Running Head: ARTIFACT #6

Christina Flatley
Artifact #6
Nevada School Law 210
Professor Herington
May 13, 2016

ARTIFACT #6

Abstract
This paper will explore the rights of both the teachers and the board of education regarding
certain freedoms of expression, particularly about the expression of religion. The plaintiff will
give their argument about their case with certain citations. While the defendant will counter-act
with their cases cited. At the end, a verdict will be decided which side it will be in favor of.
Keywords: teachers, school district, religion, expression, plaintiff, defendant, verdict

ARTIFACT #6

Religion and education are not a very well thought out mix. Especially when the teacher
is affiliated with certain kinds of religion that disrupt their teaching processes. In this instance
Karen White, a kindergarten teacher informed her students that she can no longer teach certain
projects because they are religious in nature. Now that shes a newly developed Jehovahs
witness she can no longer say the Pledge of Allegiance, sing Happy Birthday, or decorate
during certain holidays. The parents of these students are strongly protesting Bill Ward, or the
principals decision to dismiss her. However, the principal did this merely for the fact she did not
fulfill the educational needs of her students.
There will be certain cases cited for each side. For the plaintiffs side, or rather the
parents of the students, the 1943 case of West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette will
support their argument. As for the defendants side, the principal Bill Ward will supply the use of
multiple citations such as the Establishment Clause and the teachers Procedural Due Process
requirements. Furthering the defendants argument they will also use the 1963 case of Abington
School District v. Shemp, the 1980 case of Florey v. Sioux Falls School District, and the 1979
case of Palmer v. Board of Education.
The 1943 landmark case of West Virginia State Board of Education is about First
Amendment rights that students have in educational settings. The supreme court made a decision
so that,students could not be required to pledge their allegiance to the American flag in
contravention to their religious beliefs (Cambron-McCabe, McCarthy, Eckes, 2014). However,
controversy is still abuzz of certain exemptions from the pledge (Cambron-McCabe, McCarthy,
Eckes, 2014). This case relates to the plaintiffs, or parents about how their children cannot be
silenced for their freedom of expression during classroom hours. If their teacher does not want to

ARTIFACT #6

say the Pledge of Allegiance, that doesnt particularly mean that every student shouldnt do the
process too. Everyone has a right to express themselves in educational settings whether they are
a teacher or a student.
As for the defendants side there will be particular attention paid to certain violations of
the Establishment Clause. According to Cambron-McCabe, McCarthy, and Eckes (2014) the
Lemon test needs to prove if the violations, have a religious purpose, advances or impedes
religion, or creates excessive governmental entanglement with religion. Ms. White violated the
Establishment Clause by impeding the religions of others, and simply promoting her own.
Furthermore, the objects Ms. White used in her classroom were religious instead of educational
in her teaching values. The plaintiff also tried to promote her religion in a subtle ways with her
students. This violated the Establishment Clause in a subtle manner because Ms. White tried to
create governmental entanglement with religion.
The defendant Mr. Ward may also give entitlement to Ms. White the Procedural Due
Process under the premises of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment
reprises, that no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of
law (Cambron-McCarthy, McCarthy, Eckes, 2014). Procedural Due Process also makes sure
that, a teachers interest in public employment may entail significant property and liberty
rights necessitating due process prior to employment termination (Cambron-McCabe, McCarthy,
Eckes 2014). Ms. White may be entitled to the components of Due Process by representation of
legal counsel, opportunities for a hearing, notification of charges, and many more aspects. This
will give both the plaintiff and defendant enough time to decide what should be stated at this
current trial.

ARTIFACT #6

The 1963 case of Abington Township v. Schempp lit many controversies about First
Amendment rights regarding childrens rights to their religion. The case occurred in 1958 when
Unitarian parents, The Schempps, filed suit against the Philadelphia school district who violated
their First Amendment rights. Their children were required to, begin each school day with a
reading of at least 10 passages from the Bible (McCullough). Eventually the court came to a
ruling of 8-1 and legally made bible reading or prayer in public schools as unconstitutional
(McCullough). Most of Ms. Whites objects she used to teach her class were, once again,
religious in purpose instead of educational. She does this by showing objects, including the bible
to be shown in a promotional religious manner towards her students.
Another case that Mr. Ward could use is the 1979 case of Florey v. Sioux Falls School
District. This took place in a kindergarten classroom where a few children had to recite the
information taught about the basics of Christmas. The parents of these students filed suit against
the school district, and asked the courts,to declare that the policy and rules are unconstitutional
and therefore void (Wiltse, Blewett, Johnson, Merkle, & McCarty, 2016). While the case did
not win on the plaintiffs side, it is still highly relevant today about the matters of whether
religion can be educational or not. Once again, Ms. Whites intention was not to educate her
students about certain types of religion, rather it is to promote her own religion.
A final case that the defendant can use to support his argument is the 1979 case of Palmer
v. Chicago Board of Education. This case is remarkably similar to the current case at hand. A
kindergarten teacher specifically made requests not participating in activities that have,anything
having to do with love of country, the flag and other patriotic matters (Paskind). Furthermore,
she refused,to lead activities related to holidays like Columbus Day, Halloween, Thanksgiving

ARTIFACT #6

and Christmas (Paskind) because she was a Jehovahs Witness. The court ruled in favor of the
defendant overall, and concluded that the plaintiff failed in her duties to follow curriculum. Ms.
White, much like the teacher in the Palmer case did not follow educational instruction like she is
supposed to.
The final verdict will be on the defendants, or Principal Wards side. While Ms. White
may have tried prove her rights to free expression, they may be inherently taken away while she
is on school grounds. Her responsibility is to instruct her students and provide learning for all,
and not to encourage every student to take part in her beliefs. Whatever personal or private
opinions Ms. White may have needs to be kept in the sanctions of her own house. After all, there
needs to be a wall of separation between government and religion. Especially when it comes to
our future generations choices of fact and opinion.

ARTIFACT #6

References
Cambron-McCabe, N. H., McCarthy, M. M., & Eckes, S. E. (2014). Legal Rights of
Teachers and Students (3rd ed.). Boston: Pearson Education.
McCullough, S. R. (2016, Spring). School District of Abington Township v. Schempp.
Retrieved May 12, 2016, from
http://www.britannica.com/topic/School-District-of-Abington-Township-v-Schempp
Paskind, L. (2015, January 1). PALMER v. BOARD OF ED. OF CITY OF CHICAGO.
Retrieved May 12, 2016, from
http://www.leagle.com/decision/19791066466FSupp600_1966/PALMER v. BOARD OF ED.
OF CITY OF CHICAGO#
Wiltse, J. M., Blewett, W. E., Johnson, S., Merkle, B., & McCarty, D. (2016, Spring).
Florey v. SIOUX FALLS SCH. DIST. 49-5, 464 F. Supp. 911 (D.S.D. 1979). Retrieved May 12,
2016, from http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/464/911/1520042/

ARTIFACT #6