Teachers

Encouraging A Moral Conscience in Students

j0439377.jpg
Print Friendly and PDF

In 1787, at the age of 81, Benjamin Franklin made this astute observation about freedom and moral character: "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." 

Franklin recognized that political freedom is directly tied to a people's ability to govern their moral behavior. The less well behaved, the greater the need for rule-makers and rule-enforcers. Personal morality leads to social morality. Without personal virtue, all the laws in the world can only dictate punishment, they cannot empower a person to right conduct. 

Every educator wants students to act virtuously. Virtuous behavior goes beyond merely proper behavior. A student can conform to rules of conduct out of fear of punishment rather than from a sense of right and wrong. Acting virtuously arises from a moral conscience which prompts the actions. Certainly, conduct and character formation are intertwined, and expecting good behavior contributes to the formation of character. But, without virtuous character, students merely submit to rules until they are not being watched. Thus, as Franklin would say, "they have more need of masters" to oversee their conduct. 

However, the topic of forming a moral conscience in public school students is troublesome for some educators because it sits so close to religious beliefs. The dictionary defines conscience as "the faculty of recognizing the difference between right and wrong with regard to one's conduct coupled with a sense that one should act accordingly." It is the word "should" that causes problems for some educators, because it begs the question, "Why should a person conduct himself virtuously?" This is where religious faith comes into play for many people. They answer the "why" by stating that God expects them to be virtuous. As Rabbi Harold Kushner writes: 

"The psalmist loves the law. . . because he is happier living in a world where people feel addressed and summoned by God. It is law that keeps us from returning to the jungle, to a situation where the strongest take what they want." 

Laying down rules is certainly a simple way to point students to right conduct. But Kushner makes the point that, for people of faith, behind the law is God. This answers the question of why they should conduct themselves morally. Of course, this gets sticky for public school educators who cannot teach that students should act virtuously because God requires it. 

There is a way for public schools to help students form a moral conscience directly from their religious faith, and at the same time not violate any First Amendment prohibitions concerning church-state relations. Public schools can encourage students to act on their already-existing moral conscience derived from their religious faith. A school need not endorse a religion in order to encourage students to act on the religious principles they, at least, say they desire to practice. 

How, then, can a school encourage the fostering of a moral conscience formed by religion without actually endorsing or establishing that religion? A school can inform students of their religious rights on campus and encourage them to exercise their rights. The issue, then, is one of rights, not religion. 

Don't Ask, Don't Tell

Too many school administrators prefer a "don't-ask-don't-tell" approach to the subject of religious rights on campus. The attitude is, "don't ask me about your rights, and I won't tell you what they are." However, this reluctance to be pro-active about explaining students' religious rights is unnecessary, especially in light of the U.S. Department of Education's document on religious expression in public schools. 

Originally published in 1998, the document is prefaced by a statement from President Clinton:  "...Schools do more than train children's minds. They also help to nurture their souls by reinforcing the values they learn at home and in their communities. I believe that one of the best ways we can help our schools do this is by supporting students' rights to voluntarily practice their religious beliefs, including prayer in schools..." 

Secretary Richard Riley then introduces the guidance with a letter to American educators. In it he writes: "The great advantage of the presidential guidance, however, is that it allows school districts to avoid contentious disputes by developing a common understanding among students, teachers, parents and the broader community that the First Amendment does in fact provide ample room for religious expression by students while at the same time maintaining freedom from government-sponsored religion." 

Legally the guidance should be updated every two years. With our prompting it was updated in 2020 (it had not been updated since 2003!) and again in 2023, and again in 2026.  

With such resounding support, a school principal can confidently have teachers explain to students their religious rights at the beginning of the school year. This may, at first, sound like a radical idea. After all, that would involve actually explaining to students things like their right to pray, to talk about their faith with classmates, to express their faith in class assignments, to wear clothing with religious symbols, and to read their religious scriptures at school. Just the thought of having every teacher in a school do this is enough to cause some administrators to reach for the antacid. 

But just imagine the impact this could have on the moral climate of the school. As we have already seen, the majority of students at every grade level consider their faith to be important. If the school makes a point of, in essence, saying, "We welcome you to live your faith on campus," the climate will be more inclusive for students of faith. Such action will remind all students that a person's development is more than just education of the brain, it is also the nurturing of the heart. 

Currently, we may be sending the wrong signal to students. Because public schools are too often viewed as religion-free zones, we may be subtly implying to students that religion (and the conduct it motivates) is not all that important to one's development. On the other hand, by openly affirming students' religious rights, schools will be inviting students to conduct themselves by the dictates of their religious beliefs. Such action by schools certainly cannot hurt, and it may encourage students to live by the moral conscience their religion has cultivated in them. 

Inviting Lawsuits? 

Some may fear that being this up front about religion will invite the ACLU to bring a law suit. But, how can any organization dedicated to promoting civil liberties be opposed to telling people what their civil liberties are? The school officials who have teachers explain students' religious rights at the beginning of the school year will not be establishing religion, they will be promoting students' rights. They will be acting on what both Secretary Riley and Secretary Paige recommend they do.

Can't this be done by drafting a memo to parents or including it in the student handbook? Does a school have to verbalize the students' rights? I believe the impact of actually talking about it, of actually telling students their rights is what will have a positive affect on the school climate. 

Developing a moral conscience in children and young people is a multifaceted and lengthy process. It involves many inputs in a student's life, and schools cannot be expected to be the only molder of character. Neither do schools need to be silent regarding one of the most powerful molders of character -- religion. Moral conscience will be better supported when the adults, the authority figures, in schools say to students of all grades that religion is a welcome aspect of peoples' lives, and that it is welcome to be expressed on campus. 

Suggested Actions for School Officials and others

1. Obtain a copy of the U.S. Department of Education's "Religious Expression in Public Schools: A Statement of Principles"

2. Conduct a meeting with teachers in each building to review and discuss the guidance. Explain the need to inform students of their religious rights and how those rights should be explained by each teacher. 

3. Create copies of the guidance to hand out to students and send home to parents. 

4. Gateways has produced pamphlets with direct quotes from the USDOE guidance. You can order them HERE.

5. Share the religious guidance with others through our Free to Speak campaign.

© Gateways to Better Education

Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Christian Pledge

martin-23759_1280.png
Print Friendly and PDF

As part of your lessons on Martin Luther King, Jr., help students understand the depth of how Dr. King's Christian faith impacted his leadership in the civil rights movement.

Below is an excerpt from a U.S. State Department website that reminds us of a largely-forgotten part of the non-violent protests for civil rights. For the complete article, click on the link at the end of this article.

IMPORTANT REMINDER: You are not proselytizing for merely teaching your students about Dr. King's passionate insistence that his fellow protesters base their actions on Christian principles.


Excerpted from "The Martin Luther King We Remember" by Adam Wolfson and Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan 

The Christian springs of King's statesmanship are abundantly evident. With the successful end of the Montgomery bus boycott, King founded the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) in order to take the civil rights struggle and his nonviolent message throughout the South. One of his most trusted aides urged him to drop the word Christian from the new organization. It was argued that such an explicit religious reference would alienate white Northern liberals, whose support would be crucial in the years ahead. King was adamant, however, and the word Christian remained. He also insisted that civil rights participants be guided by Christian principles. For example, volunteers in the Birmingham campaign were required to sign a "Commitment Card" that read in part:

I HEREBY PLEDGE MYSELF--MY PERSON AND MY BODY--TO THE NONVIOLENT MOVEMENT. THEREFORE I WILL KEEP THE FOLLOWING TEN COMMANDMENTS:

  1. MEDITATE daily on the teachings and life of Jesus.

  2. REMEMBER always that the nonviolent movement in Birmingham seeks justice and reconciliation-not victory.

  3. WALK and TALK in the manner of love, for God is love.

  4. PRAY daily to be used by God in order that all men might be free.

  5. SACRIFICE personal wishes in order that all men might be free.

  6. OBSERVE with both friend and foe the ordinary rules of courtesy.

  7. SEEK to perform regular service for others and for the world.

  8. REFRAIN from the violence of fist, tongue, or heart.

  9. STRIVE to be in good spiritual and bodily health.

  10. FOLLOW the directions of the movement and of the captain on a demonstration.

To read the full article CLICK HERE.

The Bible in State Academic Standards

Cover+NOT+All+50.jpg

There is a common misconception that teaching about the Bible and Christianity is not allowed in public school classrooms because of concerns over the establishment of religion. As The Bible in State Academic Standards shows, quite to the contrary, state academic standards across the nation provide ample opportunity for educators to teach about the Bible, Christian beliefs, and Christians who were influential in history. For example, California sixth graders are expected to:

“Note the origins of Christianity in the Jewish Messianic prophecies, the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth as described in the New Testament, and the contribution of St. Paul the Apostle to the definition and spread of Christian beliefs (e.g., belief in the Trinity, resurrection, salvation).” (Standard 6.7.6, adopted in 1998 and reaffirmed in 2005)

We have reviewed every states academic standards. In our Summaries we include:

  • State academic standards related to the Bible and Christianity

  • The preambles to state constitutions that reference God because most states have an expectation that students will learn about their constitutions

  • State laws regarding freedom of religious expression

We will mail you a Summary of your State Academic Standards if you fill out the form below.

St. Patrick's Day - Something You May Not Know

St Patrick's Day.png

Apostle to the Irish/ The Real Saint Patrick

If you ask people who Saint Patrick was, you're likely to hear that he was an Irishman who chased the snakes out of Ireland.

It may surprise you to learn that the real Saint Patrick was not actually Irish -- yet his robust faith changed the Emerald Isle forever.

Patrick was born in Roman Britain to a middle-class family in about A.D. 390. When Patrick was a teenager, marauding Irish raiders attacked his home. Patrick was captured, taken to Ireland, and sold to an Irish king, who put him to work as a shepherd..... 

Six Years a Slave

Who was the first person to go on record against slavery? Here’s a little known fact that kids won’t learn in school (unless you change that): according to historian Thomas Cahill, the first person in history to write against slavery was Saint Patrick. Both his Christian faith and experience led him to do it. 

Patrick was born in the 4th century to Christian parents who were Roman citizens in Briton. As a boy he was kidnapped and become a slave for six years in Ireland. He prayed daily that God would rescue him, and eventually he escaped and returned home. But he felt God calling him to return to Ireland with the Gospel. 

By the end of his life he had baptized over 120,000 Irishmen and established 300 churches. Within his lifetime, or shortly thereafter, the Irish slave trade ended – the result of a transformed people. St. Patrick’s Day (March 17, the day of his death) is the honoring of a Christian for his missionary work. Unfortunately, the true history of Patrick is seldom told in schools today. But, you can change that simply by telling the real story.

Resources:

Teaching and Promoting Tolerance

Print Friendly and PDF

Article Updated 02/19/2025

The Need for a Clear and Practical Definition

In recent years, schools have given an increasing amount of attention to issues surrounding diversity and tolerance. Character education courses, multicultural material, and even health curricula weave the theme of tolerance through their lessons.

Incidents such as the Charlottesville white nationalist rally or the South Carolina church shooting by white supremacist Dylann Roof shock us into the reality that hate-motivated crime is still alive in America.

While some people use these tragedies to create the appearance of a crisis largely for political reasons, it must be pointed out that incidents of hate crimes are relatively rare. For example, the FBI shows that there were 11,862 hate crimes in 2023. However, in 2023, there were an estimated 1.22 million aggravated assaults 11, 862 is only 0.97% of all 1.22 million aggravated assaults. (Of course, the rarity of the occurrences is little consolation to the victims.)

Clearly, we are not a nation of bigots and haters, though the spotlight put on certain incidents might make it appear that way. The need for tolerance is not because of an epidemic of hate crimes, but because of the much more mundane and daily social interactions that require treating each other with respect and dignity. It is in these interactions where educators deal with intolerance most frequently: hallway insults, angry outbursts, and smug dismissals of others' viewpoints during class discussions.

Not only do educators deal with these types of social interactions among students, they, too, are tested in their tolerance for student clothing, hair styles, body piercing, attitudes, morals, and behaviors.

Defining Tolerance

When some use the word tolerance, they mean the first definition you find in the dictionary: recognition of and respect for the opinions, practices, or behavior of others. However, it is important to understand that respect here means, not veneration, but the avoidance of interference. Without this clarification, the definition of tolerance comes to be viewed as a gushing acceptance of just about everything someone says or does. Some even go so far as to define tolerance as the embracing and celebration of the opinions, practices, or behaviors of others.

Many educators and parents, however, cringe at the moral relativism of this approach. Yet, they feel boxed in by the current talk of tolerance. If they oppose it, they run the risk of being accused of advocating bigotry, intolerance, and even hate. This is because those promoting the most open-ended view of tolerance have staked out the playing field by defining the terminology. Pressure then gets placed on colleagues and students to adopt this view of tolerance. To resist is to appear intolerant.

Tolerance Requires Virtue

Tolerance, in and of itself, is not a virtue. If a student tolerates drinking and driving, his tolerance is not virtuous. Tolerance is neutral. Tolerance derives its value from what it is the student tolerates, and the manner in which the student expresses his tolerance and intolerance. This involves character.

When a student uses a racial slur, his problem is not a lack of tolerance, but a lack of kindness and a problem with pride (the root of belief in racial superiority). When a student makes fun of a classmate's point of view during a class discussion, his problem isn't a lack of tolerance, but a lack of courtesy. When one student spits on another student because he thinks his schoolmate is gay, tolerance isn't the issue so much as is self-control.

Proper tolerance is the outgrowth of moral character qualities such as kindness, patience, courtesy, humility, love, self-control, and courage. Even intolerance should be expressed through these qualities.

Students need to be taught that tolerance arises from character. If they don't understand this, they will think they are being tolerant when they are actually only expressing indifference ("whatever"), or apathy ("who cares?"), or even recklessness ("why not?"). Improperly taught, "tolerance education" can lead to disarming students of their proper convictions.

Tolerance Requires Standards

The view that tolerance means, "accepting everyone's ideas and behaviors" is impractical in the real world. It sounds nice in classroom discussions and school board declarations, but it won't work in the hallways. You will find a more practical definition of tolerance in the dictionary's second definition of the term: the allowable variation from a standard. For instance, an engineer might ask about the tolerance of a metal beam in a building during an earthquake. How far should it bend before serious structural damage is done?

This is the definition by which we most commonly live. We establish a standard of what we think is best (even if somewhat vague). We then establish an allowable variation from that standard (often more vague). Then we judge the ideas and actions of others based on what we've established. This is as it should be. To do otherwise is to invite social and moral anarchy. The problem for many people isn't intolerance; it is in not clearly defining their standards.

Even so, we establish standards in hundreds, even thousands, of categories. For example, the First Amendment states that Americans have the right to peacefully assemble and petition their government. In other words, to protest something. Offensive words may be said and even annoying actions may take place. Though offensive to some, these actions are still legally tolerable. What is illegal (intolerable) is when actions become violent and the property of others is stolen or damaged.

Within the school setting, this definition of tolerance is applied in many places: dress codes (pants are allowed, but not hot pants), hallway conduct (conversation between boys and girls is allowed, but not sexual harassment), and classroom participation (students may not have to participate in discussions, but they can't fall asleep).

This practical definition is valuable for classroom instruction because it honors students' moral frameworks developed by their religious education and families. Rather than teach them that tolerance is best demonstrated by an absence of judgment, it teaches that tolerance requires making judgments: first, establishing a standard, and second, establishing the limits of the allowable variation.

If students aren't taught to clearly establish their standards and allowable variations, they will struggle with what to tolerate. In frustration, they may simply jump to the sophomoric view that they should just accept everything. This doesn't require hard thinking and yet has the appearance of taking the moral high ground.

Some may raise the concern that making judgments will only add to someone's existing prejudices. There are two reasons why this doesn't have to be. First, as we have seen, the reality is that this is the way tolerance really works, so the best course of action is to help students think deeply about their standards. Secondly, no matter what their standards are, they should act virtuously toward anyone who varies from those standards.

Ironically, educators can create more "tolerant" school climates by focusing not on tolerance, but on character.

Click here for a practical student handout that explains a better definition of tolerance.

© Gateways To Better Education