How many verses do you know?
Some Iowa legislators want to offer public school students both chaplains and a daily dose of the “Star Spangled Banner.”
Chaplains
House Bill 2073 authorizes school districts to hire school chaplains while stipulating that the district shall not require the chaplain “to have a license, endorsement, certification, authorization or statement of recognition issued by the board of educational examiners.”
Supporters argue that it would provide additional mental health supports for students, or provide a religious support for students who were not able to attend a private religious school. Opponents argue it’s a violation of church-state separation, and a misapplication of the idea of a chaplain.
A similar bill passed in Texas last year, and over 100 Texas chaplains urged school districts not to take advantage of it. The chaplains pointed out that professional chaplains have “specific education and expertise,” including, typically a graduate theological degree and support from an organization connected to their religious tradition. Professional chaplains may also acquire two years of religious leadership experience.
Besides the problems that come with letting just anyone declare themselves a chaplain, the Texas chaplains also saw problems with placing a chaplain in a school setting:
Because of our training and experience, we know that chaplains are not a replacement for school counselors or safety measures in our public schools, and we urge you to reject this flawed policy option: It is harmful to our public schools and the students and families they serve.
Iowans should be able to predict exactly what comes next, considering the noisy controversy over the December display at the capital by the Satanic Temple as a display of what happens when you open the door to religious expression by the government.
Sure enough. The Satanic Temple has expressed its excitement for the “opportunities [the bill] presents for the Satanic Temple to support services and programs to school children in our state.” While one of the bill’s authors seems to have suggested that she had Christian ministers in mind, the bill as written would allow for any religion to be represented, and by any person who feels like representing it.
The National Anthem
House Bill 587 is simple enough. To promote patriotism, the bill adds this paragraph to the subject areas to be taught in grades 1 through 12:
The social studies curriculum shall include instruction related to the words and music of the national anthem, the meaning and history of the national anthem, the object and principles of the government of the United States, the sacrifices made by the founders of the United States, the important contributions made by all who have served in the armed forces of the United States since the founding, and how to love, honor, and respect the national anthem.
To make this happen, schools are instructed to have all classroom teachers lead students in at least one verse of the anthem every day. On specially designated “patriotic occasions,” they are required to sing all four verses. The local board may also require all four verses before certain school activities.
Students or teachers “shall not compelled” to sing over their objections, but all are required “to show full respect to the national anthem” by standing at attention, if physically able, “and maintaining a respectful silence.”
Private schools, even those accepting taxpayer-funded vouchers, are exempt from the proposed law.
Ignoring for the moment the vast First Amendment implications of such a law, this is, for classroom teachers, an unenforceable rule. Shall teachers call home to say, “Pat was not showing sufficient respect with their facial expressions during the third verse of the Star Spangled Banner today”? In a song so easily butchered vocally (”O’er the land of the free-ee-ee-ee!”) how should teachers distinguish between good faith vocal disasters, attempts to be comically struggling, and unpatriotic disrespect?
Like the chaplain bill, the outcomes of the required singing bill are probably not going to be what the writers imagine. As Rep. Sue Cahill (D-Marshalltown) pointed out, “The school classroom is not the place for mandating the singing of the national anthem, thus mandating patriotism for students. It’s something in our hearts, something we learn. We have to choose the meaning of our patriotism.”
