Running head: ARTIFACT #6 RELIGION AND PUBLIC SCHOOLS 1

Artifact #6 Religion and Public Schools

Arizbeth Zavala

College of Southern Nevada

EDU 210
ARTIFACT #6 2

Abstract

The first European settlers of America fled England to escape religious persecution. They

believed they would thrive in a place where religion and government were distinguished and not

used interchangeably. The settlers wanted their children to learn in an environment that did not

promote or force the religious beliefs of others upon them and thus the Establishment Clause was

created. As stated by Cambron-McCabe, McCarthy, and Eckes (2014), the First Amendment’s

Establishment Clause is primarily used to challenge any governmental advancements of religion.

It also prohibits the federal government from establishing an official religion, and it forbids

governmental action that favors one religion, all religions, or non-religion (“Establishment”).

Although this amendment was directed towards the federal government, the rise of the

Fourteenth Amendment particularly placed restrictions on state action. Because education is

generally a state function, most church/state controversies involving schools have been

introduced through the Fourteenth Amendment (Cambron-McCabe, McCarthy, and Eckes,

2014). As future educators, it is our duty to comprehend and acknowledge the Establishment

Clause so that our rights and those rights of our religious and nonreligious students are not

forgotten or violated in the classroom.

Keywords: Establishment Clause, Fourteenth Amendment, Religion

ARTIFACT #6 3

Religion and Public Schools

Karen White, a kindergarten teacher, recently joined the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Because of

her new religious affiliation, she could no longer lead certain activities or participate in certain

projects. This meant that she could no longer sing “happy birthday,” decorate the classroom for

holidays like Halloween, or plan gift exchanges during the Christmas season. Additionally, she

could no longer recite the Pledge of Allegiance. When she informed the students and parents of

the changes to her classroom, the parents protested and complained to the school principal, Bill

Ward. The principal then recommended her dismissal based on her inefficiency to meet the

needs of her students. Karen White believed the principal violated her First and Fourteenth

Amendment rights and thus decided to sue the school district.

Religion in educational settings has always been a hot topic. As noted by Cambron-

McCabe, McCarthy, and Eckes (2014), efforts to determine an appropriate relationship between

government and religion have developed substantial controversy in our country and schools have

been the battlefield for some of the most explosive disputes. When a student, parent, or teacher

believes their freedom of religion has been violated, they have the right to sue the school district

using their due process rights. If the case surpasses local and state jurisdiction, the Supreme

Court must then rely on preceding court cases like Abington v. Schempp, West Virginia v.

Barnette, Palmer v. Board of Education, and Florey v. Sioux Falls to reach a verdict. Based on

these court cases and our judgement as Nevada education law students, we must conclude

whether the Supreme Court would rule in favor of Karen White or uphold the recommendation

of her dismissal.
ARTIFACT #6 4

Plaintiff’s Defense

To fight for her reinstatement, Karen White could use School District of Abington

Township v. Schempp. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that assigned bible reading or

prayer in public schools is unconstitutional (McCullough). Prior to the decision, Edward

Schempp filed suit in Philadelphia’s district court affirming that his family’s religious rights had

been violated by a state law that mandated public schools to begin each day by reading ten bible

passages. The Schempps were Unitarians, so they believed the current law was an

unconstitutional establishment of religion that conflicted with the free exercise of their religious

faith (McCullough). District court ruled in favor of the Schempps but the school district appealed

the verdict. When the case reached the Supreme Court, they upheld the district court’s decision

and stated that such religious practices in school violate the Establishment Clause. Similarly,

Karen White could allege that her First Amendment rights were violated because she was

unfairly dismissed due to her new alliance with the Jehovah’s Witnesses. She could emphasize

that the Free Exercise Clause prohibits the school district from forcing her to participate in

activities that her religion does not allow. As acknowledged by Cambron-McCabe, McCarthy,

and Eckes (2014), the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment challenges secular

government regulations that impair the practice of religious beliefs. If Karen White proved that

her teaching skills are superb and that her students are performing well academically, she could

argue that her dismissal was discriminatory and unjust.

To preserve her freedom from reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, Karen White could use

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette. In this case, the West Virginia Board of

Education required that the flag salute be part of the daily program and that all teachers and

students honor the flag (“West Virginia”). Refusal to salute the flag was frowned upon and
ARTIFACT #6 5

treated as insubordination. However, Walter Barnette, a Jehovah’s Witness, disagreed with the

current law and sued the school district. He was successful and ended up winning a ban against

the enforcement of the rule in district court (Buhtia, 2017). The school district appealed the

decision and the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. In a six to three decision, the Supreme

Court ruled that coercing children in public schools to salute the flag was an “unconstitutional

violation of their freedom of speech and religion (Buhita, 2017).” Likewise, Karen White

believed the school district was forcing her to recite a pledge that her religious faith barred her

from doing. She could dispute that the school district was breaching her First Amendment rights

because the Supreme Court ruled that forcing students or staff to salute the flag or recite the

Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional.

To argue a violation of Fourteenth Amendment rights, Karen White could use Goss v.

Lopez. In this case, the court held that minimum due process must be afforded before a student is

suspended for a brief period of time (Cambron-McCabe, McCarthy, and Eckes, 2014). Prior to

the decision, nine students, including Dwight Lopez, were suspended for ten days for defacing

school property (Skelton). Because they were not provided with a hearing, the students sued in

federal court alleging that their Fourteenth Amendment rights had been infringed. The court

recognized that a student’s entitlement to education classified as a property interest and must be

guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. Additionally, the court ruled that such a right could

not be impaired unless the student was afforded a notice of charges and an opportunity to refute

them (Cambron-McCabe, McCarthy, and Eckes, 2014). In Karen White’s situation, she was also

dismissed without the opportunity of a hearing. She could allege that the school district failed to

provide her with the due process rights she is legally entitled to.
ARTIFACT #6 6

Defendant’s Defense

The school district has the obligation to defend the academic needs of its pupils. When a

teacher is performing poorly and the students are negatively affected by such performance, the

school district must take certain necessary measures. In order to maintain the principal’s

dismissal of Karen White, the school district could apply Palmer v. Board of Education of

Chicago. In this case, a Kindergarten teacher was discharged because of her refusal, based on

religious reasons, to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, teach about patriotism, and defiance to

conduct instruction and activities that concerned certain national holidays (“Palmer v. Board”).

Prior to the beginning of the school year, the teacher approached her principal and informed him

of her religious restrictions. To accommodate her, the principal permitted a team teacher, a

student teacher, and even parent volunteers to educate the students on matters of patriotism.

However, for various reasons, all of these methods failed and the principal received worried

concerns from the parents stating that their children were not receiving the same education as

other students. Because a number of consequences resulted from the teacher’s refusal to instruct

these subjects, the principal dismissed her. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor

of the school board noting that although the teacher has every right to follow the religion of her

choice, she has “no right to require others to submit to her views and forgo a portion of their

education they would otherwise be entitled to enjoy (“Palmer Case”).” Without a doubt, it is the

teacher’s responsibility to deliver the curriculum in a manner that is most beneficial to her

students. To prevail, the school district would have to prove that Karen White’s dismissal was

based on reasons beyond her religious association and that her current performance as a teacher

was hindering the education of her students.

ARTIFACT #6 7

In the case of Florey v. Sioux Falls School District, two kindergarten classes memorized

and performed a Christmas assembly loaded with religious content. Because of this and prior

Christmas assemblies, several complaints emerged and so the school district created a policy

concerning the observance of religious holidays. The new policy stated, “Schools should not

promote religion but should encourage an appreciation and tolerance of diverse religious beliefs

(Schimmel).” Roger Florey, a parent of a kindergartner that performed, argued that the rules,

which permitted religious songs and symbols, were unconstitutional. He and other parents sued

on the basis that the Establishment Clause had been violated by the school’s implementation of

the rules. However, they were unsuccessful and district court ruled in favor of the school district.

When Roger Florey and the others appealed, the Eight Circuit Court upheld the district court’s

decision because it found that the rules set forth by the school district did not have the intent to

deliver a religious purpose (“Florey”). In the situation of Karen White, the school district could

imply that although she is a Jehovah’s Witness, her students have the right to participate in the

same activities as the rest of the school. This dictates that Karen White cannot refuse or deny her

students from engaging in birthday, holiday, or patriotic celebrations. Moreover, student

participation in any school festivity does not promote or denounce religion and Karen White

must understand that. If she declined, the school district would be able to validate her dismissal.

Assessment of Outcome

It is reasonable for parents to believe that their children are being excluded because their

teacher, Karen White, can no longer participate in specific activities, projects, and celebrations.

However, both parents and school administration must remember that alike any other citizen,

Karen White has the freedom to affiliate herself with the religion of her choosing. Karen White

should have not been dismissed on the sole reason of her new acquired religious faith. Alike
ARTIFACT #6 8

Palmer v. Board of Education, the principal should have tried to design a plan that

accommodated both students and teacher. For example, the principal could have asked another

teacher to substitute Karen White during festivities and the singing of the “Happy Birthday”

song. Moreover, the principal could have encouraged Karen White to celebrate with her students

in different ways so that both students and parents do not incur negative feelings about the new

changes to the classroom.

In deciding whether to rule in favor of the school district or Karen White, the Supreme

Court could apply Abington v. Schempp to determine that schools cannot force students or

teachers to participate in activities or practices that are forbidden by an individual’s religion.

Furthermore, they would consider West Virginia v. Barnette to conclude that it is

unconstitutional for the school district to require students and staff to recite the Pledge of

Allegiance or salute the flag. If the principal proved that Karen White’s current performance was

declining because of her new religious affiliation, the school district might stand a chance to

defend her dismissal. However, because Karen White was not afforded a hearing nor were there

other reasons to substantiate her dismissal, the Supreme Court would rule in favor of Karen

White and demand her reinstatement.

Conclusion

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment is used to challenge any governmental

advancement of religion. Karen White, a kindergarten teacher who was dismissed because of her

new affiliation with the Jehovah’s Witnesses, decided to sue the school district because she

believed her freedom of religion and due process rights were violated. To rule in favor of Karen

White, the Supreme Court would utilize Abington v. Schempp and West Virginia v. Barnett to

determine that religious practices in schools violate the Establishment Clause and that forcing
ARTIFACT #6 9

her to recite the Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional. Additionally, they would use Goss v.

Lopez to acknowledge that Karen White was not afforded with a hearing upon her dismissal. To

defend themselves against a lawsuit, the school district would adopt Palmer v. Board of

Education to assert that Karen White’s religious affiliation was negatively affecting her teaching.

Furthermore, the school district could use Florey v. Sioux Falls to impose that Karen White must

allow her students to participate in the normal activities and celebrations of the school, regardless

of her religious beliefs. Nonetheless, based on the current evidence and comparison to the above-

mentioned court cases, the Supreme Court would rule in favor of Karen White.
ARTIFACT #6 10

References

Bhutia, T. (2014, November 30). West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette. Retrieved

May 6, 2018, from https://www.britannica.com/event/West-Virginia-State-Board-of

Education-v-Barnett

Cambron-McCabe, N.H., McCarthy, M.M., & Eckes, S. (2014). Legal Rights of Teachers and

Students. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

“Establishment Clause.” (n.d.). Retrieved May 5, 2018, from

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/establishment_clause

“Florey v. Sioux Falls School Dist. 49-5.” (n.d.). Retrieved May 8, 2018, from

https://lawclass.wikispaces.com/file/view/Florey+v+Sioux+Falls.rtf

McCullough, S. (2014, August 07). School District of Abington Township v. Schempp.

Retrieved May 6, 2018, from https://www.britannica.com/topic/School-District-of

Abington-Township-v-Schempp

“Palmer v. Board of Education of City of Chicago.” (n.d.). Retrieved May 6, 2018 from

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

“Palmer Case Findings.” (n.d.). Retrieved May 6, 2018, from

https://shannon3457.wordpress.com/palmer-case-findings/

Schimmel, D. (1981, November). Religious Holiday Observances in Public Schools: When Are

They Constitutional? A Legal Memorandum. Retrieved May 8, 2018, from

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED208591.pdf

“West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnett. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved May 6, 2018

From https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/319us624