Reader comments
Church lines equal school lines?

This sounds like a real time-saver, and money-saver, for the school district. Why make them start from scratch and thus use more public money? I don't see a problem with piggybacking on ward boundaries, as long as:

1) the ward boundaries are used as a starting point, not a final plan, for school boundaries;

2) the total student population distribution, regardless of religious affiliation, is used to adjust the boundaries as needed;

3) the Church and its leaders are not exerting, or seen as exerting, undue influence; and

4) the school district recognizes that the Church has not committed to help realign school boundaries now or in the future.

I'm not crazy about school district officials meeting with Church leaders. If the meetings are just to hand off the ward boundary data, fine. If the meetings are also to discuss what the new school boundaries should be, let that discussion take place in a school board meeting or other public forum, where Church leaders can have their say just like the rest of us.

Keep religion out of politics and politics out of religion. Another way the LDS want to run the country.

On its face, this issue stinks! To say it is �problematic� is an understatement. It smacks of what one would expect to read in Pete Rose�s, �They and We,� or a 1964 Civil Rights Supreme Court Ruling involving the abridgment by the state of equal privileges and immunities.

Utahans, generally speaking, are weary of such elitist agendas waged by the �select few.� By way of example, when the voucher bill failed it appeared to fail not because it optimistically promoted academic institutional competition against an ugly, bloated, underachieving educational monopoly, but more so because the bill had the appearance of �separate but equal� and �class discrimination,� written all over it. Whether that perception was real, or simply perceived, didn�t seem to matter. The bill�s failure represented a significant political attitude against elitism in Utah.

LDS Church members especially need to be super sensitive to and avoid the appearance of unauthorized and unwarranted �Church action� as that relates to the separation of the powers of Church and state, and not be so readily willing to skirt, if not cross over, the lines dividing them because of some loop-hole in the law.

It just seems to be inching toward a line that is best not approached. Besides, with how often ward and stake boundaries are changed, what is the real long-term value?

Sleuth, you make some good points, but I don't think the issue is as clear as you put it. Since LDS wards are geography based, and often seek to preserve community boundaries but also provide a balance of economic types, generally following their boundaries for schools does not exclude individuals any more than other plans--it probably should be used as ONE input among many, to respect natural community groupings.

On a side issue, Sleuth, could you consider calling us "Utahns"? That's how we pronounce it, and the use of "Utahans" screams "Eastern outsider that just moved here and doesn't know any better", even though for all I know, you're native born here. Maybe it's just a prejudice, but worth considering.

What is funny about this is that outside of the Mormon corridor, ward boundary decisions regularly consider school boundaries, for all the same reasons that were articulated in the article --- it is about keeping "neighborhoods" (which in heavily one-church populated areas can reasonably include the church neighborhood) intact in support of student success.

Unless any other situation involves church boundaries that are also geographical boundaries, the situations are simply not comparable. There is no gerrymandering to satisfy a church in the sense that the boundaries are not even or reasonable.

How troubling is this? It is in your face to the non-Mormons in the community. It is bad enough to have a sweetheart deal between the school districts and the LDS Church that allows land adjacent to schools to be coincidently purchased for seminary buildings. Can you imagine the uproar if the school boundaries were based on Catholic parish boundaries? And people wonder why Mitt is having trouble. This is about as in-your-face politics as you can get.

The only thing that is alarming about this is the reaction. In Arizona, it is common for the school to solicit input from the LDS community on a number of issues. Why? It's the best thing for the students. By understanding what is going on in the lives of the students they serve, the schools are creating an environment for students to succeed. While schools can ignore the religious part of a student's life, they do so to the detriment of the student. Does that mean the schools should let the church dictate school policy? Of course not. But the refusal to consider significant community influences does not serve the schools or the students.

�Good Idea� � In this story, the mere creation of the appearance of individuals irresponsibly exercising �Church Action� in official public school administrations, as �agents� of the Church, takes attention away from any merits, which may otherwise be had from the unique community knowledge contributed toward the school achieving its independent goals. The story has the appearance of being unfair to non-LDS citizens who might oppose LDS re-districting strategies advantageous only to �Mormons.� We are reading about this story because the �lines� appear to have been crossed.

There should be no �piggybacking� unless public approval of such �piggybacking� has been achieved by mass political participation, openly and by due process. Quite frankly, the relevancies between public school re-districting, any religious groups, their interpersonal affiliations and church membership boundaries, are not evident and appear extralegal; particularly in a pluralist secular society where the powers of Church and State comingling are strictly forbidden.

This story has the appearance of a �shoulder-to-shoulder� relationships by Church and State, not permitted by law, and it is quite serious considering that such breaches (when true and sometimes when spurious) can have the effects of eroding public confidence in the legitimacy of all of our institutions.

My ward consists of a minimum of 10 elementary schools, 4 middle schools and 5 high schools. I do not think using ward boundaries would work where I am (not in Utah).

Sleuth: Get over yourself and your Utahan attitudes toward anyone not from there. It is this attitude that makes a lot of people visiting or moving into Utah very uncomfortable. I lived there twice and pray I never live there again.

Those who object to this seem to think that the LDS Church gains something by it. What, exactly? And at whose expense, really? Are they trying to make one school more LDS and the other less? Sure doesn't look like it. And this "establishment clause" concern: pray tell, in what way is a government entity establishing religion by this?

Forgive me, I'm not from around there, but is this conspiracy real or imagined?

What a non issue. Don't we have better things to worry about?

Boundaries change all the time and the minute the school district follows the "ward" boundaries, the ward boundaries will change!

The school district should look at what is best for the district and the children.

Our ward was assigned to two different elementary schools in Granite Dist. and the diversity was wonderful for the kids.

Do you believe the church goes to a school district when they want to divide or consolidate wards? I don't think so.

Joe Moe, at who's expense? At the expense of the non-Mormon children who are outsiders as it is. Not following ward boundaries will force the Mormon kids to look outside thier ward for friends making the school SLIGHTLY more inclusive.

John, up here in Oregon there is no 'sweetheart deal' with the school districts. The Church has to work pretty hard to get a convenient place for a seminary building.

It's nice for the kids when they go to Church & school with the same people but outside of Utah it doesn't happen often. Our kids manage to survive here in Oregon even though our ward boundaries include a number of different schools at each level. The impractical thing about Provo District consulting with local LDS leaders is that what happens when ward boundaries change every few years? Surely the school district isn't going to redraw their boundaries when that happens.

Another prime example of the over zealously religious people in Utah being unwilling or unable to separate their religion from the State. What about the non-LDS kids, bet they feel left out or at least treated differently as they are not part of the groups their LDS counterparts are in.

This is a typical occurence in Utah. Well meaning city leaders meet with local church leaders to consult on issues. It is not the institution getting involved but local leaders. (Although on occasion the institution does get involved) When I coached my daughters softball teams I couldn't practise on Monday night. Not imposed by the league, but the players families nixed it. The LDS church membership can dominate Utah politics when they choose. Its simple math. We used to have a wonderful tradition of neighbor gifts around Xmas. The local ward relief society decided to donate the money we would have used for our neighbor gifts to charity. I was heart broken. I loved exchanging home made stuff with my neighbors. But the RS made a decision and everyone followed it. The same applies to politics. Frankly, if you live in Utah you have to live with it. Its a nice state. Lousy deli's though.

For the record, I spelled checked "Utahns," being unfamiliar with its spelling and I got �Utahans.� For this egregious error, apologize and I submit my first born of my goat flock to make amends. But now I am completely confused. I will say �citizens of Utah� in the future.

The merits of my argument against church and state comingling are not geo-political personal preferences. They are evident issues in the law. Churches and their assigned agents need make certain they do not cross the "separation of powers" boundaries, even if invited to do so. This necessity will preserve their legitimacy under the law and in the opinions their antagonists.

Ironically, the same persons can participate in such meetings, but open equal representation should always be a part of any publically held meetings, so as not to give any competing political group any unfair advantages. There should never be a �back room� special meeting, or even the appearance of such a one by any Church. The problem here is you have church officials acting as agents for the Church disseminating private church information; such as where its members specifically live and what is best for them exclusively.

Since the boundary changes would have no effect on non-LDS students, I see no legal or constitutional problem like the New York school issues raised in the article.

Speaking from experience: yes the church does go to school districts when they want to divide or consolidate wards - at least, they do outside of Utah. It's a major consideration, if it's at all possible geographically when combined with ecclesiastical needs.

I can't believe there's "so much ado about nothing" in Utah.

Our school district here in Illinois has to change boundaries periodically, and there are many factors they take into consideration,but especially neighborhoods and established groups. (Aren't ward boundaries basically "neighborhoods")? They also don't freak out when someone mentions church groups, congregations, Bible preschool groups, established class groups, etc, when those are part of the decision process. They realize that children form bonds that facilitate scholastic success.