Bakersfield school holiday renaming: dialogue commences

defending the First Amendment against the Christian right ...

... because if Jews don't speak out, they'll think we don't mind

Web JewsOnFirst

Please email us
(click here)
catcher@JewsOnFirst.org

And "bookmark" us at
JewsOnFirst.org

Jews on First
P.O. Box 33821
Washington DC 20033

310-553-1146

Bakersfield school holiday renaming: the dialogue commences

January, 2007

For our earlier coverage, which includes a recorded conversation with Rabbi Cheryl Rosenstein, please click here.

After leading the opposition to Kern High School District's sudden renaming of winter and spring breaks Christmas and Easter, respectively, Rabbi Cheryl Rosenstein opened a dialogue with Joel Heinrichs, a member of the board of the district, which serves Bakersfield California and the surrounding area. We are publishing some of that exchange.

HEINRICHS: Rabbi Rosenstein (and Mr. Glatzer):

Thank you for your further comments. I have taken the liberty of copying them below – so that I can respond specifically.

I sincerely appreciate the opportunity to do so.

Joel

ROSENSTEIN: January 3, 2007

Dear Mr. Heinrichs,

I appreciate your thoughtful response to some of our concerns. Nonetheless, I remain dismayed by board’s decision, and discomfited on the following points:

1. As the good Dr. Jones has pointed out, the Supreme Court has argued that students’ freedom of religious expression is protected. As I understand it, no students were involved in proposing the name changes you and the board adopted. Calling the breaks “winter” and “spring” certainly did not inhibit anyone’s ability to observe their holidays.

HEINRICHS: As I responded to Dr. Jones, not wanting to appear to lecture a very knowledgeable group, I edited down a page long analysis of the legal memo to a short paragraph. The point I was attempting to make there is several fold:

The memo (put into the record by the proponents as justification for the action) does indicate that it is legal to name the breaks consistent with the original Christian Holidays – but more importantly – clearly spells out limits on the institution (Board and staff) to promote a particular religion and makes it very clear that there is not a single additional thing we could do in the name of “tradition” that would pass constitutional muster AND clearly spells out limits on our ability to control personal expression of students and staff. This second section is not particularly germane to this issue (as to my knowledge there are not issues w/ holiday greetings, etc. – but will bolster our ability to defeat potential future proposals promoting limitations on curriculum, activities, or some other type of clearly constitution expression by students and/or staff).

ROSENSTEIN:2. While “legal eagles” may agree that no line has been crossed, my community and I strenuously disagree. State-sponsored religion is unconstitutional; the re-naming of the entire winter and spring holiday breaks for the two most holy days in the Christian calendar smacks strongly of the appearance of state-sponsored religion. If December 25 and Easter Sunday were mislabeled on the district calendar, why were Christmas and Easter Days not simply and appropriately re-named? Why did the reference to entire vacation periods have to be altered?

HEINRICHS: As I stated during the hearing, I had expected a more thorough discussion of the issue and our options. I may have erred in not asking for more time – because this suggestion – acknowledge the holidays themselves while retaining the non-sectarian names of the breaks themselves – may have been a better option. However, as discussed in detail in my initial letter, I also was loathe to “drag out” the divisive discussion over a longer period of time. So – an extension of time to consider more alternatives may have proven beneficial to the community as a whole – but at this point – I am not confident re-visiting the issue would be healthy.

ROSENSTEIN:3. The school calendar was recently altered so that the winter break aligns with the end of a school term. As this is sound educational policy, why is the spring holiday not also aligned with the end of a school term – thereby possibly diffusing the need for it to be renamed at all?

HEINRICHS: Some one did suggest to me right before the hearing that we potentially split the question – rename Winter Break to Christmas Break (reflecting its secular popularity, the fact that it does in fact always coincide with Christmas Day, etc.) and leave Spring Break as is – as it is not as closely tied the actual holiday day, and while still secular in some respects (Easter Bunnies, etc.), it is certainly less widely recognized outside the non-Christian tradition.

As noted above, I opted for “closure” and did not bring up this complicating alternative. In retrospect, that was probably an error.

ROSENSTEIN:As for your fear that the KHSD would be assailed as “anti-religious” – what you mean, of course, is “anti-Christian.” Many Christian friends were co-signatories of my letter. The statement you and the board have chosen to make is that you are willing to bow to the interests of a noisy element, who are represented on the board by at least one of your colleagues, and who thus rewarded, will be likely to press for more rulings regarding “traditional values.”

HEINRICHS: While I fully understand the argument that by “giving in” now, we have emboldened those that would push a narrow, religious agenda on the KHSD – I do not believe it to be true. In fact, as I discussed in the initial letter, I believe further attempts to unreasonably narrow our curriculum and/or policies will be made at some point – and our chances of building and maintaining a broadly based, community consensus to limit and marginalize that type of activity – are greatly strengthened by our action of acknowledging the traditional Christian holidays (with full acknowledgement that, as stated above, it might have been better to acknowledge them in one of the more limited ways you describe above).

ROSENSTEIN:Please know that in the event they do so, there are many who will gladly support you in any effort you expend to speak for the rest of us.

I am counting on it. One positive from this process, I believe, has been the large outpouring of comments by Christians who very much endorse a strict interpretation of the Establishment Clause. It is the “silent majority” who we will need to speak to, and for, in the future.

ROSENSTEIN:Thank you for listening.

HEINRICHS: Again, thank you for the opportunity to discuss this further. I do not expect you to agree with my vote – but I had hoped that at least we could come to an understanding of it’s motives – and build a relationship at least sufficient to work together when our views and interests align – which I believe will be often.

Please share my comments as appropriate with your peers – and let me know if I can be of service in any way.

ROSENSTEIN:I wish you a healthy, happy 2007,

Rabbi Cheryl Rosenstein
Temple Beth El
2906 Loma Linda Drive
Bakersfield, CA 93305