Religion in Public School

Amber Garrett

Garrett 1

Amber Garrett
Education 210
Professor Warby
June 25, 2015

Religion in Public School

The wall of separation between Church and State, as described by Thomas Jefferson
has been one of the most contentious aspects of public education since the inception of the
Republic. Finding the appropriate relationship between religion and education has been the
topic of countless arguments in the American legal system. Our Nations founders believed
the issue to be of such prominence that they created the First Amendment to specifically
address it. This essay will discuss a scenario in which a first grade teacher sends a letter
home with her students to inform their parents that she has recently become a Jehovahs
Witness. Additionally, due to her religious conversion, she will no longer be able to sing
Happy Birthday, decorate the classroom or be involved in holiday festivities, and can no
longer lead the class in the Pledge of Allegiance. The school Principal decides to recommend
her dismissal because she can no longer fulfill all the duties of her position. This essay will
argue from the point of view of the teacher and the differing view of the school.
The Free Exercise Clause guarantees individuals the right to worship as they choose. Part
of that choice includes freedom of religious expression. In our scenario, it is the teachers
right to religious expression that must be protected. The exclusion of her participation in
such events that offend her religious views are not ones that effect curriculum or the

Garrett 2

substantive material that she is required to teach according to requirements of the State.
According to the text, the school can only restrict freedom of expression if it pertains to
curricular content, or due to its content when its disruptful, harmful, or pervasively vulgar.
None of these aspects apply to the teacher in our scenario, thus it could be argued that the
Principal infringed on the teachers First Amendment rights.
In the case of Wisconsin v. Yoder Et. AL., the Supreme Court concluded that a state
compulsory attendance law against Amish children after they had completed the eighth grade
unreasonably interfered with the practice of a legitimate religious belief. As stated in the
court response long before there was a general acknowledgment of universal formal
education, the Religion Clauses had specifically and firmly fixed the right to free exercise of
religious beliefs, and buttressing this fundamental right was an equally firm, even if less
explicit, prohibition against the establishment of any religion by government. Time and
again the courts have re-affirmed this idea that applies to both students and teachers in cases
such as Lemon v. Kurtzman, Tilton v. Richardson, and Everson v. Board of Education. This
reasoning additionally applies to the teacher in our scenario, who due to the action taken by
the Principal had her fundamental right unreasonably infringed upon.
As said in the text, The Establishment, Free Exercise, and Free Speech clauses sometimes
are in tension when individuals want to express their religious beliefs within the school. An
example of this can be found in the Courts ruling of Bannon v. Palm Beach County. The
Court of Appeals ruled that a high school principal did not violate a students First
Amendment right when he asked the student to remove religious messages from a mural she
had painted on school property. This position was re-affirmed in Hazelwood School District

Garrett 3

v. Kuhlmeier where the court decided a principal could restrict content in a mural. Just as in
our scenario it could be argued that the Principal did not express any issue with the validity
of the Teachers religion, but rather was justified in taking action when the teachers religion
left her unable to fulfill some of the expectations of her position.
When teacher speech is at issue, the schools avoidance of appearing in sponsorship of
religion, more easily trumps the free speech rights of school employees according to the text.
The same principle can be applied when a teacher refuses to participate in established school
day activities contrary to the educational mission of the school. In our scenario the teacher
refuses to participate in activities related to the Pledge of Allegiance, because she believes
it violated principles in her religion. Although the school acknowledges her religious
freedoms, this does not detract from the fact that her choices also leaves her unable to fulfill
the duties required of her position, as well as her responsibility as an educator to her students.
In addition, it is unreasonable to think it should be at the schools expense to provide an
alternative teacher to educate the students on the Nations flag and its relation to the Pledge
of Allegiance according to established curriculum requirements. When these facts are taken
into consideration it could be argued that the school Principal was well within his rights to
recommend the teachers dismissal.
Interpretation of the First Amendment has been argued since its inception and has
evolved as new cultural and societal issues take precedent. Often in our protection of these
freedoms, new conflicts arise from their contrasting ideas and this is most prominent in the
public education setting. Ultimately we must protect these freedoms while finding a balance
that promotes respectful discussion and education of differing ideological ideas while

Garrett 4

ensuring schools do not promote our seem to sponsor any one viewpoint to maintain the
essence of educational principles. Best said by Mr. Justice Jackson in the opinion of the
Court in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, It is now commonplace that
censorship or suppression of opinion is tolerated by our Constitution only when the
expression presents a clear and present danger of action of a kind the State is empowered to
prevent and punish.

Garrett 5

References
1. Saker/Saker. Seventh Edition. School Law and Ethics. What are Your Legal Rights and
Responsibilities as a Teacher?
http://highered.mheducation.com/sites/0072877723/students_view0/chapter11/html
2. School Law for Teachers: Concepts and Applications/Julie Underwood, L.Dean Webb.
2006. Pearson, Merrill Prentice Hall.
3. Wisconsin v. Yoder ET AL. 406 US 205- Supreme Court 1972. Google Scholar. 2015
https://scholar.google.com/scholarcase?case=519187939794619665
4. West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnettet 319 US 624- Supreme Court 1943.Google
Scholar. 2015
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8030119134463419441