Running head: RELIGION AND PUBLIC SCHOOLS 1

Portfolio Artifact 6: Religion and Public Schools

Marilyn Gonzalez

Dr. Isbell

EDU 210

December 14, 2017

RELIGION AND PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2

Karen White is a kindergarten teacher who has recently become affiliated with the

Jehovah’s Witness sect of Christianity. She has notified parents that, due to her recent affiliation,

she will no longer be able to participate in certain activities such as decorating her classroom for

or participating in activities related to the holidays, gift exchanges, singing “Happy Birthday” or

reciting the “Pledge of Allegiance”. This announcement upset parents, who subsequently

protested. Bill Ward, the school principal, has recommended that Karen White be dismissed,

citing concerns that she may not be able to meet the needs of her students effectively.

The first case presented in favor of Karen White’s free exercise of her religious beliefs is

Lemon v Kurtzman (1971). This landmark case, decided by the Supreme Court, regarded schools

in Pennsylvania and Rhode Island, which had laws that rewarded school teachers who taught

only secular courses. In deciding whether these laws violated the Establishment Clause of the

First Amendment, the Court applied a three-pronged test has been dubbed the Lemon test. In

order for an action to not violate the Establishment Clause, the action must not: result in

government indoctrination, define its recipients in relation to their religions, or create excessive

entanglement between government and religion (Underwood, 2006, pp.210-11). By this

standard, White can reasonably argue that her actions do not violate the Lemon test. White’s lack

of participation in activities that go against her faith are not an act of entanglement between

government and religion, but rather a silent expression of her First Amendment rights.

Furthermore, it can be argued that by informing parents of her decision to not participate in

certain activities due to her own personal beliefs, she cleared the school of any misconception

that they are endorsing any one religion.

West Virginia State Board of Education v Barnette (1943) is the second case presented in

favor of Karen White’s free exercise of her religious beliefs. In this case, decided by the
RELIGION AND PUBLIC SCHOOLS 3

Supreme Court, the West Virginia state school board adopted a resolution requiring students and

teachers to salute the flag and recite the Pledge of Allegiance in school. Anyone who refused to

comply would be treated as “insubordinate” and would consequently face suspension and

charges of delinquency (West Virginia State Board of Education v Barnette, 1943). The Court

held that forcing children to salute the flag was unconstitutional. This also applies to White who

does not lose her First Amendment rights on school grounds. White cannot be compelled to

recite the Pledge of Allegiance or salute the flag by school administrators. It can also be

reasonably argued that dismissing White due to her refusal to participate in such activities is in

direct violation not only of her First Amendment rights, but also her Fourteenth Amendment

right to due process.

The first case presented in favor of the school’s right to consider White for dismissal is

Clever v. Cherry Hill Township Board of Education (1993). This case, decided by the District

Court of New Jersey, regards a school calendar that acknowledges both secular and religious

holidays, such as Christmas. In this case, the court found that it is permissible for public schools

to display religious holiday symbols in school calendars as long as it is absent of denominational

preference (Clever v Cherry Hill Township Board of Education, 1993). In White’s case, just

because she does not wish to participate in certain activities, does not mean that she should

disallow it completely in her classroom. Ward has grounds to argue that he is concerned for the

students’ multicultural and educational needs and that, by choosing to outlaw it in her classroom,

White is not meeting those needs. Furthermore, Ward can also argue that by banning these

activities in her classroom, White is acting in a way that “promotes or endorses [her] religious

beliefs about the holiday,” which stands in direct contradiction to the findings of Clever v.

Cherry Hill Township Board of Education (1993).

RELIGION AND PUBLIC SCHOOLS 4

Marchi v. Board of Cooperative Educational Services of Albany (1999) is the second case

presented in favor of the school administrator’s right to consider White for dismissal. This case,

decided by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, concerns a special education teacher who

converted to Christianity and shortly thereafter amended his curriculum to cover topics such as

“forgiveness, reconciliation, and God” (Marchi v. Board of Cooperative Educational Services of

Albany, 1999). In this case, the court ruled that the school could compel the special education

teacher to refrain from religious teachings in his classroom and that “for his part, the employee

must accept that he does not retain the full extent of free exercise rights that he would enjoy as

private citizen [...] a school risks violation of the Establishment Clause if any of its teachers’

activities gives the impression that the school endorses religion” (Marchi v. Board of

Cooperative Educational Services of Albany, 1999). Based off the findings of this case, Ward

has substantial legal ground to raise his concerns over White’s actions in her classroom. The

school cannot be seen to endorse any particular religion, and by condoning White’s disavowal of

certain activities, the school could be seen as endorsing White’s faith. Ward can use this case to

argue that the needs of the school to not violate the Establishment Clause supersedes White’s

freedom of religion, at least while she is acting as a teacher and not as a private citizen.

I believe that if this case were brought to court, the court would favor the school. In our

textbook, it states that “a school’s interest in avoiding the appearance of sponsoring religion [...]

more easily trumps the free speech rights of school employees” (Underwood, 2006, p.214). This

is further supported by the findings of Marchi v. Board of Cooperative Educational Services of

Albany (1999). If White had simply stated that she would not personally participate in certain

activities, and left her classroom out of it, there would be more leeway, pursuant to the findings

of Lemon v Kurtzman (1971). White certainly has substantial legal ground to argue her case,
RELIGION AND PUBLIC SCHOOLS 5

especially based on West Virginia State Board of Education v Barnette (1943) and other cases

like Tinker v Des Moines (1969), which state that neither students or teachers “check their First

Amendment rights at the schoolhouse gate.” In this case, both the Establishment Clause and

Exercise Clause of the First Amendment come into play. The Establishment Clause of the First

Amendment states that the government cannot be seen to endorse or attempt to establish one set

of beliefs over another. The Exercise Clause states that the government cannot infringe upon the

rights of citizens to freely exercise their beliefs. Karen White is within her right as a citizen to

exercise her newly found religious beliefs, but when she is acting as a teacher, she must refrain

from expounding her beliefs onto her students. By doing so, she fails the third prong of the

Lemon test, effectively entangling the school with her religious beliefs.
RELIGION AND PUBLIC SCHOOLS 6

References

Clever v Cherry Hill Township Board of Education, 838 F.Supp. 929 (D. N.J. 1993). (n.d.).
Retrieved December 10, 2017 from http://www.belcherfoundation.org/clever_v_cherry_hill.html

Lemon v Kurtzman, 403 US 602 (1971). (n.d.). Retrieved December 10, 2017 from
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1970/89

Marchi v. Board of Cooperative Educational Services of Albany, No.98-7213 (2001). (n.d.).

Retrieved December 10, 2017 from http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1068488.html

West Virginia State Board of Education v Barnette, 319 US 624 (1943). (n.d.). Retrieved
December 10, 2017 from https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/319us624

Underwood, J., & Webb, L. (2006). School Law for Teachers: Concepts and Applications. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.