Portfolio Artifact 6 Religion and Public Schools 1

Portfolio Artifact 6

Religion and Public Schools

Lisa N. Dickson

College of Southern Nevada

April 27, 2019

 Portfolio Artifact 6 Religion and Public Schools 2

Religion and Public Schools

Karen White is a newly conformed Jehovah’s Witness. White teaches kindergarten. Soon

after finding her faith she let her parents and students know that she would no longer be

participating in things she used to participate in or lead certain projects because they went

against her new faith. Some of the things she would no longer be doing or leading were:

decorating for holidays, gift exchanges, singing “Happy Birthday”, and reciting the “Pledge of

Allegiance.” Many of White’s student’s parents were very upset. The principal, Bill Ward,

recommended White to be dismissed because she was no longer meeting the needs of her

students. The question we will be answering today is did Ward have a justifiable reason to

dismiss White.

The first case I would like to present in favor of White having a reason to file suit against

the school for wrongful dismissal is Abington School Dist. v. Schempp 1963. In Abington School

Dist. v. Schempp 1963 there were two different families that were frustrated with the school

district for having time spent every day at devotional, reading the Bible and praying. Both of

these families were religious but a different religion. Some of the scriptures read to them were

controversial to their beliefs. The school had said that if was not a mandatory reading of scripture

and that any student could leave during the devotional at any time. Both of the families felt like

if their children had left during the devotional that it would but a strain on the relationship

between their children and the other students and their teachers and their children. The school

mostly had King James Version of the Bible. The student who volunteered to read each day was

allowed to read any section they choose from any Bible. The school felt like they would be

appeasing all the different religions with the variety. Both families felt that their religious beliefs

were being infringed upon. The courts sided with the school district in Abington School Dist. v.
 Portfolio Artifact 6 Religion and Public Schools 3

Schempp 1963. The court told both families that their children did not have to stay at the

devotional and that there was no proof that something bad would happen if they did not go to

devotional because they had always gone. Abington School Dist. v. Schempp 1963 is so similar to

Karen White’s situation. White was excited about her new religion. The courts said that having a

devotional in school was not pressuring anyone else to believe. The courts said in Abington

School Dist. v. Schempp 1963 that there was variety. White was not asking her class to convert.

White was just following her religion. The courts did not say the families had to change religion.

The courts did not say they had to believe with the school. The court said that with variety in the

school then students and teachers could choose to believe what they each believe. White was not

preaching to her students. White was not telling her class that they could never celebrate

Birthday’s ever again; White was just choosing it for herself. Abington School Dist. v. Schempp

1963 the courts said that each person can believe different and that you are not forced to believe

what others believe, but everyone has a right to their own beliefs. White has a right to her beliefs

even if they are not the same as everyone else. The children in her class could choose to say the

pledge, sing happy birthday and do gift exchanging on their own. White did not say her class had

to follow her religion. White just stated the changes she was going to be making for herself. Just

like in Abington School Dist. v. Schempp 1963 White has a right to her beliefs.

The second case I would like to present in favor of White having a reason to file suit

against the school for wrongful dismissal is Minersville School Dist. v. Gobitis 1940. In

Minersville School Dist. v. Gobitis 1940 Lillian and her brother William were expelled from

elementary school for refusing to salute the national flag as part of a daily school exercise. The

local Board of Education required both teachers and pupils to participate in this ceremony every

day. Lillian and her brother were Jehovah's Witnesses. Lillian and her brother were taught that
 Portfolio Artifact 6 Religion and Public Schools 4

God is the supreme authority and that you should not salute anything else. Lillian believed she

had the right to choose because of freedom of religion. The courts in Minersville School Dist. v.

Gobitis 1940 ruled in Lillian’s favor saying that it infringes the liberty guaranteed by the

Fourteenth Amendment. The courts are committed the guardianship of deeply-cherished liberties

Minersville School Dist. v. Gobitis 1940 states. The court stated that the flag stood for these

children having the right to believe what they choose. In Minersville School Dist. v. Gobitis

1940, the freedom of religion is sacred and deserved, White’s religion is sacred and deserved

also. White should not be required to celebrate things she does not believe or pledge to things she

does not believe in either. In Minersville School Dist. v. Gobitis 1940 the courts say that part of

what makes us America is our freedoms. White was not proselyting, or changing others beliefs

she was just standing up for hers like Lilian and William did. Minersville School Dist. v. Gobitis

1940 says that what we believe defines us as a country and no one can infringe on those beliefs.

Just like in Minersville School Dist. v. Gobitis 1940 when Lillian fought for her rights, White has

just cause to fill suit for wrongful dismissal because of her rights.

The first case that I would like to present in favor of Ward having the grounds to dismiss

White is Wallace v. Jaffree 1985. This case had several families joining together in a law suit

against the school district. The school district in Alabama had a moment of silence in their

schools for a long time. The School district added to the moment of silence in which authorized

teachers would lead "willing students" in a prescribed prayer to "Almighty God . . . the Creator

and Supreme Judge of the world." The parents that filled suit said that it went against the

establishment cause for the school district, ran by the government, to put into place a prayer. The

establishment clause says that congress or the government cannot put into place religion. The

families felt like the government, through the school district, was making the prayer in school.
 Portfolio Artifact 6 Religion and Public Schools 5

The courts agreed with the parents. The courts said in Wallace v. Jaffree 1985 that a moment of

silence is ok but to require an actual prayer is making religion. Wallace v. Jaffree 1985 having

voted with the students’ parents saying that religion is not for the state ran schools to decide.

Wallace v. Jaffree 1985 says that schools are government ran. White is a part of the school and

the school district and in long, a part of the government. The government can believe whatever

they want but cannot make religion says the court case of Wallace v. Jaffree 1985. White is a

school teacher and representative of the government running her school classroom. White is held

to the same laws that the school is because of her job. White is making religion choices in her

classroom that violates the constitution. Teachers have to be natural in their beliefs at work like

the government is because of their job. White is welcome to believe whatever she wants but

when she pushes it onto her students she is going against the establishment cause. Doing this is

the same as in Wallace v. Jaffree 1985, were the courts decided that you cannot have religion in

schools; this is why Ward has the grounds to dismiss White.

The second case I would like to bring forth in favor of Ward having the legal rights to

dismiss White will be US v. Bd. of Educ. of School D. of Philadelphia 1990. In US v. Bd. of

Educ. of School D. of Philadelphia 1990 then Alima Reardon is a devout Muslim with a

religiously held conviction that Muslim women should, when in public, cover their entire body

save face and hands. Reardon is a substitute teacher. Reardon held all qualifications and licenses

needed to do her job. On three separate occasions Reardon reported to various schools for duty

as a substitute teacher and was informed by the principals of those schools that, pursuant to state

law, she could not teach in her religious clothing. These actions were taken in compliance with

what is commonly referred to as Pennsylvania's Garb Statute, enacted in 1895 as Public Law No.

282: That no teacher in any public school shall wear in said school or while engaged in the
 Portfolio Artifact 6 Religion and Public Schools 6

performance of his duty as such teacher any dress, mark, emblem or insignia indicating the fact

that such teacher is a member or adherent of any religious order, sect or denomination. Reardon

was given the opportunity to go home and change and return to work. She refused to do so and

did not work. The courts sided with the school. In US v. Bd. of Educ. of School D. of

Philadelphia 1990 the courts said that it was law and that the students should not be able to know

what religion a teacher is. The Garb Statute states that in no way should your students be able to

tell that you are a member of any religious order, sect or domination. White told all of her

students that she had a new found religion. White then told them all the things that would change

because of her new found religion. In US v. Bd. of Educ. of School D. of Philadelphia 1990 it

clearly states that your students should not be able to tell what your religion is, from your clothes

to your actions. White is free to believe whatever she wants but it should not change her

classroom dynamics. When students go to school they should not be able to tell what religion

their different teachers are just like the courts decided in US v. Bd. of Educ. of School D. of

Philadelphia 1990. So when you look at the case US v. Bd. of Educ. of School D. of Philadelphia

1990 then you can see why Ward has grounds to dismiss White.

In the case of White having rights to file suit against the school for wrongful dismissal I

disagree. I don’t think that White has the right to file suit. In Wallace v. Jaffree 1985, the courts

state very clearly that the schools are run by the government and that the government cannot be

in charge of religion because of the establishment cause. When White took her job she should

have realized that she was a representative of the government in her class room and that she is

bound by the same laws as they are. White could be religious just not at school. In US v. Bd. of

Educ. of School D. of Philadelphia 1990 it states that students should not be able to tell what

religion their teachers are. You should not have any thing showing or acting to give them any
 Portfolio Artifact 6 Religion and Public Schools 7

indication of what you believe. I think this is very important. It is not the teacher’s job to

influence a student’s religion preference and by talking openly about it in class and illuminating

important things to your students you could be changing the students’ opinions of what was

taught at home. As a teacher that is not your job. So like in Wallace v. Jaffree 1985 and US v.

Bd. of Educ. of School D. of Philadelphia 1990 clearly state White has no grounds to file suit

against the school for wrongful dismissal. We live in America the land of the free. Some jobs

allow those freedoms and some jobs have stipulations put on them. A teacher is one of those jobs

were the students’ needs come above and before anything the teacher believes.
 Portfolio Artifact 6 Religion and Public Schools 8

References

Abington School Dist. v. Schempp 1963. 374 U.S. 203 (1963). No. 142. Supreme Court of United
States. Argued February 27-28, 1963. Decided June 17, 1963. Appealed from the United
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Retrieved April 23, 2019.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2708202356121821143&q=school+distric
t+of+abington+township+v+schempp&hl=en&as_sdt=6,29.

Minersville School Dist. v. Gobitis 1940. 310 U.S. 586 (1940). No. 690. Supreme Court of United
States. Argued April 25, 1940. Decided June 3, 1940. Certiorari to the Circuit Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit. Retrieved April 23, 2019.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3946249041792057132&q=religious+schoo
l+teacher&hl=en&as_sdt=6,29.

Underwood, J., & Webb, L. (2006). Teachers' Rights. In School Law for Teachers. Upper Saddle
River: Pearson Education.

US v. Bd. of Educ. of School D. of Philadelphia 1990. 911 F.2d 882 (1990). Nos. 89-1694, 89-
1740. United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit. Argued January 31, 1990. Decided
August 9, 1990. Rehearing and Rehearing Denied September 12, 1990. Retrieved April 23,
2019.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13179999815312370141&q=religious+scho
ol+teacher&hl=en&as_sdt=6,29.

Wallace v. Jaffree 1985. 472 U.S. 38 (1985). No. 83-812. Supreme Court of United States.
Argued December 4, 1984. Decided June 4, 1985. Appeal from the United States Court
of Appeals for the Eleventh Court. Retrieved April 23, 2019.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2471425569650729212&q=religious+scho
ol+teacher&hl=en&as_sdt=6,29.