RUNNING HEAD: Artifact #6 1

Dara Marquez
Nevada School Law EDU 210
College of Southern Nevada
RUNNING HEAD: Artifact #6 2

Abstract
Artifact #6 is about addressing religion in public school and how to handle it while still

remaining constitutional. The scenario which is to be applied to this topic is about a

kindergarten teacher, Karen White, informing her students and their parents that she will no

longer be able to perform activities such as stating the pledge or decorating her classroom for

holidays because she has become a Jehovah’s Witness and such acts go against her beliefs. The

parents protested and the principal, Bill Ward, recommended her dismissal based on her

ineffectively meeting the needs of her students. Such a controversial matter requires strong

support for both participating parties. To support each side there will be five court cases

assigned; three to support Bill Ward and two to support Karen White. In addition to the court

cases the Establishment Clause and Due Process will be discussed as well in relating to the

scenario and the court cases to help better understand rights and what has been deemed

constitutional or unconstitutional. In the conclusion the information will be reviewed and my

personal opinion of what decision should be reached will be stated.

RUNNING HEAD: Artifact #6 3

Karen White is a kindergarten teacher. She has informed her students and their parents

that she can no longer participate in certain activities due to now being a Jehovah’s Witness. She

will no longer be able to say the Pledge of Allegiance, decorate her classroom for different

holidays or sing the “Happy Birthday” song. The parents protested and Bill Ward, the school’s

principal has recommended she be dismissed due to her being unable to effectively meet the

needs of her students. While everyone has the right to the freedom of religion under the First

Amendment, there must be separation between religion and school. Under the First Amendment

the Establishment Clause prohibits the establishment of religion by the government. This help in

better understanding the court cases that will be used to support the two sides in this scenario.

Also, from the Lemon v. Kurtzman U.S. Supreme Court case, came a three-part test to determine

whether a government action challenged under the Establishment Clause passes constitutional

muster. The answer to the first two questions must be positive and the last be negative:

1. Does the action or policy have a secular legislative purpose?

2. Does its primary effect neither advance nor inhibit religion?

3. Does the policy or action foster an excessive government entanglement with religion?

(Underwood, J., & Webb, L., 2006).

Religion and public schools have a long history starting with there being a strong

religious presence in the public schools to currently having the two become much more separate.

The first side discussed will be Karen White’s. She now has religious beliefs that collide with

duties that she performs as a teacher and must support that she has the right to discontinue

certain activities. The 1943 West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette can be used to support

her side. In this case the West Virginia’s Board had a policy in which every student was

required to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance and not doing so could be punishable by
RUNNING HEAD: Artifact #6 4

expulsion. In that case the court held that government cannot “force citizens to confess by word

or act their faith in matters of opinion (West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, n.d.).

White has stated that the Pledge of Allegiance is something that she can no longer participate in

and this case supports her by stating that it is unconstitutional to force someone to do so. The

next case to give strength to her side is the 1963 Abington School District v. Schempp. In this

case the activity in question was Bible reading in public schools. Students in Pennsylvania

public schools were required to read at least 10 Bible verses and upon completion recite the

Lord’s Prayer. The court found that by doing so the School District was in violation of the

Establishment Clause of the First Amendment (School District of Abington Township,

Pennsylvania v. Schempp, n.d.). By using this case White is supported by showing that there is a

separation of religion and school. Using such an early case helps to show that it is an ongoing

issue and that many others have seen that changes must be made. This is a strong case for her

because the Abington v. Schempp case dealt with an entire school district while her case pertains

to only her.

For the opposing side of Bill Ward, the principal, three previous court cases will be used

to support his actions. The first is the 1979 case of Palmer v. Board of Education of city of

Chicago. In this case Joethelia PALMER informed her principal, Florence Paskind, principal to

inform her that due to her sincerely held religious convictions she would not teach "anything

having to do with love of country, the flag and other patriotic matters." Paskind allowed for a

"team teacher," a student teacher and, in certain instances, parent volunteers to instruct the

children on matters of patriotism. That did not end up working and Paskind gave Palmer a letter

addressing areas in which she would need to change her teaching strategies in order to fulfill her

duties. Palmer responded by stated that she would be unable to satisfy four of the seven changes.
RUNNING HEAD: Artifact #6 5

Two months later she was notified that she would be terminated. The court decided in favor of

the Board of Education saying that any alleged religious overtones to activities are not grounds

for refusing to teach them. (PALMER v. BOARD OF ED. OF CITY OF CHICAGO, 2015).

This case is excellent for supporting Ward’s side due to how closely related these two incidents

are. It is clear that by not being able to teach students the material they need the teacher has no

grounds of protection due to not being able to fulfill their duties as a teacher. The next case the

1980 case of Flory v. Sioux Fall School District. This case occurred when in 1977, two

kindergarten classes rehearsed, memorized, and then performed for parents a Christmas,

assembly filled with religious content. Due to the problem of parents complaining because of the

assembly the School District developed a policy and rules concerning the observance of religious

holidays. Roger Florey and several other parents claimed that the rules which allowed religious

songs and symbols were unconstitutional. In this case the court used the three-part test

established from previous cases such as the 1971 Lemon v. Kurtzman case to determine if the

School District was being unconstitutional. The court ruled that the rules and procedures put in

place by the School District were constitutional, thus ruling in their favor. Furthermore, it was

stated that public schools would not violate the First Amendment by observing religious holidays

if: (1) the holidays have a "secular basis;' (2) they are presented in a "prudent and objective"

manner; (3) their primary purpose and effect is to promote secular educational goals such as

advancing student knowledge about our religious heritage and diversity (Florey v._ Sioux

_Fails_ School _District, 1981, November). For supporting Ward’s side this case shows that

material pertaining to religion does have a place in school when used to educate students. Lastly

the 1974 Goss v. Lopez case will also be used to support Ward’s side. In this case, ten students

in Columbus, Ohio were given a 10-day suspensions from school without being given a hearing.
RUNNING HEAD: Artifact #6 6

The court ruled in favor of the students saying that students have entitlements to education as

property interest and those are protected by the Due Process Clause (Goss v. Lopez, n.d.). This

case uses Due Process and shows how important it is to follow the procedures of that clause. In

the scenario being used for White v. Ward this supports Ward’s side because White is already

teaching in the school year and is in contract to perform duties as a kindergarten teacher.

In conclusion the White v. Ward case is dealing with religion in public schools and five

cases were used in supporting each side. After stating the rulings in each of the cases White does

not have a strong argument. I feel personally that due to the rulings in the previous cases the

courts would clearly rule in favor of Ward.

RUNNING HEAD: Artifact #6 7

Reference

Florey v._ Sioux _Fails_ School _District. (1981, November). Retrieved December 05,
2016, from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED208591.pdf
Goss v. Lopez. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved December 6, 2016, from
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1974/73-898
PALMER v. BOARD OF ED. OF CITY OF CHICAGO. (2015). Retrieved December
05, 2016, from
http://www.leagle.com/decision/19791066466FSupp600_1966/PALMER v.
BOARD OF ED. OF CITY OF CHICAGO
School District of Abington Township, Pennsylvania v. Schempp. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved
December 6, 2016, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/1962/142
Underwood, J., & Webb, L. (2006). School Law for Teachers Concepts and Applications.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved December 6,
2016, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/319us624