Running head: RELIGION AND PUBLIC SCHOOLS !

Religion and Public Schools

Buffy M. Thomas

College of Southern Nevada

RELIGION AND PUBLIC SCHOOLS !2

Abstract

This paper examines a case involving First and Fourth Amendment safeguards. The reviewer

gives a brief overview of the Establishment and Free Exercise of Religion Clause as outlined in

the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, along with the Fourteenth Amendment

Due Process Clause. The following Supreme Court Cases are discussed: Abington Township,

Pennsylvania v. Schempp, 1963; West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 1943; Goss

v. Lopez, 1975; Palmer v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago, 1979; and Florey v. Sioux

Falls School District, 1980. The examiner gives a detailed analysis of how the above court cases

are relevant to the current case under discussion. Based on the evidence, the reviewer found that

the Establishment Clause was impaired; however, the Free Exercise and Due Process Clauses

were not violated.


RELIGION AND PUBLIC SCHOOLS !3

Religion and Public Schools

Case Review

In this case, Karen White is a tenured Kindergarten teacher and recent affiliate of the

Jehovah Witnesses. Her connection with the Jehovah Witnesses has necessitated adjustments in

her life to align her lifestyle with her faith. Some of those lifestyle changes would affect her

classroom; with that in mind, Karen decided to send parental notification home with her students.

White notified her student’s parents that due to her new religious beliefs, she could no longer

decorate her classroom for the traditional holidays, arrange for gift exchanges for Christmas, lead

the classroom in singing Happy Birthday to her students, nor would she be able to recite the

Pledge of Allegiance with her students. Disgruntled parents complained to the school principal,

Bill Ward, regarding White’s new policies. Subsequently, Principal Ward recommended Karen

White for dismissal, reasoning that her capacity to meet her student’s needs was ineffectual.

Discussion

The questions this case poses are whether Karen White’s free exercise of her religion,

granted through the First Amendment, as well as, her Fourteenth Amendment right to due

process were violated. Further, do the activities, that White will no longer be able to participate

in, encroach on the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment? The First Amendment of the

United States Constitution states that, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment

of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” (Cambron-MacCabe, McCarthy, Eckes,

2014, p. 41). Two well known clauses were forged from the First Amendment: the Establishment

Clause, which endeavors to separate the operation of the government from the practice of

religion; and the Free Exercise Clause, which protects its citizens’ freedom to practice their
RELIGION AND PUBLIC SCHOOLS !4

chosen religion. The Fourteenth Amendment applied First Amendment rights of the Constitution

to the states; assuring that states not “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due

process of law” (p. 285) Thereby protecting the “liberty” right, of freedom to exercise one’s

religion; and the “property” right to procedural due process before dismissal—in White’s case—

from federal and state government.

The plaintiff, Karen White, claims that Principal Ward’s recommendation for her

dismissal from her teaching position violated the Establishment Clause, Free Exercise Clause,

and the Due Process Clause safeguarded by the First and Fourteenth Amendment of the United

States Constitution. The plaintiff alleges that Ward’s accusation that she is not meeting the needs

of her students by not participating in certain activities which are religious in nature, such as

decorating her classroom for the holidays and planning for the gift exchange during the

Christmas season, encroaches on the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause

safeguarded in the First Amendment. In Abington Township, Pennsylvania v. Schempp, public

schools in Pennsylvania required that their students read ten verses from the Bible and recite the

Lord’s Prayer daily. The court held that requiring students to participate in activities religious in

nature did in fact violate the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause safeguards.

Although, White was not required to make her children read from the Bible or recite the Lord’s

Prayer, the principal’s dismissal was based on her decision not to participate in activities

religious in nature. The plaintiff contends that decorating for holidays and planning for gift

exchanges during the Christmas season was a religious ceremony and “intended by the state to

be so” (“Oyez,” 2015).

RELIGION AND PUBLIC SCHOOLS !5

Secondly, the plaintiff alleges that the principal’s requirement that she recite the Pledge of

Allegiance, when it is against her religious beliefs, is a violation of her First Amendment rights.

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

participation of each student to salute the flag and recite the Pledge of Allegiance each day.

Students could be expelled and parents could lose custody of their children if students refused to

do so. However, the court affirmed that the First Amendment safeguards individuals from being

compelled to recite beliefs that go against their own. Further, the court opined, “There is no

doubt that, in connection with the pledges, the flag salute is a form of utterance” (“First

Amendment Center,” 2015). Likewise, requiring the plaintiff to recite the pledge is a direct

violation of White’s First Amendment rights.

Lastly, the plaintiff charges Bill Ward with disregarding procedural due process in the

dismissal from her position. The courts established procedural due process in Goss v. Lopez. In

Goss v. Lopez, students were suspended from school for ten days, without a hearing. The Court’s

decision fixed the rule of law that students have a property interest in an education and could not

be suspended without procedural due process—a hearing. Similarly, White’s employment

contract with the school district established a property interest giving White the right to

procedural due process before her dismissal. White asserts that Principal Ward infringed on her

Fourteenth Amendment due process guarantee by recommending for her dismissal without a

hearing.

The defendant, points to Palmer v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago in defense

of Bill Ward’s accusation that Karen White did not effectively meet the needs of her students by

her refusal to participate in the recommended curriculum. In Palmer v. Board of Education of

RELIGION AND PUBLIC SCHOOLS !6

the City of Chicago, Palmer was a probationary school teacher who was affiliated with the

Jehovah Witness religion. Similar to White, Joethelia Palmer communicated to the school

principal that participation in the Pledge of Allegiance, national holidays and instruction in

patriotism was against her religious beliefs and she would not do so. In this case, the court found

that Palmer’s refusal to instruct her students in the recommended curriculum would divest her

students of the opportunity to gain a balanced intelligence and recognition of National History. It

was the court’s opinion that, “It cannot be left to individual teachers to teach what they please.

Plaintiff's right to her own religious views and practices remains unfettered, but she has no

constitutional right to require others to submit to her views and to forego a portion of their

education they would otherwise be entitled to enjoy” (“OpenJurist,” 2015). The defendant

argues that Karen White is not free to choose what curriculum she will or will not teach and her

students are “entitled to enjoy” the full scope of their education free of White’s religious

practices.

In response to the plaintiff’s charge that Bill Ward encroached on the Establishment and

Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, the defendant looks to Florey v. Sioux Falls

School District. In response to complaints about past religious based Christmas programs, the

Sioux Falls School District adopted a set of rules and regulations that attempted to appropriately

define the separation between Church and state in public school activities. The appellants in that

case claimed, “notwithstanding the actual intent of the School Board, the ‘principal or primary

effect’ of the rules is to either advance or inhibit religion” (“Belcher Foundation,” 2015). The

Court did not agree and opined, “The First Amendment does not forbid all mention of religion in

public schools; it is the advancement or inhibition of religion that is prohibited….Hence, the

RELIGION AND PUBLIC SCHOOLS !7

study of religion is not forbidden ‘when presented objectively as part of a secular program of

education’” (“Belcher Foundation,” 2015). In the same way, the defendant, Bill Ward, claims

that his school’s observation of the holidays is a “secular program of education” that is not

intended to promote or inhibit any religion.

Conclusion

In reviewing Karen White’s case, it is the opinion of this court that the Establishment

Clause as set forth in the First Amendment was not infringed upon. This court did not find that

Bill Ward’s expectation for his teachers to decorate their classrooms for national holidays and

participate in a gift exchange for the Christmas season were conducted or implemented as

religious ceremonies. Thus, the court is not inclined to construe that the public school leads

these programs for the advancement of religion. However, the court found that the Free Exercise

and Due Process Clauses were impaired. White’s lack of participation in decorating her

classroom for the holidays and planning the gift exchange was a reasonable accommodation to

assure her constitutional rights. Furthermore, parental disgruntlement for White’s lack of

participation in such programs does not necessitate the need to implement them. For, although

these types of public school activities are “permitted by the Establishment Clause does not mean

it is required by the Free Exercise Clause” (Cambron-MacCabe, McCarthy, Eckes, 2014, p. 66).

Moreover, it is important to note that White did not indicate in her parent notification a refusal to

teach on the different religious or patriotic holidays in the recommended curriculum. The Free

Exercise Clause allows White to abstain from decorating her classroom and planning a gift

exchange as it does not adversely affect her student’s education. In addition, as established in the

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette case, the First Amendment safeguards
RELIGION AND PUBLIC SCHOOLS !8

White’s choice to refrain from reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. Finally, the court finds Karen

White’s recommendation for dismissal, without a hearing, infringed the Fourteenth Amendment

procedural due process clause. Based on these conclusions, it is the judgment of this court that

Karen White be reinstated with the school district and retain her tenured status.
RELIGION AND PUBLIC SCHOOLS !9

References

Cambron-MacCabe, N.H., McCarthy, M.M., Eckes, S.E. (2014). Legal rights of teachers and

students. Boston: Pearson.

Florey v. Sioux Falls School District, 619 F.2d 1311 (8th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 987

(1980).

Florey v. Sioux Falls School District. (n.d.). Belcher Foundation. Retrieved November 29, 2015,

from http://www.belcherfoundation.org/florey_v_sioux_falls_school_district.htm.

Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1975).

Goss v. Lopez. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved November 29, 2015, https://www.oyez.org/cases/

1974/73-898.

Palmer v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago, 603 F.2d 1271 (1979).

Palmer v. Board of Education of City of Chicago. (n.d.). OpenJurist. Retrieved November 29,

2015, from http://openjurist.org/603/f2d/1271/palmer-v-board-of-education-of-city-of-

chicago.

School District of Abington Township, Pennsylvania v. Schempp (No. 142), 374 U.S. 203

(1963).

School District of Abington Township, Pennsylvania v. Schempp. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved

November 29, 2015, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/1962/142.

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943).

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette. (November 30, 2015). First Amendment

Center. Retrieved November 29, 2015, from http://www.firstamendmentschools.org/

freedoms/case.aspx?id=442.