Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Artifact 6
Emily MacKinnon
Karen White is a Kindergarten teacher who has recently converted to Jehovah's Witness.
Because of this, Karen informed her students and their parents that there were things she could
no longer do – such as decorating for holidays or planning Christmas gift exchanges – as her
newfound faith did not permit that. She was also unable to sing "Happy Birthday" or say the
Pledge of Allegiance. After parents complained, the school's principal, Bill Ward,
"recommended her dismissal based on her ineffectively meeting the needs of her students."
In Skoros v. City of New York, 2006, Andrea Skoros attempted to get some sort of
nativity scene put up on the school's holiday display, because they had a menorah put up there.
Her argument was that if they put up symbols representative of a Jewish holiday, why could they
not do so for Christmas? The court ruled in favor of the school, outlining one of their reasons for
the displays as being "to promote the goal of fostering understanding and respect for the rights of
all individuals regarding their beliefs, values and customs" (Findlaw's United States...). Based on
the decision of the court in this case, I do not think that a dismissal of Karen White is a fair or
justified response. White's refusal to put things up to celebrate the holidays were just as much an
exercise in respecting others' beliefs as putting up a display that showed off many different
beliefs.
Another case is that of Florey v. Sioux Falls School District, 1979. In this case, father of
Kindergartener Justin Florey was unhappy about the content of his son's Christmas assembly,
and began investigating how it compared with the Establishment Clause with a few other
parents. Florey took it to court, and the court in turn responded with, "[W]e find no constitutional
requirement which makes it necessary for government to be hostile to religion and to throw its
weight against efforts to widen the effective scope of religious influence" (FLOREY v.
SIOUX...). It is the same case here, perhaps even on a lesser scale. In this case, White has simply
ARTIFACT 6 3
decided not to put up the celebration of any holiday, whether religious or not, whereas in the
other case, the court made that ruling with a quiz set to song about the baby Jesus Himself. In
light of Florey v. Sioux Falls School District, 1979, Karen White should not be dismissed.
On the other side, in Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School District, 1994, John Peloza
refused to teach evolution as part of the curriculum on the grounds that it disagreed with his
belief and he could not teach it as truth, and he challenged the school district in trying to force
him to teach it, as well as in barring him from discussing his religious beliefs with students. The
courts sided with the school district, in light of the Establishment Clause and the school's
requirements regarding curriculum content. Based on this, Karen White should not refrain from
the activities that she chose to refrain from, especially if it was in her school contract to perform
And finally, in the case of Guyer v. School Board of Alachua County, 1994, a school was
petitioned by parent Robert Guyer that the school take down the images of witches and
Halloween-related decorations, because he disagreed with them. He also requested that teachers
be barred from dressing up, and even went so far as to keep his kids home from school on the
day of Halloween. The court ruled that "the public elementary school's Halloween festivities
does not violate the establishment clauses of the Florida and U.S. constitutions" (GUYER v.
SCHOOL...). Karen White's refusal to put up a display, while possibly not breaking the
Establishment Clause, should not be accepted. One man's discomfort with the celebration or
recognition of a holiday was not enough for the court to require the displays taken down. In this
case, White should be required to put up displays, even though her discomfort is noted.
While I do not agree with Karen White's decision to remove herself from the activities
that she did, I do not believe that it warranted her dismissal based on the results of Florey v.
ARTIFACT 6 4
Sioux Falls School District. Her choices were not affecting what she taught, and the things that
she chose not to provide for her students were not even things that could be considered part of
References
PELOZA v. CAPISTRANO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT . (n.d.). Retrieved June 29, 2017,
from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/peloza.html
FindLaw's United States Second Circuit case and opinions. (n.d.). Retrieved June 29, 2017, from
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1351830.html
FLOREY v. SIOUX FALLS SCH. DIST. 49-5 | 464 F.Supp. 911 (1979). (1979, February 13).
http://www.leagle.com/decision/19791375464FSupp911_11231.xml/FLOREY%20v.%2
0SIOUX%20FALLS%20SCH.%20DIST.%2049-5
GUYER v. SCHOOL BD. OF ALACHUA COUNTY | 634 So.2d 806 (1994). (1994, April 07).
http://www.leagle.com/decision/19941440634So2d806_11234.xml/GUYER%20v.%20S
CHOOL%20BD.%20OF%20ALACHUA%20COUNTY