'Intelligent design' in school is a no-win move

My neighbors just returned from a year in France. Their daughter, who will enter 8th grade in the fall, had a very un-Utah-like school experience. For starters, there were seven kids in her class. The school schedule resembled a college routine, early classes one day, a late start the next. Sometimes lunch was about 45 minutes, other times it lasted three hours.

As much as I loathe imposing the Utah public school schedule and policies on my children, they know full well what's in store for them. After a summer of sleeping in, they climb back on the hamster wheel on Aug. 29. They know what the dress code will allow and they know what it will not. As much as they bellyache about it, I've become convinced that it helps them to feel safe at school.

My friends face a steeper challenge after a year of living abroad. There, there was no dress code. Just about anything went, except religious symbols and any dress or accessories that made political statements.

The dress code at my child's school makes no mention of religious symbols. If students choose to wear head scarves, crosses or CTR rings as an acknowledgment of their faith and beliefs, that's fine by me. I tend to think religion is an important anchor in a child's life.

I used to be a strict separationist about religion in public life. Now I tend to think a fine line can be walked if students are taught about religion in historical or legal contexts. For instance, students need to learn about the role of religion in world, national and state history. Whether it was the Crusades, the founding of the United States or Utah's fight for statehood, students need to understand the religious implications to appreciate the complexities of these issues.

Teaching about religion in public school is a whole different animal than teaching religion. In other words, teaching is OK, preaching is not.

My neighbors' return to Utah also coincides with a move on the part of one state lawmaker to require schools that teach evolution theory to also teach "divine" or "intelligent design" to explain the origins of life. We would do well to consider what we are asking of science teachers. Instead of teaching theory or proven facts, science teachers would be asked to also referee religious questions. Suffice it to say, this debate would not be taking place in France.

This is a dangerous path to travel. A teacher who insists on sticking to the facts runs the risk of being labeled as "godless." A teacher who espouses a particular religious or ideological point of view may be attacked for excluding the beliefs or non-beliefs of others. We're talking full employment for constitutional law experts.