They call the thing a “mosaic.” It is a gift to Green Hope High School in Cary, N.C., from this year’s senior class, only the second group to graduate from the new school.
Each student was allowed to design a personal tile for the mosaic, in which he was encouraged to express his individuality. All the tiles placed together were to constitute a monument to the class’s diversity. Apparently, some students, however, forgot what public-school diversity means, because there were about 18 tile designs that included (brace yourselves) Christian texts or symbols.
At this point in American life, it would be redundant to report what happened next. It is, after all, well known now that public school officials act as if, to paraphrase H.L. Mencken, they are haunted by the fear that someone, somewhere may encounter a religious sentiment. The equation here is a public school plus something religious, which always equals a public school officials deliberately offending a religious student out of a supposed concern that not doing so would offend some other student who incidentally would probably not complain. Just as at Arlington National Cemetery, where members of the 3rd United States Infantry solemnly guard the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, in public schools bureaucrats zealously guard the Feelings of the Unheard Student.
So at Green Hope High students took administrators at their word that the tiles were intended to reflect their individuality. And the administrators rejected the designs of Christian individuals on the grounds that probably, on perhaps some level of likelihood, they just might possibly offend somebody maybe. Silly students. How could they forget what public-school individuality is? You are a unique individual just like everyone else. And for you religious types, you are a unique individual just like everyone else or else.
Given such an environment, why even attempt to have a mosaic? Well, not only is a mosaic an art form, but also “mosaic” is one of the Cult of Diversity’s more decorative euphemisms for its skin-deep passion. Those (such as public-school students) familiar with the diversity cult’s catechisms will be well accustomed to the use of “mosaic” as a fancy synonym for “diversity,” and Green Hope High is certainly not heterodox in that respect. For example, under “Assignments” on the web page for its “Asian Indian Unit” readers will encounter this paragraph:
“The first feature to remember when thinking of India is its diversity. It is a country in which there are 15 official languages, over 300 minor languages, and some 3,000 dialects. Twenty-four languages have more than one million speakers each. The largest spoken language is Hindi, but this is the mother tongue of only about 40 percent of the population. Often Indians cannot understand each other and frequently use English as a link or administrative language. But language is not the only diversity. There are four principal social groupings, what we sometimes call castes, and several thousand subcategories of the castes. Although predominantly Hindu, all the world’s major religions are represented in India. Ethnic differences also abound. This mosaic is culturally extraordinary.”
In light of recent events it seems almost uncharitable to point out Green Hope High’s appreciation for religious diversity as part of India’s mosaic. It would be unsporting to follow that by quoting from Green Hope’s motto, “Nurturing relationships and valuing diversity are key components in helping students achieve their personal best.” One might conclude that those two examples starkly contrast with Green Hope’s crackdown on Christian symbols or Bible verses on a few mosaic tiles supposedly reflecting individuality. But if T.S. Eliot could show us fear in a handful of dust, one supposes it must follow that high school seniors could inspire same with a handful of tiles.
Nevertheless, Green Hope High, while new, is hardly exceptional in its reaction to religious tiles. In Columbine, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a lower court ruling that would have allowed families of two of the students slain in the 1999 shootings there to hang four-inch ceramic tiles painted with religious symbols as part of a memorial to the victims. Columbine could not stomach Christian sentiments even from its dead. One can only imagine the revulsion such people must feel upon witnessing the Argonne Cross Memorial in Arlington — why, that’s government property! Someone’s rights, oh the indignity!
Elsewhere this past academic year, a Pennsylvania teacher’s aide was suspended without pay for wearing a cross necklace on school grounds. A sixth grade girl in Lafayette, Colo., had to threaten bringing a civil rights suit in order to do a book review on the Book of Exodus. Two students did sue that same school district for the right to form a Bible club at their high school. Education Secretary Rod Paige remarked that he thought Christian values are conducive to learning — and “set off a firestorm” of controversy. Veterans invited to speak at a Pennsylvania high school on Veterans Day were forbidden from mentioning God or praying because it might “spark complaints from activist groups.”
Those are just a few of the incidents this year, but they are enough to prompt the obvious questions: What’s wrong with people nowadays? Don’t they realize that by expressing their religious beliefs at a public school, they are violating the U.S. Constitution’s Separation Clause?
Well, OK, but don’t they know they are violating the First Amendment? It’s in there: “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.”
See, it says right there that schools cannot allow a student to proclaim his religion, even if through use of a symbol. Granted, the actual text may be too difficult to remember (especially for one “taught” at a public school), let alone parse: Congress something something no something religion something something speech. Not to worry! Surely “separation of church and state” is easily memorable and obviously applicable.
True, technically that phrase was in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association on January 1, 1802, in which he wrote that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment built “a wall of separation between church and State.” And yes, technically Jefferson was explaining how in the Constitution’s eyes the government could support religious expression without harming others’ rights.
Just ignore all of that, all right? Pay attention only to that “separation [of] church and state,” because those five words, considered independently from their original context, probably supplant those five disagreeable words in the Constitution about religion and the government not “prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
Besides, one cannot help but note that the Jefferson quotation represents the use of one (1) whole source among the Founders to help interpret their original intent concerning the Constitution. One will no doubt appreciate that it represents one more than the usual number of Founders used in interpreting the Constitution according to today’s dictates for sensitivity to certain groups and causes. It’s quite impressive.
So make no mistake, the principle is out there, and surely Thomas Jefferson meant to mean that no individual should be allowed to speak of anything religious or symbolizing religion while within the trappings of government. And remember to ignore the president’s reference to “the common Father and Creator of man” at the end of that letter, ‘kay?
Sanders is assistant editor at Carolina Journal.