Is That A Right? (Repost)

March 17, 2022June 4, 2023 ~ Blue Cereal

Don’t get excited – I’m not diving into current events or anything. (I’m far too demure for such things.) In fact, I’m intentionally avoiding the subject at the moment because any effort I make to write rationally about what we’ve become ends up as a spittle-spewing, obscenity-laden rant and, worse, totally off-brand. Those of you who follow me on Twitter or Facebook, where I’ve lost even the veneer of professionalism or decency towards my fellow man, can no doubt verify this assertion.

Instead, I’d like to share two very simple things you may find useful. Or, you may not. You may find yourself a little bit sad for me if these are my best new cutting-edge distance learning ideas at the moment. Either way, I’m giddy enough for both of us.

“Is That A Right?” is the name of an activity I’ve done with American Government and American History classes for years, and which I’m considering trying “virtually” this fall if circumstances lead us down that path.

It’s not even an overly innovative lesson. It’s really just a PowerPoint presentation with a series of descriptions of potential “rights” as per the U.S. Constitution. Students vote ‘Yes’ if they believe whatever’s on the slide is a protected right and ‘No’ if they don’t, and we discuss it a bit (“Tasha, why do you think so?” or “So, Garrett… would you still say that’s a right if we change the wording to what Tasha said?” You guys know how discussions work.) The next slide tells us the “right” answer, often with disclaimers about how it’s actually a bit more complicated than that – because it’s almost always a bit more complicated than that. Then we go to the next one.

I recently converted the most recent version of this presentation into Google Slides. You can access it in its entirety right here. If it’s something you’d like to use, all you have to do is make a copy (File, Make a Copy…) and it’s yours. Once you’ve copied it, you can change prompts, explanations, images, etc., just like with PowerPoint.

So how could we do this if we’re not in the same place?

I’ve had the privilege of co-teaching several workshops with an amazing history teacher from the Houston area named Barrett Doke. He’s one of those guys that loves technology, but always as a tool for putting more of the learning into the hands of the students and never as an end in and of itself. We all say that’s how we want to use technology – but he actually does it that way. (Now, the rest of you don’t get all defensive – I’m sure MANY of you are just as wonderful. I’m just sharing my personal warm fuzzies.)

Doke is partial to Google Slides and gets rather… enthusiastic when given the chance to share the many simple things you can do with them to make your lessons more flexible and your technology more useful without investing endless hours or – and this is a biggie – relying on your district to purchase and maintain subscriptions to specific apps or equipment. He showed me something he liked to do in Slides that would never have occurred to me. (As I said at the outset, it’s entirely possible this is obvious to everyone else in the world besides me. I can live with that.)

If you adjust the ‘View/Zoom’ for your slideshow while NOT in ‘Presentation’ mode, you’ll discover there’s all sorts of unused space around each slide. You may have stumbled across this in the past when moving around graphics or setting up animation. As it turns out, you can put stuff in these margins and it will be saved and accessible along with everything else, even though it’s not part of the slide.

I KNOW, RIGHT?!

Doke often uses this space for what I think of as ‘tokens’ which students can access. These can be numbered or customized to include their names (although the tokens have to be slightly larger that way). Whether they’re all in class together or meeting virtually (but synchronously), he’ll pose a question or prompt and offer the same sorts of options you’d see with multiple choice. Students move their tokens to the part of the slide which best reflects their response, then Doke calls on a few to explain why they chose what they did. Because they’re all on the same document, everyone sees what everyone else is answering – just like in class.

Yes, this is very similar to what Pear Deck does. I’ve not used Pear Deck extensively, but I hear great things. It might actually do this particular type of activity a bit better. I don’t have it, however, so it’s not a factor.

Here’s the long distance version of the same activity. I’ve used it with teachers successfully, but haven’t yet had the chance to do it this way with students. You’ll have to make your own copy (File, Make a Copy…) if you’d like to use it.

I like several things about this lesson in this format:

The discussions are still the discussions. They’re the key to the lesson being meaningful and the information sticky. Without good discussions, it’s just another quiz.

Anytime you can have synchronous (i.e., “live”) student responses in a form other than asking them to speak up in class, you change the dynamics and who’s likely to participate. That’s not to say it magically guarantees full engagement, but students who may not take initiative in class will often drag their token to the answer they like best.

If you have particularly shy or fragile students, the alpha-numeric system allows a degree of anonymity. One of my priorities is usually creating a dynamic in which everyone learns to speak up, and in which disagreement is healthy and means you respect the other person enough to challenge them, so anonymity is not a priority to me. Plus, it’s difficult to have discussions, even online, anonymously.

Finally, the slideshow is easily shared with students. It’s forever available should they choose to review anything or question anything after having time to think about it.

There are, of course, several downsides:

It’s tricky to keep track of who’s who on Slides. On Google Docs or Google Sheets, students logged in to their school Gmail show up on my screen as a cursor with their name next to it. I can also check version histories and edits in case there are shenanigans. I’m not sure Slides has a similar feature, and even if it does, it won’t help you if your students don’t have school Gmail accounts. That means in theory, anyone can move any number. (Then again, is there ANYTHING in class – virtual or otherwise – that’s completely bozo-proof?)

In order for students to have access to move their tokens around, I have to give them access to ‘Edit’ the Slideshow. That means in theory, they can add or delete slides or change other elements of the activity. I’ve made messing with the slides (accidentally or otherwise) a bit more difficult by ‘locking in’ everything except the tokens themselves. If you’ve made your own copy of the “Long Distance” version of the activity, you may have noticed that while you can move the tokens around, you can’t move around shapes or text on the slides like you normally could. It’s still possible – for you or anyone with ‘Edit’ access – but it’s more laborious and would require both knowledge and focused intent. This is thanks to another cool thing Doke showed me that is gradually changing my online instructional world. (Again, keep in mind that I’m nearly a thousand years old and still both startled and impressed by things like lava lamps or instant music downloads.)

If anyone’s interested, I’ll try to talk about ‘locking in’ elements of various slides next time. I’m learning to get better at doing it, but I’m not yet adept at explaining it. For now, you’re welcome to play with “Is That A Right?” and let me know how it works out. Keep in mind that you’ll have to make your own copy before it will let you edit anything or even move those little tokens around. Obviously, once you’ve made your own copy, you can add far more antagonistic, current event-related slides of your own and blame it on that guy who posted it on the internet to begin with.

You absolutey have that right.

RELATED POST: Those Circle Things

RELATED POST: Causes, Triggers, Events, and Results

RELATED PAGE: Classroom Resources

“Have To” History: A Wall of Separation

December 18, 2019June 4, 2023 ~ Blue Cereal

NOTE: I’ve finally completed “Have To” History: Landmark Supreme Court Cases (or at least the initial draft). At the moment, it’s available on Teachers Pay Teachers and intended to be an easily affordable resource for pretty much any American History or Government teacher of whatever level – from 8th Grade Civics to APUSH. I’m not looking to make serious money or anything, but it took a long time to write and edit, so until I have time to pursue other avenues, there it is.

In the meantime, it’s on to the resource book I’ve wanted to put together for a much longer time – Supreme Court cases related to religion in the public square, particularly in relation to public schools. I find the topic fascinating and the cases and their written opinions far more engaging than pretty much anything else in the annals of jurisprudence. I realize this makes me both weird and slightly pathetic, but so be it. This post is the first chapter of this new undertaking. If you’d like to read more, go buy the first one so I can afford to order pizza and keep working on it.

“Have To” History: Stuff You Don’t Really Want To Know (But For Some Reason Have To) About The “Wall of Separation”

Three Big Things:

1. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution contains six specific protections, two of which are related to religion. The “Establishment” Clause says government cannot support one religion over another or promote the idea of religion over non-religion; the “Free Exercise Clause” says government cannot target or hinder a specific religion or religion in general.

2. The phrase “a wall of separation between Church & State” comes from a letter by President Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists; while not part of the Constitution, it’s been cited so often by various Supreme Court decisions that it might as well be.

3. The 14^th Amendment, passed shortly after the Civil War, requires states to recognize most of the same rights guaranteed on the federal level by other amendments – or at least that’s how it’s come to be understood. The application of principles found in the Bill of Rights to state or local government via the 14^th Amendment is known in legal circles as “incorporation.”

Background: A Bill of Rights

The U.S. Constitution was written as a replacement for the Articles of Confederation – the new nation’s first effort at writing a broad set of laws by which to govern itself. The Articles had guaranteed the States almost complete sovereignty and absolute independence from one another – a great idea in theory, but not as workable in practice.

It was understandable that the Framers would err on the side of freedom, having finally won an extended and bitter war with the Motherland over a King they’d claimed was a “tyrant.” There were over two dozen specific examples of his excessive rule-making and liberty-crushing behavior included in the break-up letter penned by the Colonies – a missive better known as the “Declaration of Independence.”

But they had, perhaps, swung a bit too far away from structure and security. The Constitution was an effort to rectify the resulting difficulties. Turns out that sometimes, thoughtful limits actually grease the gears of liberty.

When the U.S. Constitution was finally ready for public review and debate in the late 1780’s, there were many who thought we’d once again overcompensated – this time back towards too much central authority and too little freedom. They wanted some sort of written guarantee they wouldn’t be oppressed by this bigger, stronger government.

The authors were appalled at this concern. Obviously, any powers not specifically granted to the national government by this document remained with the States and the People thereof! To spell out those protections would be… redundant! Possibly even limiting! What if listing some specifically guaranteed rights implied that they were the only ones thus secured?!

It almost got ugly.

Nevertheless, a compromise was reached. The Constitution was ratified, and a collection of ten clarifying Amendments almost immediately passed as a package deal. Thus, the “Bill of Rights.” Despite the numbering system, there are far more than ten rights included. Some Amendments, like the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth, are packed with due process and thick verbiage. Others, like the Eighth, are fairly crisp – although written in such a way as to allow at least 225 years of subsequent debate as to exactly what they mean.

The Third is all but irrelevant. The Seventh, strangely technical. The Second – well, the Second was badly written from the moment it was passed. Whatever it did or didn’t intend to say about the right to “bear arms,” James Madison’s English teacher must have had a fit.

But the best-known is probably the First.

The First Amendment

The First Amendment contains six specific protections, somewhat related, and presumably so very important that they all tied for first when the Framers were debating what to guarantee the mostiest mostest:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

These are the biggies that squeezed in ahead of militias and quartering of soldiers, and even beat out due process in order of presentation. The right to protest. The right to associate with whomever you wish, including but certainly not limited to political organizations of any and all stripes. Freedom of the press and of speech – absolute linchpins to any nation hoping to maintain the slightest credibility as a true democracy.

But coming ahead of all of them – earning the first two slots in all of Amendment-dom – are the twin ‘freedom of religion’ clauses.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…

In the most basic terms, this says the government may not do anything to promote or encourage a particular religion or the concept of religion in general. Doing so creates a double curse. It leads to the marginalization and eventual persecution of those with different beliefs (whether that difference is major or minor), AND it soils the very faith the government is promoting by making it a tool of secular authority, regulated by political maneuvering and flawed men rather than one’s own spiritual journey.

A faith mandated by the guys with guns and the keys to the jail is, of course, no faith at all.

Or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…

This is the part which says that the government may not do anything to discourage, limit, or punish a particular religion or the concept of religion in general. Hopefully the problems with that sort of behavior are self-evident.

The President and Some Baptists

As to the phrase “wall of separation between church and state,” we have Jefferson to either thank (or blame, depending on your point of view). Well, him and the Baptists.

In 1801, while Jefferson was President, he received a letter from the Danbury Baptists Association in Danbury, Connecticut. They had some concerns about religious freedom and what they saw as inadequate delineation between the secular and the spiritual:

Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty: that Religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals, that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions, {and} that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor.

These Danbury Baptists were asserting that faith is between the individual and his God, while the government is simply supposed to keep us from killing one another or taking each other’s stuff. That’s it – no getting involved in issues best left to the pulpit or the prayer closet. They were frustrated at what they perceived as local governmental practices, indirectly promoting on sect over another, and a growing tendency for those seeking power to fling accusations of godlessness at opponents who refused to use their secular authority to do the same.

Way back in the day, that is.

That is, however, the logical and historical result when you have a religious population and a government of-the-by-the-for-the people. It’s natural to want government to step in and take “your side.” It’s the flip-side of religious freedom – where two or more or gathered, they’ll immediately begin arguing about the finer points of hermeneutics. Unless a government makes substantial and ongoing efforts to avoid such entanglements, those arguments naturally spill over into the secular realm.

It was Jefferson’s reply which gave expression to what has become the most common understanding of the First Amendment’s guarantees regarding matters of faith:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.

There it is.

By itself, it’s just a phrase in a letter. But it’s a phrase in a letter which has been repeatedly referenced and validated in Supreme Court decisions and has become an entrenched and widely accepted interpretation of First Amendment protections through case law and sheer longevity. In other words, it’s as close to belonging in the actual text of the Constitution as something can be without actually being in the text. Then again, it didn’t really matter very much for the next hundred years.

The 14^th Amendment and “Incorporation”

Prior to the 14th Amendment, the protections offered by the Bill of Rights applied exclusively to the Federal Government. While most States had similar protections in their own constitutions, these were inconsistent and locally interpreted. The 14th Amendment changed all of that in ways neither immediate nor obvious. Passed in 1868 as part of the ‘Reconstruction Amendments,’ its initial intent was to guarantee full and equal citizenship for Freedmen – newly freed Black Americans.

It reads, in part:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

It was the first time that the States had been specifically targeted this way. It chipped away substantially at the wall separating State and Federal power – with central authority clearly coming out ahead. Still, several generations passed before the Supreme Court began regularly interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment as a means of “incorporation” – applying the Bill of Rights to the States by way of that part about “equal protection.”

In 1947, this gradual “incorporation” finally crossed into the realm of public schooling. Well… sort of. It made it as far as the bus. The case was , and it began a long and winding path of jurisprudence shaping the relationship between religion and public schools.

Spoiler alert: not everyone would be happy with the results.

Building A Wall of Separation (Faith & School)

September 2, 2016August 10, 2023 ~ Blue Cereal ~ 1 Comment

The U.S. Constitution was written as a replacement for the Articles of Confederation – our first effort at writing a broad set of laws by which to govern the nation. The Articles had guaranteed the States almost complete sovereignty and absolute independence from one another – a great idea in theory, but not as workable as one might hope in practice.

It was understandable they’d err on the side of freedom, having finally won an extended and bitter war with the Motherland over a King they’d claimed was a “Tyrant.” There were over two dozen specific examples of his excessive rule-making and liberty-crushing behavior included in the break-up letter penned by the Colonies – a missive better known as the “Declaration of Independence.”

So, you know… downer.

But they had, perhaps, swung a bit too far away from structure and security. The Constitution was an effort to rectify the resulting difficulties. Turns out that sometimes, thoughtful limits actually grease the wheels of liberty and justice for all.

When the U.S. Constitution was finally ready for public review and debate in the late 1780’s, there were many who thought we’d once again overcompensated – this time back towards too much government, and too little freedom. They wanted some sort of written guarantee they wouldn’t be oppressed by this bigger, stronger government.

The authors were appalled at this concern. Obviously any powers not specifically granted to the national government by this document remained with the States and the People thereof! To spell out those protections would be… redundant! Possibly even limiting! What if listing some specifically guaranteed rights implied that they were the only ones entirely secured?!

It almost got ugly.

Nevertheless, a compromise was reached. The Constitution was ratified, and a collection of ten clarifying Amendments almost immediately passed as a package deal. Thus, the “Bill of Rights.”

Despite the numbering system, there are far more than ten rights included. Some Amendments, like the Fourth and Fifth, are packed with guarantees and thick verbiage. Others, like the Eighth, are fairly crisp and to the point – although written in such a way as to allow at least 225 years of subsequent debate as to exactly what they mean.

The Third is all but irrelevant. The Seventh, strangely technical. The Second – well, the Second was badly written from the moment it was passed. Forget whatever it may or may not intend to say about the right to bear arms, Madison’s English teacher must have had a fit.

But the best-known is probably the First.

The First Amendment contains six specific protections, somewhat related, and presumably so very important that they all tied for first when the Framers were debating what to guarantee the mostiest mostest.

Let’s take a gander, shall we?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That’s a meaty one, to be sure. What many people don’t realize is that this version was abbreviated from James Madison’s original text. Here’s what Madison proposed as Amendment Prime:

The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed. The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable. The people shall not be restrained from peaceably assembling and consulting for their common good; nor from applying to the Legislature by petitions, or remonstrances, for redress of their grievances.

So there’s a lesson in tightening up your language without losing substance, kids.

In any case, these are the biggies that squeezed in ahead of militias and quartering of soldiers, and even beat out due process in order of presentation. The right to protest. The right to associate with whomever you wish, including but certainly not limited to political organizations of any and all stripes. Freedom of the press and of speech – absolute linchpins to any nation hoping to maintain the slightest credibility as a true democracy.

But coming ahead of all of them – earning the first two slots in all of Amendment-dom – are the twin ‘freedom of religion’ clauses.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…

In the most basic terms, this is the part that says the government may not do anything to promote or encourage a particular religion or the concept of religion in general. Doing so creates a double curse. It leads to the marginalization and eventual persecution of those with different beliefs (whether that difference is major or minor), AND it soils the very faith the government is promoting by making it a tool of secular authority, regulated by political maneuvering and flawed men rather than one’s own spiritual journey. A faith mandated by the guys with guns and the keys to the jail is, of course, no faith at all.

Or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…

You may wonder where the famous ‘wall of separation between church and state’ comes in. As with so many things, we have Jefferson to either thank or blame for that phrase, depending on your point of view. Well, him and the Baptists.

In 1801, while Jefferson was President, he received a letter from the Danbury Baptists – yes, those Baptists. As in the folks with over 3x the membership of the next leading denomination in Oklahoma today. They had some concerns about religious freedom and what they saw as inadequate delineation between the secular and the spiritual:

Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty: that Religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals, that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions, {and} that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor.

That’s right, kids – the Baptists were asserting that faith is between you and God while the government is simply supposed to keep you from killing one another or taking someone else’s stuff. That’s it – no getting involved in issues best left to the pulpit or the prayer closet.

But sir, our constitution of government is not specific… And such has been our laws and usages, and such still are, {so} that Religion is considered as the first object of Legislation, and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights. And these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgments, as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen.

These weren’t atheists arguing against the Ten Commandments or Muslims insisting on their right to pray to Allah instead of Jesus. These were Christians – Protestants, even – who were frustrated by their local government enabling and supporting some theological technicalities more than others.

That’s the logical and historical result when you have a religious people and a government of-the-by-the-for-the those same people. You’ve driven down the street and wondered how and why even the smallest community needs about 37 different churches? That’s the flip-side of religious freedom – where two or more or gathered, they’ll immediately begin arguing about the finer points of hermeneutics.

Unless government makes a substantial and ongoing effort to avoid such entanglements, those arguments naturally spill over into the secular realm.

It was Jefferson’s reply which gave expression to what has become the most common understanding of the First Amendment’s guarantees regarding matters of faith.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.

There it is.

In other words, it’s as close to belonging in the actual text of the Constitution as something can be without actually being in the text. For the record, it’s not alone in this – the Constitution never explains Federalism or defends Democracy, both of which are now considered inherent. The Framers despised Political Parties and what letting them get involved would do to the entire system – but for better or worse, they’re clearly a thing.

And until the North won the Civil War, Equality wasn’t even a goal, let alone a realization. I’m a big fan of small government and faithfulness to the Constitution, but let’s not go overboard. It’s an outline, not a mathematical model.

So “wall of separation” it is. It sounds so simple, and it is – on paper.

In practice, though… well, let’s just say it’s come up a time or two. And sometimes, the issue involves public education.

Which is what I do.

Next: A Wall of Separation – Everson v. Board of Education (1947)

RELATED POST: Should You Legislate the Bible?

RELATED POST: Missing the Old Testament