Kim Davis, the Rowan (Kentucky) County clerk, is in the spotlight this week for ignoring a federal judge’s order to issue marriage licenses to gay couples seeking to wed. She claims that doing so would violate her Christian faith and her religious liberties. On Tuesday, she added that she was acting “under God’s authority.”
You don’t have to be a Constitutional scholar to know that her legal argument has no merit. As a public official, she took an oath to follow the rule of law. If she believes that doing so would conflict with her religious beliefs, then she should do the honorable thing and resign.
This episode goes far beyond the gay marriage debate, though. It brings to mind another class of public employees: educators. Must they always follow the rule of law—even when it conflicts with their personal beliefs, religious or otherwise? In a system that is overly rule-bound, bureaucratic, and politicized, where is the line between “cage busting” and law breaking? And does it matter that they are government employees instead of elected officials?
Sometimes the answers are clear and straightforward. For instance: Public school science teachers should teach what’s in state science standards, including evolution. If they feel they can’t do that, they should take a job in a private school (or request to teach another subject). Likewise, public school teachers should lead their classes in the Pledge of Allegiance every morning if that’s what their state or district expects. Those that disagree should likewise seek employment elsewhere.
But there are the grey areas. What about bureaucratic mandates demanding practices that are unsound? For example, if a state requires schools to evaluate their gym teachers using reading and math tests, must principals follow orders or else resign? Or is a little rule bending (or rule ignoring) appropriate?
That brings us, inevitably, to the current controversy over opting out of state tests. Here the question isn’t whether parents have a right to excuse their children from taking the state assessment. (They almost certainly do.) The issue is whether educators can face sanctions for encouraging parents to engage in an act of civil disobedience. Is that akin to refusing to give the test (which surely is reason for dismissal)? What if they merely inform parents of their rights?
It’s been over a decade since I’ve been a public official, but I remember the advice I heard from others in the role: Always keep a resignation letter in your desk, if not your pocket, and be prepared to send it. Reconciling personal values and public responsibilities is not always possible. That’s the rub for public school teachers as well.
photo credit: AR AlHashemi via Flickr
