ARTIFACT 6: Religion and Public Schools

Artifact 6: Religion and Public Schools

Athena Anderson
May 09, 2016
College of Southern Nevada

ARTIFACT 6: Religion and Public Schools

Karen White is a kindergarten teacher who recently converted to the Jehovahs Witness
religion. She has decided to inform her students and their parents that she will no longer
participate in certain activities due to her new religious beliefs. She explained that she would not
be decorating the classroom during holidays, singing Happy Birthday, or reciting the Pledge of
Allegiance. The parents are not happy to hear about these changes and are protesting her
decision. The principal, Bill Ward, has recommended her dismissal based on her choice to not
meet the needs of her students by abstaining from regular classroom activities.
When the First Amendment was set forth, a portion was designated to guarantee people
the freedom of religion. The Establishment Clause was added to address the problems of the
government supporting a particular religion. Having freedom of religion meant that the
government does not have the authority to declare a particular religion, nor does the government
have the authority to influence society towards one set of beliefs (Hill, n.d.). However, our
society has been pushed to become a Christian nation. During the Cold War many people were
fearful of communism and atheists. This meant that many things pertaining to religion became
commonplace in our society. The motto In God We Trust found on our currency was used only
on coins. However, in 1957 it was placed on paper money and pushed through to all currency
(U.S. Treasury, 2011). This, along with prayers in school, and government buildings bearing
bible references became increasingly common. As our society has shifted and the population has
adopted diverse religious views these practices have become more frequently challenged.
Karen White, under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, has the right to
worship as she chooses. In the case Engel v. Vitale, the Court concluded that the state of New
York providing a prayer for schools to repeat officially approved religion, which goes against the
establishment clause. This was one of the first cases in which the Court would use the clause to

ARTIFACT 6: Religion and Public Schools

eliminate religious activities in schools (Engel v. Vitale, 1962). Therefore, Karen White
expressed the need for her entire class to become subjected to her religion. Her responsibility to
her students to educate them to the fullest, despite her personal beliefs was not being met. She is
an educator, and as such she has a duty to teach topics and allow activities regardless of her
personal beliefs. She was not able to set aside her personal beliefs and perform her job functions
and as a result her dismissal was appropriate.
Similarly, in Florey v. Sioux Falls School District a parent complained that when the
school preformed a Christmas program, that the school was endorsing religion. The court ruled
that the school did not violate the Establishment Clause, since the music is considered to be a
secular learning experience (Florey v. Sioux Falls Sch. Dis. 1979). The same could be considered
when the principal decided that her rights were not being violated. Karen White had the ability to
teach the information on a secular level versus from a religious standpoint.
The first point, in the case of Palmer v. Board of Education of City of Chicago, Joethelia
Palmer a teacher in Chicago was dismissed based on her unwillingness to perform the state
curriculum based on her religious beliefs. The question asked was, is a school teacher required to
conform to the curriculum when it goes against their religious principles? The Court found that,
yes, a teacher would need to conform to the curriculum set forth by the state (Palmer v. Brd of
Ed, 1979). A teacher should have the ability to be neutral. Teachers do not have the option to be
selective with what they would like to teach according to what they personally approve.
Secondly, Palmer felt that she wasnt given the proper due process. Due process is the fairness in
legal matters. The Fifth Amendment states, No person shallbe deprived of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law (Hill, n.d.). As stated in Legal Rights of Teachers, Courts
have generally have held that a teacher facing a severe loss such as termination must be afforded

ARTIFACT 6: Religion and Public Schools

full procedural due process (Legal Rights of Teachers and Students, 2014) In the case of Goss v.
Lopez ten students were suspended without a hearing. The court found that their due process had
in fact been violated. The violation was found because the students did not have a fair hearing
and they were entitled to an education (Goss v. Lopez, 1975). However, in Palmer v Board of
Education of City of Chicago the Court found that she did not have property, since she was not
tenured (Palmer v. Brd of Ed, 1979). Therefore, she did not hold the rights to due process. This
could go either way for Karen White, yes she was terminated and as such the courts may say due
process should have been offered, however the courts could side with the school since she was
not a tenured teacher. The school required of their teachers that they present the material set forth
by the state. If Karen White had taught the curriculum it would not have infringed on her beliefs.
She still has the right to believe them in them and no person was trying to stop this, however they
were trying to keep her religion out of her classroom.
In contrast, in the case of School District of Abington Township, Pennsylvania v.
Schempp, students were required to read bible versus and recite the Lords Prayer each day.
Students could opt out if they had a note from their parents. The court found that this violated
both the Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause. These activities were religious in nature
and the state could not require students to participate (School District of Abington v. Schempp,
1963). Conversely, if a student is able to opt out of activities that conflict with their beliefs, the
same should hold true for a teacher. Arrangements could have been made for Karen so that she
would not violate her beliefs.
In the case of West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, a student was
suspended for refusing to recite the Pledge of Allegiance because of his religion. The court
decided that the Boards action was unconstitutional, and that it was an infringement on the

ARTIFACT 6: Religion and Public Schools

rights of the individual (W.Virginia Brd. Of Edu, 1943). This would be the same in Karens
situation. She has the right to not recite the Pledge of Allegiance or perform in any other
activities that she believes go against her religion. It would be unconstitutional to require a
person to give up their religious freedoms.
Given the points presented, I agree with the decision of the principal in the case of Karen
White. In my opinion, asking a person to teach certain topics would not violate their religious
rights. Similarly, a teacher, who was not religious, teaching at a private religious school would be
expected to participate in daily prayers and would be held accountable for performing the tasks
regardless of their personal beliefs. Karen White was likely made aware of what she was
expected and required to teach at the beginning of her employment. However, she decided not to
fulfill the requirements of her position and consequently she was dismissed. The school could
have done more to try and solve the problem without the dismissal. On the hand, Karen escalated
the situation by informing her students and their parents before speaking with the principal. Her
actions place the principal in a rough position and he needed to take action. Overall, I do believe
her dismissal was appropriate. Since she was not a tenured teacher. She was not entitled to due
process and the school was within their rights to terminate her employment.

ARTIFACT 6: Religion and Public Schools

References
Cambron-McCabe, McCarthy, and Eckes (2014). Legal Rights of Teachers and Students (p. 4144, 49-50, 292). Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana: Pearson Education.
Engel v. Vitale, 370 US 421 (1962)
Florey v. Sioux Falls School District 49-5, 464 F.Supp.911 (1979).
Goss v. Lopez, 419 US 565 (1975).
Hill. (n.d.) In The Peoples Law Dictionary online. Retrieved from http://dictionary.law.com/
Palmer v. Board of Education of City of Chicago 603 F.2d 1271 (7th Cir. 1979).
School District of Abington Township, Pennsylvania v. Schempp, 374 US 203 (1963).
U.S. Department of the Treasury. (3/08/2011) History of In God We Trust. Retrieved from
https://www.treasury.gov/about/education/Pages/in-god-we-trust.aspx
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 625 (1943).