Dancing and secular purpose

[Jim Maule]

Michael McConnell <michael.mcconnell at LAW.UTAH.EDU> writes

> I consider much of the argument in the case disingenuous,
> since it denies the religious nature of the conflict. But
> unlike Marc, I think the result is correct and indeed
> commendable. Here we are faced with a conflict between a
> significant minority who believe dancing is sinful and a
> majority who think it is fun. What is the "neutral" course
> for the school to take? Is it to officially sponsor the
> dance on school property, thus plainly siding with the
> majority over the minority? Or is it to "privatize" the
> event--cooperating with private efforts but not extending
> official approval to them?

Does it matter (if?) dancing has less of a connection with the
educational mission of a school than does curriculum choice?

> By the way, this almost exactly parallels the treatment of
> baccalaureate services by many schools--an issue we discuss
> in connection with Lee v. Weisman.

Graduation ceremonies seem closer to curriculum provision than to
dances. ?

And if I were to toss sports into the mix (remember the discussions
about observant Jews unable to play in Friday night or Saturday
games?) I'd really become a target. Part of the problem is that some
folks think (public) schools ought to provide for every need and whim
of a child (or the child's parents). Once the school gets into
sports, dances, hobbies, etc etc (much like modern megacorporations
that want to manage your finances AND grow your food) then the
instances of secular - religious conflict grow aritmetically and
perhaps geometrically (though probably not exponentially -- we'll let
Mark G's Nobel prize winning statisticians play with that :-) ).


Jim Maule
Professor of Law
Villanova University School of Law
Villanova, PA 19085
maule at law.vill.edu
http://www.cilp.org/~maule
(610) 519 - 7135