren’t there.
Me: I… I’m just not OK with this. The fact is, these really bad things are happening and too many conservatives are pretending they’re OK.
CA: You just don’t understand history. Both sides do these sorts of horrible things. They always have. Here are some examples from over the years of things I consider ethically and politically equivalent to what you’re complaining about now. You shouldn’t get so worked up about what’s happening now because it’s just how things are and forever have been. It’s how power and politics have always worked in the U.S.
Me: So you’re saying that despite our lofty ideals, in reality we’ve always been a nation of horrible things? We’re fundamentally like this and always have been?
CA: Oh my god, you and your Critical Race Theory, anti-American revisionist nonsense! America is the greatest country in the history of the world! Any minor flaws we may have had were resolved long ago. Can you not focus on the progress we’ve made? And look at our proclaimed ideals! Are you telling me they’re not superior to anything else mankind has come up with in the past several thousand years?
Me: But… those are the ideals I’m talking about. The ones we’re not living up to. We pride ourselves on reaching to become the people described in the Declaration of Independence, the “City on a Hill” sermon, and the Bill of Rights. That’s my whole point. When we tolerate (or support) the terrible things, we’re turning out backs on those ideals. We’re going backward.
CA: But we always have, so it doesn’t count. Besides, both sides do it exactly equally. Mathematically, that means they cancel one another out.
Me: So we’re really this bad? All of us? And always have been?
CA: Ridiculous. I can’t believe you work with young people when you have so much hostility towards the U.S.A. (*starts humming Lee Greenwood*)
Me: I feel like we’re going in circles here…
CA: And we just get better and better! That’s why we have to mandate so much patriotism and American Exceptionalism in our schools and sporting events, so people will spontaneously feel it!
Me: But we’re not getting closer to fulfilling them. We’re violating them for selfish, horrible reasons.
CA: Just like always. It never changes, so calm down. That’s why it’s not a big deal.
Me: Yeah, we’re definitely going in circles now.
CA: Just like we always have, so it’s OK! Both sides do!
Me: But I have to support the idea that we’re doing great?
CA: WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA? This is why we need more vouchers. On all sides!
Me: *brain explodes*

So, help me out. What am I missing here? Am I being unfair, or have you experienced this as well? I particularly welcome conservative responses as long as you play nice. Even if the other way is how we’ve always done it and both sides are just as bad.

Please Correct The Highlighted Sections

July 27, 2021June 4, 2023 ~ Blue Cereal

Like many people, I’ve been trying my hand at freelancing here and there for extra income over the past few years. In my case, it’s nothing glorious – just writing (or rewriting) web content explaining the benefits of regular eye exams, how a reverse mortgage works, or where Eddie Murphy’s net worth ranks him compared to other actors or comics. (He’s doing better than Mike Myers or Denzel Washington but not as well as Rowan Atkinson or Robert Downey, Jr.)

I share this because of an experience I had this week that I found illuminating, if not entirely surprising.

The service I work through is set up so that once you’ve established a track record of relative success, you have the opportunity to move up the freelancing food chain a bit. I was contacted by company wanting me to compose some informational pieces involving building materials and design choices for retail spaces. The trick was that it had to be researched and then accurately presented at about a sixth grade reading level.

I knew that the content would prove a challenge, at least at first (I know little to nothing about construction), but I wasn’t particularly concerned about the complexity of the writing. Many of my kids read at a similar level and I modify stuff for them all the time.

I was wrong.

The content was difficult, to be sure. I had so little to build on (no pun intended) in terms of background knowledge or relevant experiences that the waves of new information had nothing to grab on to – no schema or framework on which to cling. I didn’t understand half of the vocabulary, let alone the concepts, priorities, or science involved. It was humbling.

But, hey – I know the drill: “The learning happens in the struggle.” “It’s the effort that matters most.” “Stretching ourselves is how we grow.” All the usual motivational stuff we tell kids when they frustrated. Stuff I absolutely believed up until this week, when I discovered that I’m an idiot and incapable of the most basic tasks others seem to master easily.

See, the content is only half the writing battle. Then came the “easy” part – explaining the required bits about that content at the reading level requested. The client provided a link to a free application they use for just such a purpose and asked me to make sure any problems it identified were “cleared” before I submitted the final product.

You feel it coming now, don’t you?

I did my first draft in Microsoft Word like I always do. It’s silly, but I have specific fonts and margins that feel right to me and help me think more clearly. My preferred approach is to just get it all down on paper (well, virtual paper) then go back and clean it up afterward. I’m usually well over maximum word count with my first drafts, but I’ve accepted this as my own personal style – which is a nice way to say it’s a glaring flaw I’ve simply learned to work through each and every time.

After doing some revising, I copied the entire thing into the app.

It looked like Jackson Pollock did the highlighting, there were so many problems marked. My sentences were at best too complex, and at worst incomprehensible babble. I used big words where small ones would do and semi-colons where decent, God-fearing Americans would have put periods. The app particularly hated my transitions or anything reeking of comparisons, contrasts, or examples. Worst of all, I’d used adverbs – the Devil’s diction and a form of speech best relegated to corporate-cloned pop songs and Stephanie Meyer novels.

After regaining my composure, I began editing. And rewriting. And cutting. And reworking. And… and…

Let’s skip ahead a bit. Emotionally, it was easily another sixty or seventy hours of grueling mental and emotional labor. According to my wife and her attachment to traditional, linear time, it was about forty-five minutes. The page no longer looked like the Apocalypse had come to grade my efforts, but neither was it anywhere near clear of problems – at least according to the app.

I closed the lid and walked away. I said some ugly, unprofessional things about the app, the company who’d hired me, the general reading level of the average American, and may have unfairly slandered Ernest Hemingway and Raymond Carter somewhere along the way. I wanted to throw things, which, granted, seems a bit disproportional in retrospect, and for a moment thought I might actually break into tears.

Please understand, my Eleven Faithful Followers – this story isn’t about the app. It’s not about whether or not the writing was as bad as it looked or the reading level of the target audience for this particular company. I’m a grown-up (well, most of the time). I was hired to do a job a certain way and if I can’t do it the way they want, I don’t deserve to get paid. My opinions about rhetorical choices are irrelevant in this situation.

What I’d like to focus on, however, is that experience. Sure, clearly there were some other things going on for me to have melted down like that over some algorithmic highlighting. But it was nevertheless in that moment absolutely crippling. I couldn’t process what it was wanting me to do differently. I no longer even believed it was possible to meet the requirements of the assignment. In that moment, I was swept up in emotions and irrational lines of thinking absolutely familiar to any educator.

Clearly, this assignment was ridiculous. Impossible. The person asking this of me is either delusional or cruel.

These requirements are absurd. Undoable. No one can satisfy this program. Or, if they can, they’re just as stupid and useless as the app and the assignment.

You know the last one. It’s the one all the others do their best to obscure.

I’m too stupid to figure this out. I don’t know why I’m even trying. Clearly other people can do this – just not me.

Like many of you, I’ve learned over the years to let it out without doing anything too destructive and then come back and deal with whatever set me off. That’s the advantage of age and a little wisdom. It’s not about avoiding every possible failure; it’s about how we recover and respond, yada yada growth mindset, mutter mumble faster smarter wiser, blah blah blah cue Captain Marvel soundtrack.

It’s an advantage of perspective which many of our students do not yet have. And that’s why I’m sharing my moment of crash-n-burn with you here.

People outside of education try to distill everything we do into false dichotomies in order to simplify their outrage. We either teach that America is GREAT or that it’s HORRIBLE. We either teach FACTS or we INDOCTRINATE kids with our personal ideologies. We either focus on ACADEMIC STANDARDS or we coddle students and give them a diploma merely for sharing their FEELINGS.

In reality, of course, it’s al more complicated than that – especially that last bit. Standards matter, but so do student emotions and perceptions. Besides, it’s not a question of choosing one over the other; they’re interwound. Students generally learn better when they feel secure and confident. Sure, some need to be humbled and shaken a bit if they’re going to rid themselves of complacency and entitlement and become their best selves. Others need wraparound services and a reliable source of protein if they’re going to have any chance of passing their state algebra exams.

The app didn’t much care about my feelings (obviously) or the state of mind I was in as my efforts continued to fall short. I confess that it did eventually force me to admit that I have a certain way I like to do things and that I have difficulty adjusting to what others require. In other words, it pushed me to “learn” something about my writing and myself. With enough revision and a better attitude I finally got the piece pretty close to what was asked of me.

At the same time, even if we assume the standards being applied were flawless, the inflexibility quickly pushed me past challenged and into chaffed. Not that many years ago I would have walked away from it altogether. In high school I’d have never kept at it long enough to snap. Once I realized how overwhelming the expectations were, I’d have done something else instead.

At the risk of sounding preachy about something I’m certain we all already know, let’s remember this coming year to be intentional and aware when it comes to standards and expectations and how we convey them. Don’t sacrifice your belief that students can and should do better just because it’s been a weird couple of years. Academics matter. Progress matters. Sometimes pushing them is for their own good. Sometimes they need to fail (short-term) to grow.

At the same time, many of us expect classroom dynamics and personal volatility to be particularly challenging this year – for them, for us, for everyone. Remember to recognize effort and growth and progress. Ask yourself when it’s best for the student to keep pushing and when you serve them best by celebrating improvement and calling it a win. You’re not an app, even if you felt like one for a good part of last year. Fight the faux crisis of “learning loss” or whatever else they throw at you this year and remember how good you sometimes are with live, in-person students.

Eyes open. Mind clear. You got this. And you can use all the adverbs you want.

RELATED POST: Keeping, Culling, and Forgetting

RELATED POST: The Importance of Being Delusional

RELATED POST: Teacher Evaluations (Hammers & Nails)

Teacher Mentoring (I Have A Crazy Idea…)

July 18, 2021June 4, 2023 ~ Blue Cereal

It’s Time

As I continue growing much older and a tiny bit wiser, I keep returning to an idea that’s been nipping at my risk-averse consciousness for some time.

One of the most glaring shortcomings of far too many school districts across the country is the lack of meaningful mentoring / coaching / reflective listening for teachers – particularly new teachers or those recently thrown into new situations.

There are no doubt many reasons for this, but funding must surely top the list. With class sizes perpetually problematic, ever-expanding demands made on educators without commensurate support, and the ongoing onslaught of criticism over every dollar not spent teaching patriotism and math, schools simply lack the resources to properly invest in their teachers. Instead, administrators understandably tell themselves that department heads will fill that role (you know, in their spare time) or that colleagues can be assigned to answer questions and provide “support.” They may even throw in a small stipend for their trouble.

None of this is meant to be critical of districts or administrators making tough decisions with limited options. But it’s a very real problem – if not universal, at least ubiquitous. I can’t solve it for any significant number of individual educators, but I can offer my humble efforts to a few. Numerous inspirational short stories, at least one parable, and several pop songs from the 1960s and 1970s suggest that’s enough to justify taking the leap.

Credentials

I’m old and have seen much over the years, both directly and through the eyes of the literally thousands of other teachers with whom I’ve worked. I’ve been through official teacher mentor / coaching training in several iterations despite the eventual decision by the folks paying for all that training deciding not to invest in long-term formal implementation. Perhaps most significantly, I’ve mentored / coached teachers in person for years and years and years – sometimes even for that small stipend I mentioned.

If you decide after reading the rest of this post that you’re potentially interested, I’ll gladly share a more detailed resume / pedigree with you. For now, those are the basics.

I’m not magical or a genius or better than every other educator out there. (I mean, I’m better than a lot of them… but that’s really not the point.) What I am is available and willing, with a decent track record and a belief in most teachers’ potential vs. the realities beating them down week after week. It’s something I’d like to spend more time and energy on, in fact.

So here’s what I’m offering – for those of you still kinda interested, or at least still reading.

Let’s Get Personal

I’m looking for 4 – 5 individuals who could use a little extra support and encouragement as they enter the upcoming school year. We’d meet virtually for about 30 minutes every other week to talk about how things are going for you in class, with students, peers, or administration, or anything else related to your role as an educator.

This is judgement-free assistance. It’s completely confidential (no calls to your principal asking them to do something about your weirdo grading policies) and based on your specific needs.

It’s a time to process your thoughts and feelings in the interest of a better professional experience. To help you figure out how to use class time more effectively. To develop strategies for dealing with difficult students (or colleagues). To manage classroom dynamics. Maybe even to {insert professional concerns here}. It’s largely up to you, combined with my pithy insights and don’t you think it’s time we talk about WHAT’S REALLY GOING ON?!?

It’s all the stuff your education professors have already told you matters and to which your district has hopefully paid at least some lip service. (Presumably if you’re in one of the handful of districts which provides this kind of extended support, you’re still reading only out of pity for the poor souls in other districts.)

Logistics & Specifics

If you think you might be interested, we can get a bit more technical about mutual expectations and the logistical stuff. There are different schools of thought on what constitutes effective “coaching” and how it’s distinct from “mentoring” and why neither should be conflated with “counseling,” etc. Experience suggests it’s worth making sure we’re on the same general page before anyone says “I DO.” That’s best done not-on-the-blog.

I believe there’s still plenty of room for flexibility based on individual style and circumstances within the accepted boundaries which define “doing it right.” For now, I’ll limit myself to a few essential clarifications before inviting you to email me if your interest has been even mildly piqued.

There’s no money involved in this arrangement (in either direction). Yes, it’s possible that a few years from now I might consider something more formally structured and fiscally remunerative. No, I’m not working towards selling you a service or a product or a subscription or whatever. I’ve been blessed by those around me for so many years and genuinely believe in this sort of thing as one way to “pay it forward.” Right now, that’s all there is to it.

As a practical matter, I’m limiting this coming year to 4 – 5 participants. If I have to turn anyone away, it’s not personal. If I have to choose, I’ll prioritize those I believe I can help most effectively and with an eye towards participant diversity.

I’m asking for a bi-weekly commitment of around 30 minutes and making that commitment to you in return. It’s not dogmatic and shouldn’t be taken as “one more thing on your plate” or as something at which you might “fail.” We’d work out a starting point around the beginning of your school year and conclude somewhere near the end. If something changes and you need to alter your commitment level, we’re good. (I can’t serve your mental and emotional health by adding stress and obligation to your life. That would be silly.)

Periodically throughout the year, I may ask you for some brief, specific feedback about elements of the experience. Again, it’s not a major task for you to undertake – it’s a “check-in” to see how it’s going, what you’re finding effective or otherwise useful, and what you’re not.

10… 9… 8… 7…

That’s it. Pretty straightforward. If you’re not interested, feel free to pass this along to someone who might be. If you’re feeling that nervous little tingly feeling like maybe you should absolutely do this but you’re worried about, I dunno… whatever you’re worried about, take a breath. Shoot me that email. You’re not committing to anything. Let’s talk (or email) and see if those initial interactions make you feel better or worse – and go from there.

If you find yourself interested in the possibilities but unsure whether or not you should reach out, it may help to frame the issue in terms of “doing me a favor.” Obviously the primary intent is for the time to be useful for you, but if it matters, it will be genuinely helpful for me as well, if perhaps in a slightly different fashion.

I look forward to hearing from you. [email protected].

The Decision (Westside Community Schools v. Mergens, 1990 – Part Two)

July 18, 2021June 4, 2023 ~ Blue Cereal

Summary of Part One:

1. The Equal Access Act of 1984 prohibited any public school which permitted “non-curricular” clubs to meet on school property from picking and choosing which clubs they allowed based on ideologies or beliefs. The trick was figuring out what counted as “non-curricular.”

2. Bridget Mergens was a student at Westside High School in Omaha, Nebraska. In 1985, she asked her principal for permission to form a Christian club at the school.

3. The school said no, arguing that organizations like Chess Club and Scuba Club were essentially (if not directly) curriculum-related in that they were extensions of the sorts of things the school promoted as a whole, and thus inadequate to trigger the requirements of the act. Bridget didn’t buy it.

The Decision

The Supreme Court determined that Westside’s existing activities were non-curricular enough that they had a “limited open forum,” and the Equal Access Act did not violate the Establishment Clause. The school would let the kids have their Bible Club. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote most of the opinion for the majority and the rest for a plurality of justices, while several who supported the result wrote concurrences differing in some of the details or focusing on different factors. Justice John Paul Stevens was the sole voice of dissent, which at least simplified the math on that side of things.

Justice O’Connor’s mostly-majority opinion recapped the history of the case, including the role of Widmar v. Vincent (1981) and the Equal Access Act which was clearly intended to apply the standards outlined in Widmar to public schools. The sticking point, she acknowledged, was the use of the term “noncurriculum related student group” in the Act. The bill’s authors somehow overlooked that one tiny little detail – like when you forget to add coffee to your cream and sugar or bring your car with you to the gas station. O’Connor weighed several possible approaches to resolving this before arriving at the Court’s solution:

In our view, a student group directly relates to a school’s curriculum if the subject matter of the group is actually taught… in a regularly offered course; if the subject matter of the group concerns the body of courses as a whole; if participation in the group is required for a particular course; or if participation in the group results in academic credit. We think this limited definition of groups that directly relate to the curriculum is a common sense interpretation of the Act that is consistent with Congress’ intent to provide a low threshold for triggering the Act’s requirements.
For example, a French club would directly relate to the curriculum if a school taught French in a regularly offered course or planned to teach the subject in the near future. A school’s student government would generally relate directly to the curriculum to the extent that it addresses concerns, solicits opinions, and formulates proposals pertaining to the body of courses offered by the school…
On the other hand, unless a school could show that groups such as a chess club, a stamp collecting club, or a community service club fell within our description of groups that directly relate to the curriculum, such groups would be “noncurriculum related student groups” for purposes of the Act. The existence of such groups would create a “limited open forum” under the Act and would prohibit the school from denying equal access to any other student group on the basis of the content of that group’s speech…

In other words, if Westside had a Scuba Club but not a Scuba Class, they’d have to allow Bible Club as well – along with any ideological undesirables seeking similar sanctuary.

As to the Establishment Clause, the Equal Access Act passed the “Lemon Test” on all three fronts. It had a secular legislative purpose (equal access and protection of different viewpoints or beliefs), it did not substantially advance or hinder religion (it merely stayed out of the way), and it didn’t create excessive entanglement (the school wasn’t funding or regulating the meetings beyond what it would do for anything else happening on campus). “Indeed,” O’Connor explained, “the message is one of neutrality rather than endorsement; if a State refused to let religious groups use facilities open to others, then it would demonstrate not neutrality but hostility toward religion.”

Perhaps hoping the message would resonate more effectively if marinated in a light snark sauce, she circled back for a double tap:

{T}here is a crucial difference between government speech endorsing religion, which the Establishment Clause forbids, and private speech endorsing religion, which the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses protect. We think that secondary school students are mature enough and are likely to understand that a school does not endorse or support student speech that it merely permits on a nondiscriminatory basis… The proposition that schools do not endorse everything they fail to censor is not complicated.

So there you go.

Cautious Concurrence

Justice Anthony Kennedy, joined by Justice Antonin Scalia, agreed with the decision, but for slightly different reasons than those explained by Justice O’Connor. Justice Thurgood Marshall, joined by Justice William Brennan, on the other hand, had something more extensive on his mind:

I agree with the majority that “noncurriculum” must be construed broadly to “prohibit schools from discriminating on the basis of the content of a student group’s speech.” As the majority demonstrates, such a construction “is consistent with Congress’ intent to provide a low threshold for triggering the Act’s requirements.” …

The Act’s low threshold for triggering equal access, however, raises serious Establishment Clause concerns where secondary schools with fora that differ substantially from the forum in Widmar are required to grant access to student religious groups…

Justice Marshall explained that the University of Missouri—Kansas City (the institution prompting the Widmar case) had over a hundred different organizations on campus, many of which were political or issue-driven. There was little danger any reasonable person could believe that so many conflicting ideologies were simultaneously promoted by the University. The University also took great pains to ensure that none of these groups promoted themselves as official extensions of UMKC.

Westside, on the other hand, had for years openly embraced and promoted its extracurricular clubs and extolled the roles they played in the developing student character. They were part of the overall culture of the school, just like the football team or band. While Marshall and Brennan had no problem with the addition of Bible Club to the mix, this sort of enthusiastic endorsement by school officials would be inappropriate for a religious group. It would be too easy, they argued, for the average student to assume that the district was advocating this new option on the same terms as the rest.

Justice Stevens’ Dissent

The lone voice of dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens, was having none of it.

Can Congress really have intended to issue an order to every public high school in the nation stating, in substance, that if you sponsor a chess club, a scuba diving club, or a French club – without having formal classes in those subjects – you must also open your doors to every religious, political, or social organization, no matter how controversial or distasteful its views may be? I think not.

Well, gosh – when you put it that way…

Justice Stevens agreed with the majority that determining appropriate application of the Equal Access Act hinged on the definition of “noncurriculum related student group.” He agreed that the Court should look to Congress’ intent to help do so, and that Congress clearly meant to apply the principles of Widmar to schools like Westside. The Act was obviously intended to prevent discrimination against religious groups once a “limited open forum” had been established and contained language to prevent school officials from evading the Act’s requirements through sophistry – creatively redefining terms to fit their desired outcome.

At that point, however, Justice Stevens believed the majority had lost their black-robed minds.

What the Court of Appeals failed to recognize, however, is the critical difference between the university forum in Widmar and the high school forum involved in this case. None of the clubs at the high school is even arguably controversial or partisan.
Nor would it be wise to ignore this difference. High school students may be adult enough to distinguish between those organizations that are sponsored by the school and those which lack school sponsorship even though they participate in a forum that the school does sponsor. But high school students are also young enough that open fora may be less suitable for them than for college students…

That’s why Congress, in his understanding, left it up to school officials to decide whether to limit school clubs to those clearly supporting institutional ideals and goals – things the district could safely promote and encourage – or whether to open them up to more mature topics, as was the case in Widmar.

Once opened to political or religious ideologies, the district must honor the “limited public forum.” But, Justice Stevens insisted, neither Chess Club nor Scuba Club did that.

I believe that the distinctions between Westside’s program and the University of Missouri’s program suggest what is the best understanding of the Act: an extracurricular student organization is “noncurriculum related” if it has as its purpose (or as part of its purpose) the advocacy of partisan theological, political, or ethical views. A school that admits at least one such club has apparently made the judgment that students are better off if the student community is permitted to… compete along ideological lines… {I}t seems absurd to presume that Westside has invoked {this} strategy by recognizing clubs like Swim Timing Team and Subsurfers which, though they may not correspond directly to anything in Westside’s course offerings, are no more controversial than a grilled cheese sandwich…
{A} high school could properly sponsor a French club, a chess club, or a scuba diving club… because their activities are fully consistent with the school’s curricular mission… Nothing in Widmar implies that the existence of a French club… would create a constitutional obligation to allow student members of the Ku Klux Klan or the Communist Party to have access to school facilities.

Justice Stevens’ reasoning hearkened back to that of the district court which first heard the case (and wasn’t so far removed from Justices Marshall and Brennan in their concurrence). He seemed to share the same sorts of concerns which likely motivated Westside officials to turn down Bridget Mergens in the first place.

Aftermath

The courts have largely held to the standards established in Widmar and legislated by the Equal Access Act, in some cases extending them by inference to circumstances not specifically addressed in either.

A few years after Mergens, in Lamb’s Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District (1993), the Court held that schools allowing community groups to use their facilities after hours could not deny the same access to a group based on its religious message. In Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia (1995), the Court required the University to fund religious student publications on the same terms it did for other non-curricular student periodicals. Good News Club v. Milford Central School (2001) offered a few minor variations on the theme but was otherwise a repeat of Lamb’s Chapel – with the same outcome.

Some districts have chosen to eliminate extra-curricular activities entirely rather than open their doors to kids wanting to meet under the auspices of Gay-Straight Alliance (GSA), Muslim Students Club, or any of the variations of Atheist or Satan Club. Districts are permitted to refuse groups promoting behavior or values clearly antithetical to the school’s mission (the KKK, for example, could be refused without much constitutional danger – although the Communists would probably get their club), but the boundaries of this discretion are still being tested here and there.

Local courts have also periodically confronted variations of the issue (if the district cancels all clubs to avoid allowing Teen Q-Anon to meet, does that violate the spirit of the law?) By and large, however, the principles established in Mergens have remained firm for over three decades and there’s little reason to expect them to change anytime soon.

NOTE: This post is an excerpt from “Have To” History: A Wall Of Education

Bridget Wants A Bible Club (Westside Community Schools v. Mergens, 1990 – Part One)

July 17, 2021June 4, 2023 ~ Blue Cereal

Background

In Widmar v. Vincent (1981), the Supreme Court determined that when the University of Missouri (Kansas City) made its facilities available to extra-curricular groups outside of normal school hours, it created a “limited open forum.” If religious student organizations wished to use the facilities on the same terms as other groups, they must be allowed to do so. Not only was this NOT a violation of the Establishment Clause (as the University had feared), but denying equal access was a form of inhibiting students’ “free exercise” of religion. Justice Lewis Powell, writing for the majority in Widmar, explained it this way:

The question is not whether the creation of a religious forum would violate the Establishment Clause. The University has opened its facilities for use by student groups, and the question is whether it can now exclude groups because of the content of their speech. In this context, we are unpersuaded that the primary effect of the public forum, open to all forms of discourse, would be to advance religion…
It is possible – perhaps even foreseeable – that religious groups will benefit from access to University facilities. But this Court has explained that a religious organization’s enjoyment of merely “incidental” benefits does not violate the prohibition against the “primary advancement” of religion…

A few years later, the U.S. Congress – no doubt hoping to seize the moment – passed the Equal Access Act of 1984. It essentially took the standard expressed in Widmar and applied it to public schools. Any district which prevented students from having meetings or forming clubs on the basis of the “religious, political, philosophical, or other content of the speech at such meetings” would lose federal funding and receive a very nasty glare from D.C.

The Legislature had been frustrated in their previous efforts to work around or overturn the Court’s “anti-prayer” and “anti-Bible” decisions in Engel v. Vitale (1962) and Abington v. Schempp (1963), and despite his general popularity, President Reagan had made little progress on his promised Amendment to put the government back in charge of teaching kids what they should believe about Jesus. (OK, that’s not entirely fair. Reagan wanted an Amendment to leave it up to each state how to teach students about Jesus.)

The Equal Access Act included surprisingly practical guidelines. It distinguished between curricular organizations and those unrelated to specific coursework. Meetings had to be student-driven and not facades for outside groups coming in to run things. Perhaps most significantly, they had to be entirely voluntary and outside classroom hours. Before school was fine, lunch was fine, after school was fine – any time other clubs or groups could meet. Faculty “advisors” could attend (there are liability issues when minors are left to their own devices for extended periods of time) but not participate and certainly not lead.

All in all, it was a rather reasonable piece of legislation. That alone makes it something of a novelty in terms of Congress and public education.

Bridget Wants A Bible Study

Bridget Mergens was a student at Westside High School in Omaha, Nebraska. In 1985, she asked her principal for permission to form a Christian club at the school. They’d read and discuss the Bible, pray together, and enjoy what those on the inside call “fellowship.” Membership would be open to anyone, however, regardless of their beliefs – because, you know… school.

Bridget suggested they skip the required “faculty sponsor” part. (Presumably she was under the impression this might improve her chance for approval.) The principle said no. She went to the Associate Superintendent, who turned her down as well. Their initial argument (inferred from the court’s response) seems to have been that there could be no clubs without a sponsor, and that this club couldn’t have a faculty sponsor because it would violate the Establishment Clause. Bridget, being a persistent little thing (Luke 18:1-5), took her case to the School Board, which backed school administration.

This was stranger than it may at first seem, given several factors. One, this was Nebraska – a perennial “red state.” Two, this was happening in 1985, a mere year after the passage of the Equal Access Act – big news all across the country, and of particular interest to school officials who, as a general rule, don’t like being sued. Three, there’s no way to read the act as suggesting that religious clubs can’t have teacher sponsors – merely that they can’t participate in the actual discussions or activities. If administration actually played that angle (as the record suggests), it was nonsense… and they should have known it was nonsense.

So why would the district fight this particular request so vigorously? That’s part of what made (and makes) this particular issue so interesting.

Let’s Start A “Contemporary Legal Issues” Club

Mergens, with the support of a few friends and parents, filed suit in their district court. They argued that in addition to violating the Equal Access Act, the school was denying them their freedom of speech, association, and religion as guaranteed in the First Amendment (applied to the states via the Fourteenth). The district clearly had dozens of non-curricular clubs – including Chess Club, Rotary Club, a Scuba Diving Club (naturally very big in, um… Omaha), Photography Club, National Honor Society, Future Business Leaders of America, etc.

The district’s defense was innovative, and perhaps even sincere. All thirty or so of the clubs already established at Westside, they argued, were, in fact, curriculum-related. And since there were no extra-curricular clubs meeting on school property, the Equal Access Act did not apply. The Act assumed a “limited public forum” – and Westside hadn’t created one, legally speaking.

Rotary club? That was an extension of citizenship and public service, important school values and an essential part of each social studies course. Chess club? That was math and science and problem-solving, actual standards in several courses. Photography? Obviously a voluntary extension of art class. And scuba diving? Dude, physical education is a legit course – don’t write it off so easily. But this “Bible Club”? This was different. This was “extra-curricular.” Unlike Scuba Club.

As a backup, they asserted that even if the Equal Access Act did apply, it was unconstitutional – so it didn’t matter.

The district court accepted this reasoning and rejected Mergens’ claims. The case was appealed to the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals who reversed that decision and found in favor of Bridget’s Bible Club. The district – oddly tenacious, it seemed – appealed to the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case in 1990.

If You Give A Mouse A Bible Club…

The most likely explanation for Westside’s stubbornness had nothing to do with opposition to the kids’ faith. There’s at least one reference in court records suggesting that Westside’s principle encouraged the club to meet in the church next door to the school. The Court’s majority opinion mentioned that “the school apparently permits {students} to meet informally after school,” suggesting that at some point the school agreed not to chase them out of the building as long as they didn’t call themselves an official school club. This still meant being ignored in official club listings and left out of announcements, but it hardly evinced a hostility towards the general idea of kids getting together to study the Bible and pray.

On the other hand, what would be the implications of this “limited public forum” described in the Equal Access Act if the club were officially permitted? None of the existing clubs were particularly “issue-driven” or controversial. The school wasn’t wrong that they largely promoted existing school values and the usual “be a good citizen” stuff.

If the Protestants could have a club, however, then by law so could the Catholics. Next could come other faiths or issue-driven groups. Young Republicans. Young Democrats. Wiccans. Gay students. Black students. Atheists. Pro-life clubs. Pro-choice clubs. Oh god, Dungeons & Dragons could stage a comeback!

While the community would probably have been fine with students voluntarily meeting after school to read the Bible and pray, it’s not much of a stretch to imagine some would have been less-thrilled at the idea of their tax dollars supporting (in their minds) the Gay-Straight Alliance or Black Lives Matter (neither existed yet under those names, but the ideas were certainly nascent). Would the school approve Anarchy Club? Sodomites 4 Satan? MSNBC watch parties? At some point they’d reject a group based on its content and quite possibly be sued. At that point, all bets were off as to the fallout. Better to heed the advice of noted American philosopher Barney Fife: “Nip it, nip it, nip it in the BUD!”

In other words, it seems unlikely that the district fought against Bible Club because they didn’t understand the legal implications. More likely, they fought against it because they did.

NOTE: This post is an excerpt from “Have To” History: A Wall Of Education

Part Two: The Decision