Artifact #6: Religion and Public Schools 1

Karen Osorio

Tue. April 23, 2019

EDU 210: Nevada School Law

Portfolio Artifact #6

Religion and Public Schools

Artifact #6: Religion and Public Schools 2

A kindergarten teacher, named Karen White, had just recently become a member of the

Jehovah’s Witnesses religion. She explained to the principal, Bill Ward, and to the parents of her

students that due to her new religious beliefs she could no longer celebrate certain holidays or

participate in certain activities such as singing the Happy Birthday song or reciting the Pledge of

Allegiance. The parents of her students complained, subsequently, the principal advised that

White be dismissed because he believed she would not be able to meet her students’ needs.

The first case that will be used in favor of Karen White is Epperson v. Arkansas (1968).

In Epperson v. Arkansas (1968), a biology teacher, named Susan Epperson, was worried that she

would be fired for teaching the theory of human evolution, that suggests that humans evolved

from animals, from the new textbooks that the school received. Arkansas had a law that

prohibited teachers from teaching this theory of human evolution. To ensure she wouldn’t be

disciplined Epperson sought a declaration from the court that the law was void and that she could

teach the theory of evolution. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Epperson and declared

that the statue violated the first amendment’s establishment clause since the state’s goal was to

only teach one religion’s viewpoint of human evolution. The court also ruled that the state, “must

be neutral in matters of religious theory, doctrine, and practice” and that, “the First Amendment

does not permit a state to require teaching and learning to be tailored to the principles or

prohibitions of any religious sect or dogma” (Epperson v. Arkansas, 1968). The case findings in

Epperson v. Arkansas (1968) help support that White does have the right to not participate in

certain activities just to cater to other people’s religious beliefs. The finding that a state cannot

require teaching to be tailored to certain religious principles helps prove that White is not

required to decorate her classroom for the holidays or participate in gift exchanges during the

Christmas season. This case also declared that endorsing one religion’s viewpoint is a violation
Artifact #6: Religion and Public Schools 3

of the first amendment’s establishment clause this means that the principal also violated this

clause since he is disregarding White’s religious beliefs and is siding with the parents’ religious

beliefs, therefore promoting one religion over the other.

The second case that will be used to support Karen White is Cantwell v. Connecticut

(1940). In Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940), Several Jehovah’s witnesses were charged with

violating a state statue and disturbing the peace for handing out religious material without a

license and for angering catholic people with their material. The Jehovah’s witnesses fought the

charges and claimed they believed that they did not need a license since they were only

distributing pamphlets, and that their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights were being

violated. The court ruled in favor of the Jehovah’s witnesses and stated that, “The First

Amendment prohibited Congress from making laws regarding the establishment of religion or

preventing free exercise of any religion” (Cantwell v. Connecticut, 1940). According to the text,

the First Amendment’s establishment clause prohibits the establishment of religion by the

government (Underwood & Webb, 2006, p.209). The court also made it clear that this applies to

the states as well. The case findings in Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940) help support that White

cannot be dismissed due to her not being able to participate in certain activities because of her

religion. The ruling in this case establishes that states cannot prevent free exercise of any

religion, therefore White has the right to express herself through her religion. Under this ruling,

White has grounds to claim that the principal is violating the establishment clause because of his

disagreement with her no longer decorating the classroom for the holidays or participating in gift

exchanges during the Christmas season. This viewpoint can be seen as choosing one religion

over the other and that would be a violation of the establishment clause.
Artifact #6: Religion and Public Schools 4

The first case that will be used in favor of the principal is Helland v. South Bend

Community School Corporation (1996). In the case of Helland v. South Bend Community

School Corporation (1996) a substitute teacher, named Peter Helland, would consistently

promote and advocate his religion during school hours. School officials decided to remove

Helland from their substitute-teaching list due to his poor performance and the constant

preaching of his religion in the classroom. Helland filed a lawsuit against the school district and

claimed he was removed because of his religious beliefs and that it was a violation of Title VII of

the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The court ruled in favor of the school officials and stated that, “A

school can direct a teacher to refrain from expressions of religious viewpoints in the classroom

and like settings” (Helland v. South Bend Community School Corp., 1996). It additionally

declared that if there is a compelling governmental interest that the government can substantially

limit a person’s exercise of religion by utilizing least restrictive means. Taking Helland off the

substitute-teaching list was considered by the court as using the least restrictive means. The case

findings in Helland v. South Bend Community School Corporation (1996), support that the

principal’s recommendation of White’s dismissal is justifiable. The ruling in this case would give

school officials the authority to limit White’s religious freedoms while acting as a government

employee. Although, in White’s case, she emphasized on what activities she can no longer do

with her students due to her religious beliefs, these actions are still considered expressing one’s

religious viewpoints therefore not appropriate while performing official duties. Furthermore, the

finding that if there is a compelling government interest that the government can limit a person’s

religious expression and can even be let go, can be used to back up the principal’s

recommendation of White’s dismissal, since the students’ needs being met would be considered a

governmental interest.
Artifact #6: Religion and Public Schools 5

The second case that will be used to support the principal is Marchi v. Board of

Cooperative Educational Services (1999). In Marchi v. Board of Cooperative Educational

Services (1999), a special education teacher, named Dan Marchi, had recently converted to

Christianity, and had changed his educational programs to include religious material. School

officials gave him a directive to not include any religious material in his instructional programs.

Marchi did not comply and claimed that this violated his free exercise rights. The court ruled in

favor of the school officials and stated that, “For his part, the employee must accept that he does

not retain the full extent of free exercise rights that he would enjoy as private citizen” (Marchi v.

Board of Cooperative Ed. Services, 1999). The court further ruled that, “A school risks violation

of the Establishment Clause if any of its teachers’ activities gives the impression that the school

endorses religion.” The ruling in Marchi v. Board of Cooperative Educational Services (1999)

upholds that White as an employee does not receive the same exercise rights as she does as a

private citizen. It is White’s obligation to perform her official duties and cannot refuse to not lead

or participate in certain activities just because of her religious beliefs. Under this ruling, the

principal also has the right to ensure that none of its employees are practicing their religion

during school hours, since it could give an impression that the school is endorsing a religion, thus

violating the establishment clause.

My decision is that the court will rule in favor of the principal and Karen White will be

dismissed. The findings in Helland v. South Bend Community School Corporation (1996), give

the principal and school officials the authority to limit a teacher’s free exercise rights while

acting as a government employee. Under this ruling, the students’ needs would be considered a

compelling governmental interest and since White is not willing to participate in certain activities

due to her religion, she can be perceived as insubordinate and ultimately be let go. Marchi v.
Artifact #6: Religion and Public Schools 6

Board of Cooperative Educational Services (1999) further supports that when White is acting as

an employee rather than a private citizen, she does not receive the “full extent of her free

exercise rights” (Marchi v. Board of Cooperative Ed. Services, 1999). Under this case, school

officials would have the responsibility to make sure that a violation of the establishment clause

does not occur by allowing their employees to practice their religion during school hours. If the

principal were to allow White to not participate in certain activities due to her religious views, it

can be seen by the public as if the school is endorsing a religion. Therefore, to avoid a violation

of the establishment clause the principal’s recommendation of White’s dismissal is the best

course of action to take.

Artifact #6: Religion and Public Schools 7

References

Cantwell v. Connecticut (May 20, 1940) (Justia, Dist. file).

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/310/296/

Epperson v. Arkansas (November 12, 1968) (Legal Information Institute, Dist. file).
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/393/97

Helland v. South Bend Community School Corporation (United States Court of Appeals, Seventh
Circuit. August 15, 1996) (FindLaw, Dist. file). https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-
circuit/1121261.html

Marchi v. Board of Cooperative Educational Services (United States Court of Appeals, Seventh
Circuit. April 02, 1999) (FindLaw, Dist. file). https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-
circuit/1068488.html

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