The time for hand waving dismissals of the conservative attack on teaching yoga in public schools is past.
On February 20th, a well-established conservative activist organization, The National Center for Law & Policy (NCLP) slapped the Encinitas Union School District (EUSD) with a civil rights suit, claiming that their yoga curriculum violates the California state constitution's freedom of religion clause.
If you imagine that no one could possibly take the claims of some right wingnuts who think doing Down Dog puts you on a slippery slope to Hindu indoctrination seriously, I disagree. I've studied the history of conservative legal activism and know just how stunningly (and, for many holding a more liberal perspective, unexpectedly) successful it can be.
This is a serious case with far-reaching implications. As such, it requires a solidly researched, intellectually sophisticated, and legally compelling response from those who believe that the option of teaching yoga in publicly funded institutions should remain open. And while I'm sure that the EUSD is working on it, so far I haven't seen any public evidence that such a well-crafted rebuttal to the NCLP's charges exists.
It's time to develop one. And, I believe that doing so is best seen as an opportunity, rather than simply a hassle or a threat. Coming up with a solid response to the NCLP's legal attack will require thinking more deeply into what contemporary yoga is really about. Given that American yoga culture harbors a certain anti-intellectual bias, the need for more rigorous thinking about the history and development of modern yoga could, in fact, turn out to be a good thing.
Yoga, Spirituality, and Religion
This is no frivolous lawsuit. NCLP has done its research and recruited some big guns. These most prominently include one Professor Candy Gunther Brown, who recently filed a 36-page expert witness brief supporting the claim that the "practices taught by the EUSD yoga curriculum promote and advance religion, including Hinduism - whether or not these practices are taught using Hindu or religious language."
Professor Brown is no slouch. After graduating summa cum laude from Harvard, she went on to earn her M.A. and Ph.D. in History of American Civilization there. Currently an Associate Professor of Religious Studies at Indiana University, she is the author of three books and editor of two more, all published by top university presses. She's won numerous grants, awards, and fellowships. In short, her academic credentials are sterling.
Brown argues that the term "'religion' should be defined to include 'sacred' bodily practices and 'spirituality':
Although “religion” has been defined in many ways . . . there is agreement among many of today’s scholars that religion should be defined broadly enough to account for the diversity of human experience and the variety of ways people set apart that which seems sacred from that which seems profane . . . 'religion' by definition includes not only theistic beliefs - like those found in Christianity - but also bodily practices perceived as connecting individuals with suprahuman energies, beings, or transcendent realities, or as inducing heightened spiritual awareness or virtues. I include “spirituality” within my definition of religion - rather than distinguishing the two - because both religion and spirituality (derived from the Latin “spiritus”) make metaphysical - that is, more than physical (including suprahuman or supernatural) - assumptions about the nature of reality.
She goes on to point out that "in the religious origins of yoga, body and spirit are not separable categories (as presupposed by Cartesian mind-body dualism), but aspects of each other, and bodily practices are spiritual as well as physical." Further, she argues, this spirituality is rooted in Hindu, Buddhist, and Jain religious traditions.
She also notes that the yoga program in question is sponsored by a $533,000 grant from the Jois Foundation, whose website "includes Hindu religious content." Having checked out the Jois Yoga website (which houses the Jois Foundation site) myself, I can only conclude that an impartial jury would say this is true - see, for example, the notes on the Sharath Jois lectures under "Philosophy."
Not Wild-Eyed Fanaticism
Could Professor Brown's claims be considered true by a fair-minded observer? In all honesty, I think that the answer here has to be "yes."
Brown's brief is serious, solid, and well-researched. It's not wild-eyed right-wing fanaticism. On the contrary, it demonstrates an exceptional degree of familiarity both with the history of yoga and some of its relevant cultural dynamics today. (For example, she quite accurately notes that many yoga teachers tone down the more spiritual dimensions of the practice to make it more accessible to beginning students. Rather than seeing this as reasonable, however, she attacks it as "camouflaging" its essential religiosity.)
Does this mean that I think Professor Brown and the NCLP have made any sort of definitive or unassailable statement about why yoga is inherently religious, and therefore unconstitutional to teach in public schools? Not at all. I do think, however, that those of us who would like to see yoga remain available to public school students need to seriously step up our game if we're going to make a convincing case to the contrary.
This is particularly true when you consider that this case now has to be argued in terms that will hold up in court. I don't know all the relevant legal precedent (hopefully, the EUSD legal team is busily finding that out). But as the NCLP points out, the 1979 case Malnak v. Yogi supports their position.
Fascinatingly, Malnak v. Yogi was about the popular Transcendental Meditation (TIM) technique developed by none other than the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (yes, he of the Beatles and "Sexy Sadie" fame) himself. (As a side note, I'm also fascinated by the fact that TM is now being championed by none other than David Lynch of Eraserhead, Twin Peaks, Blue Velvet, etc. fame, who is propagating it worldwide through his "Foundation for Consciousness-Based Education and World Peace." As the New York Times noted this past Sunday, Lynch's "babbling dwarfs, ominous red curtains and just-around-the-corner episodes of hideous violence have become shorthand for a generation of art-house filmmaking" . . . yet, he's now invested $7 billion in his belief that teaching TM will bring about world peace. Is that delightfully weird or what? Anyway . . . )
She also notes that the yoga program in question is sponsored by a $533,000 grant from the Jois Foundation, whose website "includes Hindu religious content." Having checked out the Jois Yoga website (which houses the Jois Foundation site) myself, I can only conclude that an impartial jury would say this is true - see, for example, the notes on the Sharath Jois lectures under "Philosophy."
Not Wild-Eyed Fanaticism
Could Professor Brown's claims be considered true by a fair-minded observer? In all honesty, I think that the answer here has to be "yes."
Brown's brief is serious, solid, and well-researched. It's not wild-eyed right-wing fanaticism. On the contrary, it demonstrates an exceptional degree of familiarity both with the history of yoga and some of its relevant cultural dynamics today. (For example, she quite accurately notes that many yoga teachers tone down the more spiritual dimensions of the practice to make it more accessible to beginning students. Rather than seeing this as reasonable, however, she attacks it as "camouflaging" its essential religiosity.)
Does this mean that I think Professor Brown and the NCLP have made any sort of definitive or unassailable statement about why yoga is inherently religious, and therefore unconstitutional to teach in public schools? Not at all. I do think, however, that those of us who would like to see yoga remain available to public school students need to seriously step up our game if we're going to make a convincing case to the contrary.
This is particularly true when you consider that this case now has to be argued in terms that will hold up in court. I don't know all the relevant legal precedent (hopefully, the EUSD legal team is busily finding that out). But as the NCLP points out, the 1979 case Malnak v. Yogi supports their position.
Fascinatingly, Malnak v. Yogi was about the popular Transcendental Meditation (TIM) technique developed by none other than the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (yes, he of the Beatles and "Sexy Sadie" fame) himself. (As a side note, I'm also fascinated by the fact that TM is now being championed by none other than David Lynch of Eraserhead, Twin Peaks, Blue Velvet, etc. fame, who is propagating it worldwide through his "Foundation for Consciousness-Based Education and World Peace." As the New York Times noted this past Sunday, Lynch's "babbling dwarfs, ominous red curtains and just-around-the-corner episodes of hideous violence have become shorthand for a generation of art-house filmmaking" . . . yet, he's now invested $7 billion in his belief that teaching TM will bring about world peace. Is that delightfully weird or what? Anyway . . . )
Malnak v. Yogi ruled in favor of plaintiffs who argued that teaching TM in public high schools in New Jersey violated the First Amendment's prohibition of state establishment of religion. This was held true notwithstanding the fact that those teaching TM to students claimed it was entirely secular in nature.
The parallels with Encinitas are obvious.
And as the movement to bring yoga into non-traditional settings such as public schools, VA hospitals, homeless shelters and so on is growing, the ruling in the Encinitas case stands to have far-reaching repercussions. If the courts rule in the NCLP's favor, then any institution with any public funding (which means many, if not most working with underserved populations today) will have to think hard about whether they want to risk offering yoga or not.
Finally, don't forget that the conservative legal movement has been working assiduously - and often successfully - to establish a right-leaning judiciary for decades now. (Remember Bush v. Gore in 2000?) And California, despite its well-deserved crunchy reputation, is also a powerful and well-established bastion of right-wing politics. So, don't assume that a bunch of Bay Area liberals are going to be deciding this case - it could just as well be Orange County conservatives.
An Alternative Perspective
While I think that Professor Brown's NCLP brief denouncing contemporary yoga as an inherently religious (and essentially Hindu) is well-done, I also believe that it's wrong.
In over 15 years of involvement in the American yoga scene, which has included studying numerous methods and becoming certified as a teacher, I've never met anyone in person who has indicated in any way that practicing yoga led them to embrace Hindu beliefs. (I have, I admit, encountered a tiny handful of people who fit this description online.)
Does this mean that she's right? Again, I'd say "no." Even given the most generous interpretation of her position - e.g., that believing in something called the "True Self" makes you some sort of de facto Hindu - her basic understanding of the nature of modern yoga is nonetheless simply wrong.
There are several key reasons for this:
1. She doesn't recognize the integrity of modern yoga as a distinct cultural formation in the longer history of yoga.
2. She doesn't acknowledge that the American tradition of physical education is rooted the same historical movement that produced modern yoga.
3. She doesn't allow for the fact that both modern yoga, physical education, progressive education, and contemporary science share a belief in the reality and importance of the mind/body connection. Further, none of these traditions - which are infinitely more relevant to the case at hand than ancient or medieval yoga - has ever understood this valuation of the mind/body connection to be in any sense inherently "religious."
Given that this post is already pretty long, I'll hold off on expanding these points for the moment. Some of my argument regarding point #1 is provided in my previous post, which is an excerpt from my new book, Yoga Ph.D. I'll say more about this claim, as well as how it relates to points #2-3, in my next post.
In the meantime, if you have any thoughts to share, please leave them in the comments. If I can, I'll follow up before writing up the rest of my current thoughts on the Encinitas case.
I've been following the Encinitas situation for a few months now, and it definitely is heating up what with the filing of the lawsuit by the "aggrieved parents". It's highly ironic that the Jois Foundation is providing the funding, as anyone who has taken an Ashtanga class knows, there is a Sanksrit Hindu chant that takes place at the beginning of class (as there are also in Iyengar and Sivananda classes as well). And despite the "secularization" of yoga as presented in the Encinitas classes, the wingnut lawyers are looking at "provenance" here.
ReplyWould the situation be any different if the Encinitas school yoga program was funded by a collective of YMCA or gym yoga teachers?
When I was in elementary school, I was required to be present for the daily recital of the Pledge of Allegiance and the singing of a standard patriotic song first thing every morning.
Since 9/11, the 7th inning stretch at major league baseball games now usually includes the obligatory singing of God Bless America.
And for those who make the distinction between the definitions "spiritual" and "religious", then no claims of even psychological well-being, or extolling the benefits of a mindful asana practice, or becoming sensitive to and making use of subtle energies may be made either. Such things are equally an anathema to those bringing the lawsuit.
I'm somehow strangely reminded of the "generation gap" in the '60s between parents and kids (I'm one of them) who would take psychedelics or participate in mind-expanding activities of varying sorts. Behind it all is that the parents are afraid that they're going to "lose control" of their kids, that their kids might wind up thinking for themselves and turn out to be more intelligent and happier than them. And that just can't be tolerated!
My nephew took a yoga class at his public high school, but there it's offered as a P.E. elective. In Encinitas, it's offered every day with an opt-out clause for those kids with reactionary parents. And that ain't enough of them!
Anyway, I'm totally with you on this issue. I sincerely hope they lose this lawsuit rejected by whatever court it winds up at...