Running head: ASSINGNMENT #6 RELIGION AND PUBLIC SCHOOLS 1

Portfolio Assignment #6

Religion and Public Schools

Stephanie Mora

College of Southern Nevada

December 1, 2016
ASSINGNMENT #6 RELIGION AND PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2

Religion and Public Schools

Karen White, a kindergarten teacher, recently became a Jehovah’s Witness. She notified

her parents and students that she would no longer be able to lead certain activities or participate

in certain projects because her new affiliation considered these activities religious in nature.

Some of the things she could no longer do included: decorating the classroom for holidays,

planning for gift exchanges during the Christmas season, singing “Happy Birthday”, or reciting

the Pledge of Allegiance. Upon hearing this, the parents protested and the principal, Bill Ward,

recommended that Karen White be dismissed because she was no longer effectively meeting the

needs of her students.

The first case that shows that the school has justifiable grounds to dismiss Karen White is

Palmer v. Board of Education of City of Chicago (1979). This case deals with Joethelia Palmer, a

kindergarten teacher, who refused “to instruct her students in the Pledge of Allegiance, to lead

them in certain patriotic songs and to conduct instruction and activities concerning certain

national holidays” because she was a Jehovah’s Witness (Palmer v. Board of Education of City

of Chicago, 1979). Because of Palmer refusal to lead activities about certain holidays and to lead

the students in the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance despite the ‘chaotic’ results, “Paskind

received complaints from parents concerning the fact that their children were not receiving the

same instruction” that other classes were receiving (Palmer v. Board of Education of City of

Chicago, 1979). The principal sent Palmer the required curriculum and told her that if she failed

to teach the material she would be terminated because she was causing a “detriment of the

children's…emotional development, causing “first grade teachers [to have to] instruct the

children on subject matter they should have been taught, and causing “parents and children [to

be] upset. (Palmer v. Board of Education of City of Chicago, 1979). The Court ruled in favor of
ASSINGNMENT #6 RELIGION AND PUBLIC SCHOOLS 3

the school because Palmer’ refusal “to teach certain patriotic songs and conduct holiday

activities” is considered “curricular nonconformity” which is not protected by religious freedom,

and “her refusal resulted in substantial upset to all involved: to the parents, students and other

teachers” (Palmer v. Board of Education of City of Chicago, 1979). This relates to the Karen’s

White’s case because just like Palmer she is refusing to conduct holiday activities and refusing to

lead the children in the Pledge of Allegiance. Karen White may not preaching about her religion

to the children, but she could be influencing them with her actions because they are still very

young and tend to follow by example. Also, like in the Palmer case choosing not to lead the

children in certain activities can lead to chaos and negative feelings from parents, who don’t like

that their children are not being taught the same things that everyone else is; students, who don’t

really understand why they can’t have gift exchanges or decorate for Christmas season; and 1st

grade teachers, who would have to teach the students things they should have been taught in

kindergarten.

Skoros v. City of New York (2006) also supports the school’s decision to fire Karen

White. In this case, the mother of two elementary students says that her sons First Amendment

rights were violated because the school did not include a nativity in the school’s holiday display.

Because the school realized that young children ae excited about the end of the year celebrations,

they decide to channel it “constructively by using the variety of year-end holidays…to teach

children about and to encourage respect for the different cultures in their community” (Skoros v.

City of New York, 2006). The school argued that as educators they have the responsibility of

“[fostering] mutual understanding and respect for the many beliefs and customs stemming from

[their] community's religious, racial, ethnic and cultural heritage” while remembering that

“endorsing or promoting a particular religion or belief system” is prohibited by the Constitution;

ASSINGNMENT #6 RELIGION AND PUBLIC SCHOOLS 4

therefore, they didn’t include a nativity which is seen as a religious symbol (Skoros v. City of

New York, 2006). The Court ruled in favor of the school stating that neither the “passive

exposure to or…participation in the creation of the displays” nor the creation of “lessons about

the religious origins of any of the holiday symbols displayed” interfered with their ability to

practice their own faith (Skoros v. City of New York, 2006). This relates to Karen White’s case

because it deals with the importance and meaning of displaying and teaching about various end

of the year celebrations. Just because Karen White’s beliefs prohibit her participating in these

events does not mean that she should be able to take away the children’s right to learn an

important lesson about tolerance and respect for other people’s beliefs and customs.

The first case that shows that Karen White has grounds to challenge her dismissal is

Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972). In this case, an Old Order Amish religion and the Conservative

Amish Mennonite Church was fighting against the Wisconsin's compulsory school attendance

law, “which required a child's school attendance until age 16” (Wisconsin v. Yoder, 1972). The

Amish were able to provide proof that if they were to comply with this law “they would not only

expose themselves to the danger of the censure of the church community, but, as found by the

county court, also endanger their own salvation and that of their children” (Wisconsin v. Yoder,

1972). The Court ruled in favor of the Amish and said that a “state's interest in universal

education…is not totally free from a balancing process when it impinges on fundamental rights

and interests, such as those specifically protected by the Free Exercise Clause of the First

Amendment” (Wisconsin v. Yoder, 1972). Specifically, they ruled in favor of the Amish because

the Wisconsin compulsory attendance law carried a “very real threat of undermining the Amish

community and religious practice as they exist today” (Wisconsin v. Yoder, 1972). This relates

to Karen White’s case because it says that “the state could not interfere with the free exercise of
ASSINGNMENT #6 RELIGION AND PUBLIC SCHOOLS 5

religion unless it could show a compelling state interest” (Underwood & Webb, 2006, p.211).

So, that means that unless the school can show that letting her exercise her freedom of religion is

harming or detrimental to the education of her students, which the school has a duty to protect,

the school cannot reprimand the teacher for exercising their freedom of religion. Since White’s

religious affiliation would only stop her from decorating her classroom, singing “Happy

Birthday”, and planning gift exchanges, things that are not necessarily needed in a classroom, the

school cannot simply fire her without having other reasons that show that she is not effectively

meeting the children’s educational needs.

Russo v. Central School District No. 1 (1972) also holds that Karen White has justifiable

grounds to challenge her dismissal. This case deals with Susan Russo a teacher who refused to

salute the flag even though she was aware of a notice that said that "all students and staff

members [were] expected to salute the flag” (Russo v. Central School District No. 1, 1972).

When the Pledge of Allegiance is being recited by the students and Mrs. Catherine Adams, Mrs.

Russo “simply [stands] at respectful attention, with her hands at her sides” (Russo v. Central

School District No. 1, 1972). Further, “there is no evidence…indicating that Mrs. Russo ever

tried to influence her students to follow her example” (Russo v. Central School District No. 1,

1972). Even though Mrs. Russo had been doing this since the beginning of the year, it wasn’t

until May 12 that her “reappointment for the coming academic year and termination was

recommended” (Russo v. Central School District No. 1, 1972). The Court ruled in favor of Russo

citing the Tinker v. Des Moines decision that says that “neither students nor teachers shed their

constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse” (Russo v. Central

School District No. 1, 1972). They said that the “the refusal to recite the pledge and salute the

flag is a form of expression”, and that since Mrs. Russo “neither disrupted her classes nor
ASSINGNMENT #6 RELIGION AND PUBLIC SCHOOLS 6

attempted to prevent her students from reciting the pledge”, her dismissal was based on a

“constitutionally protected activity”; therefore, it must be reversed (Russo v. Central School

District No. 1, 1972).

I believe that there are justifiable grounds to dismiss Karen White and that the court will

rule in favor of the school. The two cases that support this are Palmer v. Board of Education of

City of Chicago (1979) and Skoros v. City of New York (2006). In Palmer v. Board of Education

of City of Chicago (1979), the Court dealt with a very similar situation to Karen White’s; Palmer

like White was a kindergarten teacher and a Jehovah’s Witness, and she too refused to participate

in and lead certain activities and projects. Here the Court said that although choosing not to

salute the flag is her choice, choosing whether or not to follow the curriculum because of her

religion is not a protected freedom. Further, they said that her dismissal could also be justified by

the fact that her actions were creating negative feelings from the parents, students, and teachers.

This relates to Karen White’s case because the circumstances are quite similar, and already the

parents are upset at the teacher and what she is doing or choosing not to do. Additionally, the age

of the students adds to the problem because even if the teacher is not urging them to do as she

does, these students are more prone to copy on what she does or believes since they learn

through example. Skoros v. City of New York (2006) shows the meaning and importance of

displaying and acknowledging different end of the year celebrations. This relates to Karen

White’s case because her religious beliefs is impending the children from benefiting from this

activities. Because Karen White doesn’t want to decorate the classroom for Christmas, the

students will miss out on the opportunity to learn about new celebrations, and they will also miss

out on the opportunity to practice respect and tolerance for others cultures and beliefs. Though

being able to express your religious freedom is important, one must remember that teachers have
ASSINGNMENT #6 RELIGION AND PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7

the duty to meet the students’ needs, and schools have the duty to ensure that teachers are

meeting those needs.

ASSINGNMENT #6 RELIGION AND PUBLIC SCHOOLS 8

References

Palmer v. Board of Education of City of Chicago (1979). Retrieved from

http://www.leagle.com/decision/19791066466FSupp600_1966/PALMER%20v.%20BO
ARD%20OF%20ED. %20OF%20CITY%20OF%20CHICAGO

Russo v. Central School District No. 1 (1972)

http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/466/600/2361432/

Skoros v. City of New York (2006). Retrieved from

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1351830.html

Underwood, J, Webb, L.D. (2006) School Law for Teachers: Concepts and Applications. Upper
Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.

Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972). Retrieved from

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/406/205/case.html