Months of public debate ended Monday night with a 3-2 School Committee vote to keep schools open on religious holidays. The new policy also provides strict standards for accommodating students of all religions who absent themselves from school for religious observances.
Under the new policy, Harvard schools will close on religious holidays only if school officials determine that attendance will be so low “as to render the opening of school impractical or uneconomic.” Schools will also be closed on Christmas, which courts have accepted as a federal holiday. However, the day before Christmas remains an unsettled question.
The new policy calls for the school calendar to include the names and dates of all major religious observances, so that teachers can avoid scheduling major events on those days. Among the activities that are banned on such days are important exams, standardized tests, team tryouts, proms, plays, and student elections. With respect to homework, absence for religious reasons will be treated like any other excused absence.
Advocates for closing the schools on what they see as major holy days argued at Monday’s meeting that the policy in place for the past seven years—closing on Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur, and Good Friday afternoon—had been working well. “Why are we even having this discussion?” asked Candleberry Lane resident Richard Backer.
School Committee member Virginia Justicz agreed, saying, “What problem are we trying to solve?”
“We are bringing clarity,” replied School Committee Chairman Keith Cheveralls, who acknowledged that he had received many e-mails asking the same question. He denied the “underlying notion that there is some kind of agenda here that is anti-something or other.” Cheveralls argued that the issue was part of the committee’s overall task of updating and clarifying school policy which, he said, “is job number one for school committees.”
In response, Justicz argued that clarity could have been attained equally well by formalizing the policy of closing for the holidays in question, and for others, such as the Islam holiday Eid, should the case arise. She asked, “Why not institutionalize the practice that was working?”
The final debate on the issue was as impassioned as all the earlier conversations, with some new voices joining those who have long been involved. Among the first speakers was Elisabeth Hamilton Karotkin of East Bare Hill Road, who read a letter from her neighbor, Diane Moore, a professor of religious studies and education at Harvard Divinity School. Moore pointed out in the letter that our everyday calendar is not religiously neutral because it is based on Christian practice; historically, no school events were held on Sundays because it was the Christian day of worship, and winter vacation was scheduled around Christmas.
In a later conversation with the Press, Moore explained, “Christians rarely, if ever, have to make any compromises or accommodations in relation to the schools to practice their faith, whereas members of every other religion do.”
Fairbank Street resident Hellie Swartwood urged support for more education about religion in the curriculum: “You can’t study art, politics, biology, or history without learning about religion or you are not an educated person,” she said. She explained that she was less concerned about days off from school than about children’s need to understand religion as “a deep part of the human experience.”
The committee first voted on a revised version of File IMD, titled “Policy guidelines regarding educational activities and religious holidays.” As revised by school legal counsel Naomi Stonberg, this document notes, “The goal of this policy is to encourage community understanding, tolerance, and respect for our pluralistic society.” This document, which did not deal with the issue of school closings, was approved unanimously by the committee.
The contentious document was one titled “Guidelines for religious holidays,” which will appear in the policy manual as File IMD-E. (The E suffix relates to a statement that is an expansion or clarification of school policy.)
Committee member Piali De whole-heartedly supported the revised policy’s guidelines for allowing students to be absent from school for religious observances. “If this had been the practice or the policy years ago when my kids were little,” she said, “I would have excused them from school and taken them to the temple on our holy days and given them a greater exposure to the culture.” If she had done so, De argued, “dozens of their friends would have been curious and asked questions,” making for a genuine growth in religious understanding. De admitted that she had not felt she had permission to take her children out of school for Hindu observances. She called the new policy inclusive of everybody—”not just the ones who ask, but the ones who don’t.”
The divisive issue clearly troubled committee member Kirsten Wright, who paused for a long time before explaining her position. She noted that the new policy was a logical one, but expressed doubt that logic was the best approach. “It hurts me when I see members of the community are hurt,” she said. “My heart tells me this goes beyond logic. I feel for the people that are losing something. And I might have to move forward with my heart.”
Justicz remained firm in her opposition, noting that a number of students had told the committee that they felt torn between their religious obligations and the demands of school. She expressed doubt that the accommodations detailed in the new policy would be sufficient to alleviate the stress that students faced at being absent.
Justicz then offered a motion to remove the first paragraph of the policy statement (stating that the schools would be open on religious holidays), while leaving intact the other sections that detailed the right of parents to excuse their children on those days and the accommodations that the school should make. After some hesitation, Wright seconded the motion.
Tensions in the room rose as several audience members called out questions and comments, and one person reportedly left in distress. Visibly irritated with both the disturbance and the back-and-forth exchanges among committee members, Chairman Cheveralls repeatedly called for order. When discussion resumed, Justicz’s motion was defeated, 3-1.
Near the close of the discussion, Cheveralls admitted, “This is an insoluble debate.” He quoted from a letter he had received from United Church of Christ minister Greg Schmidt, saying, “Whatever decision you make, this is a debate with no right answer.”
When the proposed policy finally came to a vote—with committee members arguing their points to the end—De and Wenger voted to keep schools open on the holidays. Wright and Justicz voted against. With a 2-2- tie, Cheveralls cast the deciding vote for keeping the schools open.
Many in the audience immediately rose and left, still debating the issue as they went.
