I was disappointed when I read your article (and demeaning Editorial) on the situation

involving my son, Jack Summers, and his objection to being required to read parts of the Old
Testament and the Gospel of Matthew (including the Lords Prayer) in his sophomore English
class at Newton South High School.

Let me clarify the facts. Jack is a 16 year old adolescent who has chosen, with the support
of his family, to exercise his First Amendment right to be an atheist. Jack is not enrolled in
an Honors English class – it is a mandatory standard sophomore English class which is
“linked” to a modern (post 1775) history class. Newton ultimately did not waive the
requirement that Jack read the Bible. Jack did indeed have to read the Bible after the school
failed to provide him with a secular analysis of the biblical assignments, as had been agreed
at our meeting with the Newton South team. We were also surprised when Jack was told by
his teacher that his two quiz grades would be dropped, instead of retaken after a review of the
secular material. We can only assume that the school decided this was an easier alternative
to administer. I do not think that the fact that Jack was permitted to write his paper on a non-
religious piece of art, as opposed to a religious work of art (why was this an English
assignment anyway?) is evidence that some “silly” adolescent pulled a fast one at school.

We believe that the Newton South team, and Principal Stembridge in particular, made a
sincere effort to understand Jack’s distress and attempted to find a solution in the midst of an
on going issue. The school’s willingness to consider Jack’s position and its willingness to
discuss possible options is not only commendable, it is in keeping with the many
accommodations schools make on a daily basis to support the individual needs and situations
of their students. It is my hope and expectation as a parent and Newton taxpayer that the
school continues it focus on seeing its students as individuals – and to continue to recognize
that when providing an education, no “one size fits all”.

Jack discussed at length with the Newton TAB reporter his respect for learning about other
cultures and world religions, and specifically cited the repercussions of 9-11 in support of his
belief that one should learn about how religious beliefs effect cultural, military and economic
events, regardless of their also having any possible literary significance. He even cited his
having read parts of Genesis last year, in conjunction with a unit which included creationist
stories of the Greeks, Romans and Chinese. In fact, Jack has also read the Mahabharata ,
the Epic of Gilgamesh , Beowulf, the Aenid, the Iliad and the Odyssey, among other
classical works in history and English classes, but always in connection with a historical
period and in conjunction with other historically relevant texts. (Not all of this work was
done while he was attending Newton Public schools). Unfortunately this pertinent
information was omitted by the newspaper. The reporter instead chose to make the story
about Jack’s preference to avoid reading religious texts currently used as dogma for living
religions.

So why did Jack feel that an impermissible line was crossed this year and that he was being
forced to read the “Word of God”? Could it be because he was required to read the Bible: (1)
in a mandatory English class; (2) by a teacher who never identified it as a work of fiction;
and (3) as a stand alone religious text – with no comparative historical or religious texts to
serve as a counterpoint? Was it because no mention was made of every student’s right under
the First Amendment to choose their own religious beliefs, and not necessarily those put
forth in the Bible they were reading “as literature”? Maybe because there is no requirement
in Newton that instructors teaching these “Bible as literature” courses be trained in the
intricacies of the Establishment Clause and how they can ensure that classroom instruction
does not unintentionally violate the mandated separation of Church and State? (My goodness,
even Texas requires this type of training these days! And only offers Bible as “Literature”
classes as electives!!) Maybe it was because of all of the above that he resorted to trying to
refuse to read the Bible – after being told by his teacher that the most she could do was to
just try and “hurry through the material” when he told her that he felt he was being required
to read the “Word of God” in her class.
 Should/could he have reacted differently? Perhaps, but he is only 16 after all, and not
skilled in escalating to a higher authority when confronted with a possible violation of the
Establishment Clause. Maybe trying to abstain from reading the Bible was the most
appropriate (and non disruptive) way for a student to cope with listening to his class discuss
the Gospel of Matthew, which includes detailed instructions on the “right” way to pray to
God, and sitting through class time spent creating a detailed timeline of the life of Jesus.
The Jesus that the same Bible states Jack must accept as his personal savior – unless he wants
to spend all eternity in Hell. This is the stuff of nightmares, even if you are an adolescent
who questions whether there even is a God.

Can the Bible be taught “as literature” in pubic schools? Yes, but only in a manner that
does not violate the Establishment Clause. Should it be taught in mandatory English classes,
without connection to other religious texts or historical references and without sufficient
checks and balances to ensure that one religion is not being inadvertently promoted over
another? No. And should an adolescent who has the courage to question this practice be
ridiculed in the press, by his peers in school and on facebook? Absolutely not. And perhaps
this is the best reason why the Bible has no place in public school unless and until (1)
procedures are in place to ensure that no student’s constitutional rights are violated and (2)
his community is ready to respect the right of all Americans to choose their own religious
path – without risk of being labeled as “silly” for having the audacity to actually do so.

Marjorie Summers
Dorset Road