Artifact 6 1

Artifact 6

Jacqueline Lucero Gutierrez

College of Southern Nevada

Proffesor Dr. Warby

July 31st, 2016

Artifact 6 2

Abstract

Karen White is a Kindergarten teacher who recently became a Jehovah’s Witness. With
her new beliefs, she can no longer participate in holidays, birthdays, or recite the Pledge of
Allegiance. She told her students and their parents that she could no longer participate in the
activities. The parents protested against her, and the principal wishes to dismiss her. Cases like
West Virginia State Board Of Education V. Barnette, 1943 and Bessard V. California Community
Colleges, 1994 protect her religious beliefs. They both mention that she is a public employee and
entitled to protection for her beliefs under the first amendment. Regardless of her beliefs, she is
an adequate teacher to teach her students. Accommodations can be made to satisfy the students
and their parents.
Artifact 6 3

A kindergarten teacher, Karen White, who recently converted into a Jehovah’s Witness

told her students and their parents that she could not participate in certain activities because they

are against her new religious beliefs. She could not participate nor decorate for holidays, plan

Christmas gift exchanges, celebrate and sing “happy birthday” to the students, nor say the Pledge

of Allegiance. The principal and parents protested against her. The principal, Bill Ward,

inclusively recommended her dismissal because she could not meet the needs of her students.

A case pro the situation to help in the dismissal of Karen White is the case of Florey v.

Sioux Falls School District, 1979. The case states that “it is accepted that no religious belief or

non-belief should be promoted by the school district or its employees, and none should be

disparaged. Instead, the school district should encourage all students and staff members to

appreciate and be tolerant of each other's religious views” (Florey v. Sioux Falls School District).

The principal beliefs that Whites religious beliefs are standing in the way of the student’s

education. If this is the case, then Whites beliefs are putting constraints on the more common

norms of the school such as the Pledge of Allegiance. The teacher can be dismissed for allowing

her religious beliefs to override the children’s needs. “In that spirit of tolerance, students and

staff members should be excused from participating in practices which are contrary to their

religious beliefs unless there are clear issues of overriding concern that would prevent it” (Florey

v. Sioux Falls School District). The White did mention to her students and staff about their

beliefs, but it has caused them all to protest. There was a great concern caused around those

around her that may qualify as a dismissal based on the schools policies. The case also states that

“Christmas music with religious content has been assimilated into our culture, this Court finds

that the performance of Christmas music with religious content does not constitute a religious

activity” (Florey v. Sioux Falls School District). Karen should not have been unaccommodated
Artifact 6 4

with the celebration of Christmas because it has become part of the American Culture such as

reciting the Pledge of Allegiance is.

Another case pro the scenario is Palmer v. Board of Ed. of City of Chicago, 1979. In this

case a teacher refused to teach and partake in any patriotic activity including the teaching of

them. This case helps Warf because he doesn’t see White as being a qualified teacher. Hence,

she may do the same to the students. White can stop further instruction of US holidays because

of her beliefs. The case states that “the court can assume that the discharge of a teacher for her

refusal to instruct her students in the pledge is a constitutional violation. Assuming her refusal to

teach the pledge is protected, her refusal to participate in holiday activities and songs is not

protected as the cases cited above hold in a free speech context” (Palmer v. Board of Ed. of City

of Chicago). As an educator white has signed and agreed to policies that she must follow to fully

teach her students. Yet, she has begun the refusal of some of them because she is a new

Jehovah’s Witness. The case continues to say that “the refusal to conform classroom teaching to

a prescribed curriculum is not protected. Since plaintiff conceded that she failed to follow the

curriculum, this neutral ground supports the conclusion that defendants would have reached the

same conclusion in the absence of the protected activity” (Palmer v. Board of Ed. of City of

Chicago). Ward and parents already agree and protest that White is not capable of teaching their

students because she does not partake in the activities that they should be learning about. There

are many historical events about the US that students need to be educated about. White’s refusal

to part take makes her not eligible in meeting the demands of the students.

Con the situation to help White is the case of West Virginia State Board Of Education V.

Barnette, 1943. Prior to the case being solved, students who saluted the flag were prosecuted

with punishment for their failure to salute the flag based on their faith. The case discusses that
Artifact 6 5

students should not be required to salute the flag or recite the Pledge of Allegiance because of

the first amendment. The school board unconstitutionally interfered with the Jehovah’s

Witnesses freedom to exercise their religious beliefs. Karen White is not violating any rules, nor

disrespecting our country for simply choosing not to participate in religious or patriotic activities.

The judge in this case states that “the right of freedom of thought and of religion, as guaranteed

by the Constitution against State action, includes both the right to speak freely and the right to

refrain from speaking at all […] I am impelled to conclude that such a requirement is not

essential to the maintenance of effective government and orderly society. To many, it is deeply

distasteful to join in a public chorus of affirmation of private belief” (West Virginia State Board

Of Education V. Barnette). White’s decision to partake in the activities does not contribute to an

effective government. She is a school teacher that is there to teach her students.

Accommodations can be done if necessary to allow the students to continue in their activities.

She is entitled to not join in holidays or patriotic activities. “Any spark of love for country which

may be generated in a child or his associates by forcing him to make what is to him an empty

gesture and recite words wrung from him contrary to his religious beliefs is overshadowed by the

desirability of preserving freedom of conscience to the full. It is in that freedom and the example

of persuasion, not in force and compulsion that the real unity of America lies” (West Virginia

State Board Of Education V. Barnette). White is fully capable of teaching. She is no danger to

her students or their needs if she is a qualified staff member. They need to know that because of

the first amendment and cases like this, she is entitled to protection of freedom of speech or

religion.

Another case Con to the scenario is Bessard V. California Community Colleges, 1994. A

Jehovah’s Witness is not allowed to celebrates holidays, birthdays, nor partake in patriotic
Artifact 6 6

activities. Ward wanting to fire her because she refuses to participate in certain activities is

unconstitutional. In the case, two Jehovah’s witnesses did not sign the Oath of Allegiance

because it is against their beliefs. They both won the case because “Plaintiffs have provided

evidence that taking the oath would offend a central tenet of their religion. Specifically, the

requirement that applicants for employment agree to ‘bear true faith and allegiance’ to the state

and federal constitutions contravenes plaintiffs' sincerely held belief that they must bear faith and

allegiance to God alone” (Bessard V. California Community Colleges). A Jehovah’s Witness can

get in trouble for signing the oath because God is the only one they can take an oath to; it is their

strong belief. “the state may not place an unconstitutional burden on a person's First Amendment

rights as a condition precedent to taking public office or joining the bar of a state” (Bessard V.

California Community Colleges). Ward cannot unjustifiably dismiss White because of her

religion if it is a burden to her beliefs. Accommodations can be made to support the teacher and

student’s needs. Like with the first amendment, the refusal to celebrate holidays or state the

Pledge of Allegiance is a silent form of freedom of speech which is protected by the first

amendment. In the case, the “court concludes that plaintiffs have shown that the oath

requirement imposes a substantial burden on their exercise of religion” (Bessard V. California

Community Colleges). Likewise, if Karen White were to partake in the activities, she would be

sinning according to the religion imposing a burden on herself because of her beliefs. She is not

over reacting, nor preaching to her students. She simply told their parents that she cannot

participate in simple celebrations or in reciting the pledge of Allegiance. Regardless of her

beliefs, she is an adequate teacher to teach her students. She is also protected under the first

amendment, and Ward has no right to violate her protection.

Artifact 6 7

Reviewing this case was interesting. As a former Jehovah’s Witness, I only knew and felt

the protections of the first amendment as a student, but never knew how the situation would be

for a teacher. A Jehovah’s Witness, will get in trouble for partaking in patriotic events, birthdays,

and holidays. It is a burden to them to partake in such activities as their beliefs state that God

forbids them. It is tough being a Jehovah’s Witness when people harass you for your beliefs. As

you can see, Karen Whites decision to be in the religion caused the parents to protest against her,

and for the Principal to encourage her dismissal. The court case of West Virginia State Board Of

Education V. Barnette, 1943 states that “the right of freedom of thought and of religion […]

includes both the right to speak freely and the right to refrain from speaking at all […] I am

impelled to conclude that such a requirement is not essential to the maintenance of effective

government and orderly society” (West Virginia State Board Of Education V. Barnette). Karen

right was not participating in certain events as her right to freedom of religion protects. As a state

employee, and as the court explains, her beliefs are not to interfere with the governments. She is

a qualified educator that is allowed to practice her freedom of religion. In the case of Bessard V.

California Community Colleges, 1994 “taking the oath would offend a central tenet of their

religion […] plaintiffs' sincerely held belief that they must bear faith and allegiance to God

alone” (Bessard V. California Community Colleges). Karen White sincerely let her students and

their parents know that she would not partake in activities because of her religious beliefs. The

practices offend her beliefs regardless if they are dangerous or not. The Bessard case continues to

say that “the state may not place an unconstitutional burden on a person's First Amendment

rights as a condition precedent to taking public office or joining the bar of a state” (Bessard V.

California Community Colleges). Dismissing White because of her beliefs is unconstitutional as

she is a public employee and protected under the first amendment. Inclusively, the case of Florey
Artifact 6 8

v. Sioux Falls School District, 1979 states that “students and staff members should be excused

from participating in practices which are contrary to their religious beliefs”( Florey v. Sioux

Falls School District). White’s religion is no reason for dismissal. Appropriate measures should

be taken to prove that she is not a qualified teacher. However, she is qualified because her

religious beliefs do not interfere with the curriculum. Simple accommodations can be done to

allow students to celebrate holidays or recite the Pledge of Allegiance. To dismiss her would be a

violation of her protection under the US Constitution’s first amendment.

Artifact 6 9

References

Bessard V. California Community Colleges. (n.d.). Retrieved July 30, 2016, from

http://www.leagle.com/decision/19942321867FSupp1454_12141/BESSARD v.

CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGES

Florey V. Sioux Falls Sch. Dist. 49-5, 464 F. Supp. 911 (D.S.D. 1979). (n.d.). Retrieved

July 28, 2016, from http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/464/911/

1520042/

Palmer v. Board of Ed. of City of Chicago, 466 F. Supp. 600 (N.D. Ill. 1979). (n.d.). Retrieved

July 29, 2016, from http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/466/600/

2361432/

West Virginia State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette 319 U.S. 624 (1943). (n.d.). Retrieved July 30,

2016, from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/319/624/case.html