Portfolio #6

Portfolio 6

Religion And Public Schools

Matthew Van Roeyen

College of Southern Nevada

April 28, 2018

Portfolio #6
2

For Karen White, being a Jehovah’s Witness meant that she was no longer able to

perform certain functions as a teacher. She could no longer lead certain activities or participate

in certain projects, because they were religious in nature according to her newly acquired

affiliation with Jehovah’s Witnesses. She could no longer decorate the classroom for holidays or

plan for gift exchanges during the Christmas season. She could not sing to celebrate someone’s

birthday, or recite the Pledge of Allegiance. Upon hearing this, parents protested. Bill Ward, the

school principal, recommended her dismissal based on her ineffectively meeting the needs of her

students.

The dismissal of a teacher is a serious consequence. However, it must have specific

requirements met, and the school must also enforce a strict set of rules if they attempt to follow

through with such regulations. In order to justify the dismissal of a teacher, the teacher has to

have been found in violation of certain policies, and they must provide the teacher with a course

of due process. For example, in the case of Cleveland Board Of Education v Loudermil 470 us

532 105 s ct 1487 84 l ed 2d 949 1985, (Cleveland Board Of Education v Loudermil) In this

court case, a security guard claimed that, “the statute providing for administrative review

violated his due process rights, because it did not provide a hearing prior to the board’s decision

to terminate employment.” (Cleveland Board Of Education v Loudermil) According to how the

law works, “due process guarantees a teacher at least a right to a predisciplinary meeting

whenever the proposed discipline will affect the teacher’s property or liberty interest.”

(Underwood, J., & Webb, L. D.)

Along with the path that the school must take to correctly dismiss a teacher, the school

does not have to provide a teacher with certain “applicable procedures”. (Underwood, J., &
Portfolio #6
3

Webb, L. D.) For example, in the case of “Board Of School Commissioners Of The City Of

Indianapolis, v. Michael Walpole”, (Board Of School Commissioners Of The City Of

Indianapolis, v. Michael Walpole) a decision was made regarding a “postdisciplinary hearing”.

(Underwood, J., & Webb, L.D.) In this case, it was decided that, “a teacher facing a termination

hearing by the school board was not entitled to formal discovery (an opportunity for each party

to a lawsuit to request information and documents from opposing side.).” (Underwood, J., &

Webb, L.D.) This means that “due process does not include the right to discovery at a

termination hearing.” (Underwood, J., & Webb, L.D.)

There are very specific grounds for having a teacher dismissed. They are, “Immorality,

incompetence, and insubordination.” (Underwood, J., & Webb, L.D.) In order for “immorality”

(Underwood, J., & Webb, L..D.) to play a part in a teacher’s dismissal, the teacher would have to

provide “actions contrary to commonly accepted moral principles or conduct unbecoming of a

teacher, such as sexual conduct with students, sexually explicit remarks or talking about sex

unrelated to the curriculum, distribution of sexually explicit materials to classes, use of obscene,

profane, or abusive language, public lewdness, possession and use of controlled substances,

criminal misconduct, and dishonesty.” (Underwood, J., & Webb, L.D.) For example, in the case

of “Weaver v. Nebo School District”, (Weaver v. Nebo School Dist., 29 F. Supp. 2d 1279) the

decision to dismiss a teacher was “overturned due to being unconstitutional” (Underwood, J., &

Webb, L.D.) since it did not constitute such behavior. For “incompetence”, (Underwood, J., &

Webb, L.D.) a teacher would have to exhibit behavior that would be “inadequate teaching or

supervision, a lack of knowledge of the subject matter, a failure to maintain classroom discipline

or administration of unreasonable discipline, a failure to work effectively with colleagues,

supervisors or parents, a physical or mental incapacity, and a willful neglect of duty.”

Portfolio #6
4

(Underwood, J., & Webb, L.D.) For “insubordination”, (Underwood, J., & Webb, L.D.) a

teacher’s behavior would “be based on repeated incidents of minor violations of school rules or

policies, repeated absences, or tardiness.” (Underwood, J., & Webb, L.D.)

In the case of “McElroy v Board of Educ. of Bellmore-Merrick Cent. High School Dist”

(McElroy v Board of Educ. of Bellmore-Merrick Cent. High School Dist), it was discovered that

“two coaches tolerated an atmosphere that encouraged hazing.” (Underwood, J., & Webb, L.D.)

The decision “violated state law and federal due process rights because the district had failed to

give notice of the charges against them and provide them with a hearing.” (Underwood, J., &

Webb, L.D.)

In conclusion, it would not be right to dismiss a teacher on the grounds of their religion.

In the case of Karen White, the court would rule in favor of the school retaining the teacher.

Regardless of her connection to any kind of religious organization, the school did not have the

right to dismiss the teacher. There was no justification for Karen’s dismissal. The school could

choose to find a more appropriate school placement for Karen. But they can’t dismiss her.
Portfolio #6
5

References

Board Of School Commissioners Of The City Of Indianapolis, v. Michael Walpole, Appellee No.
49S00-0303-CV-112.
Cleveland Board Of Education v Loudermill 470 us 532 105 s ct 1487 84 l ed 2d 949 1985
McElroy v Board of Educ. of Bellmore-Merrick Cent. High School Dist. 2004 NY Slip Op 24322
[5 Misc 3d 321]
Underwood, J., & Webb, L. D. (2006). School law for teachers: Concepts and applications. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.
Weaver v. Nebo School Dist., 29 F. Supp. 2d 1279