Passing Over Jewish Voices

This story from Jews on First, about a Texas law under consideration that would mandate schools carry elective Bible courses, illustrates an interesting point from my Religion Clauses as Anti-Subordination Principles article. The obvious route to go would be that the proposed curriculum closely mirrors Biblical interpretations favored by evangelical protestants. That's definitely a concern, but one that is quite easily addressed within the prevailing separationist paradigm. It's actually this anecdote that I want to pursue briefly:

Texas legislators are moving full speed ahead with a bill mandating elective Bible classes in the state's public high schools that appears crafted to facilitate use of a fundamentalist Protestant curriculum. Jewish groups have opposed that sectarian curriculum, but they were unable to testify at a hearing scheduled during Passover.

Scheduling a hearing on a bill of obvious importance to the Jewish community during Passover? Is it possible that this was deliberate? Well, while I'm not a fan of one of the bill's authors, I still doubt it. It strikes me as very unlikely that the scheduling was anything more than an unfortunate coincidence. I don't think it was motivated by malice.

But let's unpack this a little. I'm guessing that the folks scheduling this hearing were either unaware of Passover, or ignorant to its importance to the Jewish community. And so they scheduled debate on a day that most Jews couldn't attend. To understand why I think this is significant, try to imagine a similar situation, but with Christians as the disadvantaged group. What are the odds this hearing would be scheduled for Easter or Christmas morning? Is the legislature even in session during those times? Simply by virtue of its majority status, the dominant religion gets a whole package of intrinsic benefits, one of which is that there will rarely if ever be a case where a major political hearing will be scheduled to conflict with a major holiday--even if the topic isn't one that's important to them qua Christians. And if a conflict does occur, it is more likely that the legislature will respond to their concerns by rescheduling or offering an alternative venue for their views to be expressed.

This anecdote was brought up due to the irony Jews not being able to testify against a bill they opposed as Jews, but that's actually only a tangential point. If the legislature had been holding a critical hearing on, say, expanding healthcare for the poor or revamping educational funding, the same analysis would apply. Jews still wouldn't be able to attend, it still would be bad, and it still would be difficult to imagine important business being conducted on Easter Sunday. It's also important to note that a strict separationist approach would have little to say about this situation. If there was proof that the sponsors of the bill were deliberately trying to exclude Jewish testimony, that might be cause for worry. But without that proof, there is nothing "religious" about why the date and time were chosen for the testimony, and it is difficult to see how from a separationist perspective their decision could be condemned. It's these little things that structure the system in favor of dominant paradigms, and one of the reasons why it is important to be especially cognizant of the practices and perspectives of minority groups which may be lost when following Standard Operating Procedures designed by and for a Christian majority.

UPDATE: I've been made aware that the legislature did in fact schedule another hearing later on to accommodate Jews who wished to testify. This is excellent to hear, and while it may have been better not to have scheduled the original hearing on Passover in the first place, this is the right way to remedy that oversight.