Pennsylvania+bill+would+repeal+religious+garb+ban

=By Bob Stiles,= =//Published in the Pittsburgh TRIBUNE-REVIEW//= =//7/17/11//= = = = = =Two state lawmakers want to change a little-known section of a law that prohibits Pennsylvania public school teachers from wearing crosses, yarmulkes and other religious symbols in the classroom under threat of possible suspension or dismissal.= = Only Pennsylvania and Nebraska still have such bans, said state Reps. Eugene DePasquale, D-York, and Will Tallman, R-Adams County. They have introduced legislation to delete Section 1112 from the School Code.= ="The time has come for Pennsylvania to repeal it," DePasquale said. "We're not talking about people proselytizing. It's what they wear. There's a big difference between wearing a cross or yarmulke and saying, 'You should be Catholic.' "= =The legislators say the 1895 law is antiquated and was adopted at a time when anti-Catholic and anti-Jewish prejudice ran high.= =A century ago, the Ku Klux Klan and other groups promoted such bans across the country because of an "anti-Catholic, anti-Jewish bias ... because they didn't want them to teach in public schools," DePasquale said.= =The Pennsylvania School Boards Association and the Pennsylvania School Employees Association, a union representing more than 190,000 teachers and support personnel, have not taken a position on the legislation, representatives said.= =Under the 1895 law, a public school teacher who wears a religious item could be suspended from teaching for one year and could be permanently disqualified for multiple offenses. A school board member could be held criminally liable for failing to enforce the prohibition.= =In 2003, Armstrong-Indiana Intermediate Unit 28 told teacher's aide Brenda Nichol she couldn't wear a cross necklace. She was suspended, then sued in U.S. District Court in Pittsburgh. The IU settled with Nichol after a judge said its policy showed "hostility toward religion" and probably violated her free-speech rights.= =Nichol, 52, who holds the same job and wears the cross, said the so-called "garb statute" should be repealed.= ="I think it's important to be able to have freedom of expression," she said. "In our country, that's one of the fundamental rights."= =There is a difference between wearing a religious item and promoting a particular faith in a classroom, Nichol said.= =She said she doesn't hold any animosity toward her employer.= ="I guess they felt they did what they had to do, as I did what I felt I had to do," Nichol said.= =Pennsylvania's prohibition on religious garb should be lifted, said Geoffrey Surtees, an attorney with the American Center for Law and Justice, a constitutional law and religious liberties group that represented Nichol.= ="These laws were needless when they were enacted, and they're needless now. In fact, they're worse than needless: They're unconstitutional," Surtees said.= =But the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the Philadelphia Board of Education in a 1990 ruling involving Alima Delores Reardon, a devout Muslin who held the religious belief that women should show only their face and hands. The substitute teacher was turned away three times for reporting to work in a scarf covering her head, neck and chest and a long, loose dress covering her arms.= =The ruling noted a U.S. Supreme Court decision to dismiss a similar appeal to the now-defunct Oregon laws, "whose cumulative import is nearly identical to the Pennsylvania Garb Statute."= =The 3rd Circuit cited "a compelling interest in maintaining the appearance of religious neutrality in the public school classroom," and said Reardon's attire would have imposed an "undue hardship" on the school board.= =The American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania could have an issue if the ban is lifted and teachers extend their rights beyond symbolism, said Andy Hoover, the group's legislative director.= ="We have no position (on the repeal)," Hoover said. "We have traditionally supported state employees wearing religious clothing or jewelry as a First Amendment issue. If teachers started preaching to the kids, we would have a different position."= =Americans United for Separation of Church and State would be concerned if teachers "take advantage" of wearing religious items "to preach in schools," said Robert Boston, senior policy analyst for the Washington-based group. Proselytizing would violate established court rulings, he added.= =Boston suggested that the Pennsylvania legislature add language that Oregon included in a 2010 bill that lifted a similar ban while calling for "religious neutrality in the school environment."= =Oregon's 1923 ban ended through efforts of its speaker of the house and the threat of lawsuits, according to the Oregon Education Association.= =Experts offer differing opinions on why Pennsylvania's law was enacted and has stayed on the books when most states have dropped theirs.= =A Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling in the early 1890s allowed Roman Catholic nuns, some of whom taught in public schools, to wear habits in the classroom, Surtees said. That led to "nativism and anti-Catholic" feelings that factored into the ban, he said.= =The court ruling was issued as public education became mandatory in Pennsylvania, said Stuart Knade, chief counsel of the state school boards association. Parents, already forced to send their children to school, were concerned that they would be exposed to other faiths, he said.= =Most PSBA members probably would like the ban to be repealed so they don't have to enforce it, Knade said.= ="I think, frankly, nobody really got worked up about it before," Knade said.= =DePasquale said he believes the issue has been overlooked.= ="A lot (of lawmakers) were surprised it was still on the books," he said.= =Some laws stay until "someone challenges them," Surtees said. "Some might say this (repeal) is a symbolic thing to do, but symbols mean a lot."= = Read more: [|Pennsylvania bill would repeal religious garb ban - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review] [] = = = =News= =home=