There is no precedence for the creation of policies regarding the use of sacred music and where choral groups in public institutions of higher education perform it. There are very few institutions with such policies. In fact, those that have such policies are denominationally affiliated institutions, whose primary concern is with the usage of secular music. Any policy would be a violation of ones right as an academic, in terms of a policy pertaining to the selection and performance of any kind of music, be it secular or sacred, and where it is performed as part of ones total choral educational experience.
In terms of performing groups singing in worship settings, there are no rulings on such. In fact, the Supreme Court has allowed some entanglement between church and state, as long as this entanglement is not "excessive.” Being invited, while touring to a local church on occasion could not be construed as “excessive entanglement.” Choral groups from institutions of higher education tour and sing in sacred spaces in the US and worldwide as a part of their educational experience.
While touring, groups may perform a Haydn Mass or select movements in a Roman Catholic cathedral in Vienna as a part of a choral mass. A set of spirituals could be sung in a Pentecostal setting. An Orthodox chant or a sacred Slavic choral work would be part of a service in an Orthodox setting. Likewise, one would not program a secular madrigal to be sung during mass at Washington’s National Cathedral. Additionally, being invited to perform at the local community churches does not constitute excessive entanglement, but rather good public relations. These experiences will provide students a glimpse into the historical usage of sacred choral music.
From the document "Music with Sacred Texts" published by the Music Educators National Conference (MENC) states:
The First Amendment does not forbid all mention of religion in the public schools; it prohibits the advancement or inhibition of religion by the state. A second clause in the First Amendment prohibits the infringement of religious beliefs. The public schools are not required to delete from the curriculum all materials that may offend any religious sensitivity.
The Supreme Court States:
Widmar v. Vincent (1981), involving freedom of speech, suggest that in the court's opinion, college and university students have the maturity to understand the religiously neutral role that public schools must play in dealing with the subject of religion, where younger students may not. Therefore, college teachers may not be required to emphasize this neutrality so much.
Widely applied, the Lemon testformulated by Chief Justice Warren Burger, to situations that may seem excessive, in the majority opinion in rendering a ruling for Rhode Island and Pennsylvania programs that supplemented the salaries of teachers in religiously based, private schools for the teaching of secular subjects (1971). The purpose of the Lemon test is to determine when a law has the effect of establishing religion. The test has served as the foundation for many of the Court's post-1971 establishment clause rulings. As articulated by Chief Justice Burger, the test has three parts:
In terms of performing groups singing in worship settings, there are no rulings on such. In fact, the Supreme Court has allowed some entanglement between church and state, as long as this entanglement is not "excessive.” Being invited, while touring to a local church on occasion could not be construed as “excessive entanglement.” Choral groups from institutions of higher education tour and sing in sacred spaces in the US and worldwide as a part of their educational experience.
While touring, groups may perform a Haydn Mass or select movements in a Roman Catholic cathedral in Vienna as a part of a choral mass. A set of spirituals could be sung in a Pentecostal setting. An Orthodox chant or a sacred Slavic choral work would be part of a service in an Orthodox setting. Likewise, one would not program a secular madrigal to be sung during mass at Washington’s National Cathedral. Additionally, being invited to perform at the local community churches does not constitute excessive entanglement, but rather good public relations. These experiences will provide students a glimpse into the historical usage of sacred choral music.
From the document "Music with Sacred Texts" published by the Music Educators National Conference (MENC) states:
The First Amendment does not forbid all mention of religion in the public schools; it prohibits the advancement or inhibition of religion by the state. A second clause in the First Amendment prohibits the infringement of religious beliefs. The public schools are not required to delete from the curriculum all materials that may offend any religious sensitivity.
The Supreme Court States:
Widmar v. Vincent (1981), involving freedom of speech, suggest that in the court's opinion, college and university students have the maturity to understand the religiously neutral role that public schools must play in dealing with the subject of religion, where younger students may not. Therefore, college teachers may not be required to emphasize this neutrality so much.
Widely applied, the Lemon testformulated by Chief Justice Warren Burger, to situations that may seem excessive, in the majority opinion in rendering a ruling for Rhode Island and Pennsylvania programs that supplemented the salaries of teachers in religiously based, private schools for the teaching of secular subjects (1971). The purpose of the Lemon test is to determine when a law has the effect of establishing religion. The test has served as the foundation for many of the Court's post-1971 establishment clause rulings. As articulated by Chief Justice Burger, the test has three parts:
1. First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose.
2. Second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion.
3. Finally, the statute must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion."
In order to ensure that any music class or program is conforming to the constitutional standards of religious neutrality necessary in public schools, the Music Educators National Conference (MENC) devised the following questions based on the Lemon test ruling:
1. What is the purpose of the activity? Is the purpose secular in nature, that is, studying music of a particular composer's style or historical period?
2. What is the primary effect of the activity? Is it the celebration of religion? Does the activity either enhance or inhibit religion? Does it invite confusion of thought or family objections?
3. Does the activity involve excessive entanglement with a religion or religious group, or between the schools and religious organizations? Financial support can, in certain cases, be considered an entanglement.
According to separatist scholars Barry Lynn, Marc Stern, and Oliver Thomas, the fact that a law may have a "religious purpose or be motivated by religion does not mean it is unconstitutional as long as it also has a bona fide secular or civic purpose.” Similarly, "a law that has a remote or incidental effect of advancing religion is not unconstitutional as long as the effect is not a 'primary' effect.”
Finally, the Court has allowed some entanglement between church and state, as long as this entanglement is not "excessive.” Hence, the Court has built some leeway into the test so as not to invalidate laws that have only remote connections to religious practice. This is not, in other words, the work of a Court that was hostile to religion. On the contrary, Justice Burger, a Nixon appointee, is generally reckoned as a conservative on social issues.[1]
Having guidelines for the selection of repertoire in higher education is an issue of academic freedom, not Amendment law. Just as an English professor chooses their literature, so the choral professor should have freedom to choose their literature. Accrediting agencies are very clear on this issue. All require a policy on academic freedom. All accredited institutions of higher education have a policy on academic freedom, thusly any guidelines for the selection of texts/musical scores would supercede said policy and open the door to a further deterioration of academic freedom on the campuses of public institutions, and create an “unwarranted inhibition upon the free spirit of teachers . . . [will] chill that free play of the spirit which all teachers ought especially to cultivate and practice. . . [it may lead to] caution and timidity.”[2]
According to the opinion by Chief Justice Earl Warren:
The essentiality of freedom in the community of American universities is almost self-evident. No one should underestimate the vital role in a democracy that is played by those who guide and train our youth. To impose any strait jacket upon the intellectual leaders in our colleges and universities would imperil the future of our Nation. Scholarship cannot flourish in an atmosphere of suspicion and distrust. Teachers and students must always remain free to inquire, to study and to evaluate, to gain new maturity and understanding; otherwise our civilization will stagnate and die.[3]
In Keyishian v. Board of Regents, the court ruled in favor of State University of New York faculty who had challenged such laws. More important, however, the court expressly linked the notion of academic freedom to the guarantee of free speech under the First Amendment to the US Constitution.
Writing for the majority, Justice Brennan stated:
Our Nation is deeply committed to safeguarding academic freedom, which is of transcendent value to all of us and not merely to the teachers concerned. That freedom is therefore a special concern of the First Amendment, which does not tolerate laws that cast a pall of orthodoxy over the classroom.[4]
Additionally, Justice Tom Clark, in 1963 wrote for the majority:
…what are the purposes and primary effect of the enactment. If either is the advancement or inhibition of religion then the enactment exceeds the scope of legislative power as circumscribed by the Constitution. That is to say that to withstand the structures of the Establishment Clause there must be a secular legislative purpose and a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion. To violate the Free Exercise Clause, it is only necessary to show a coercive effect of a law's enactment. That these might merely be "minor encroachments on the First Amendment" is irrelevant. The Court does not disallow the comparative study of religion in public schools…[5}
Performing sacred music occasionally in worship settings does not constitute “excessive entanglement,” just as performing selections from a Broadway musical would be appropriate in an auditorium, both have a secular/civic purpose, and would allow students to experience choral literature in its historical context. Additionally, the creation of policies regarding the usage of any kind of music and/or the venues in which it is performed, as all are inclusive of the total educational experience of the students participating in ensembles should be viewed as a tragic mistake.
What a choral group performs is based on the ability of its director to have a broad range of repertoire, a historical understanding of the work and the performance practices of the work. One should also have an understanding of the venue for which the work was composed. In addition, it is vital that one consider the abilities of the group, and select music from both the sacred and secular traditions, as each historically and culturally influence the other.
[1] Lynn, Barry and Marc Stern. The Right to Religious Liberty: The Basic ACLU Guide to Religious Rights. 2nd ed. Illinois: Southern Illinois University, 1995, pg. 3.
[2] Justice Frankfurter concurring opinion in Wieman v. Updegraff, 1952.
[3] Justice Frankfurter concurring opinion in Wieman v. Updegraff, 1952.
[4] The U.S. Supreme Court emphasized the value of academic freedom in a 1967 ruling.
[5] Participating in Abington v. Schempp, decided June 17, 1963 were Chief Justice Earl Warren and Associate Justices Hugo L. Black, William J. Brennan, Jr., Tom C. Clark, William O. Douglas, Arthur J. Goldberg, John M. Harlan II, Potter Stewart, and Byron R. White.
No comments:
Post a Comment