1

Religion and Public Schools

How The Court Could Decide

Sarah Adams

College of Southern Nevada

 2

Openly practicing a religion is something sacred and personal, but it is not always

allowed to be done in a public setting. There are various places throughout the community that

have rules about how much is okay and how much is considered to be too much. One of the most

controversial places that religion takes place in is public schools. Kindergarten teacher Karen

White notified parents and students that she could not do certain activities and projects because

of her new affiliation with Jehovah’s Witnesses. Her new affiliation with this religious group led

her to believe that some of the activities and projects were a form of religious practice. Because

of this, she did not decorate her classroom for the holidays, do gift exchanges, sing Happy

Birthday, or recite the Pledge of Allegiance. Parents did not agree with Ms. White’s decisions

and the school principal, Bill Ward, recommended her dismissal because she was not meeting the

needs of her students. Was Principal Ward’s decision justifiable?

Parents and students could easily side with Bill Ward’s decision to dismiss Ms. White

because she is not thinking clearly with the best interest of her students in mind. By not exposing

her students to different holidays and celebrations, the young children are not learning about the

cultural diversity of the world that is important for them to know when they grow up. How are

her students expected to accept others who have such different cultures if they were never taught

about them? In the case Sch. Dist. of Abington v. Schempp, students read 10 verses from the

Bible every morning at school during homeroom and then repeat a prayer as a group. The statute

is completely voluntary, but some of the teachings were contrary to others’ beliefs. Because it

was voluntary and not required, but it allowed for the students to learn about other religions and

the cultures that often went with them. The students need cultural diversity in order to accept the

differences in others and because Ms. White refused to observe and take part in several of those
 3

holidays, there was a lack of cultural diversity in her classroom.

Karen White is also lacking expression of others in her teachings. Students should be able

to express themselves religiously and feel comfortable about doing so, but if their teacher is not

encouraging expressing religious holidays, then the students may not feel okay with expressing

their spirituality. Some of the parents, students, and even Principal Ward may have felt that her

actions violated everyone’s First Amendment rights, which protects free exercise of religion and

clearly states that the government can not “impede the observance of one or all religions or . . . to

discriminate invidiously between religions . . . even though the burden may be characterized as

being only indirect.” This happened in a case where someone held a government position and

was kicked out of office because of his religious beliefs that were swaying his decisions. With

Ms. White’s case, she was practically telling her students that no religious observances were

aloud in her classroom at all, therefore violating all of the students’ rights that were in her class.

Many would not agree with Principal Bill Ward’s decision to dismiss Karen White

because her not wanting to do certain activities or projects is not actually hurting anyone and she

is still following the curriculum. Others could easily argue that the main focus of school is to

gain an education without too many distractions and that the focus should not be revolved around

holidays and religious observances. There was a case in nineteen sixties that questioned whether

someone could become the Mayor of Maryland or not because they did not declare their belief in

God and because of that, they were not allowed to hold office as Mayor. Having a belief in God

may be important to some when it comes to picking a leader, however, for a political position, or

any job for that matter, that should not be a deciding factor. The focus of getting a job, education,

etc. should not directly deal with one’s religious beliefs because it is a personal thing. If someone
 4

is basing their decision on an individual’s religious beliefs, then the outcome could be argued as

religious discrimination. Religious discrimination should not be happened in schools because

religion should not be the focus of a classroom, which is why Ms. White’s decision should not be

a contributing factor to her dismissal.

One can also easily argue the fact that religious practices and observances should be done

on one’s own time because it can be a distraction in schools and it is a personal thing. Some

people take their religion very seriously, but that does not necessarily mean that they can practice

their religion whenever they want, especially while they are at school. Being excused from class

to practice or observe one’s religion takes valuable time away from being in the classroom where

the student should be learning and gaining an education. However, this case fails to provide

information about if Karen White was allowing her students to be excused for that reason. Given

her recently changed views on religion, it would seem she would not allow a student to be

excused for anything having to do with religion. In the case Braunfeld v. Brown, those involved

argued that their Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was being violated when

others got mad about them closing their business on the days that they observed their religion

because it proved to have serious economic disadvantages for business as a whole. It proved not

to be a violation because of the fact that the employees at that location with the business were

closed in advance so they could practice their religion on their own time. Although the case does

not provide further information for Ms. White and taking into consideration her new religious

viewpoints, it is likely that she encouraged her students to observe and practice their own

religious beliefs outside of the learning environment and because of that, there would be no need

to dismiss her.
 5

All in all, Ms. Karen White was only trying to do the right thing regarding her own

beliefs by informing the parents and students of the changes that were going to be made to her

classroom. This way, it gave them ample time to figure out what they personally were going to

do about their teachers’ decision. Because the parents of the students did not agree with Ms.

White’s new views and the principal had take into consideration what was best for the students

and their learning, I do believe that her dismissal was justified. However, the teacher should not

have to be punished for trying to express her own religious beliefs by taking out the situations in

which there might have been controversy with other religions. Principal Ward and Ms. White

should have contacted the parents to get what they thought would be best for their students, taken

the results, and then have a meeting to discuss a compromise on how Ms. Karen White should go

about teaching what her students need to know so the students are not the one’s having to suffer.
 6

Reference Page

Annotation 5 - First Amendment, Free Exercise of Religion ​FindLaw, For Legal Professionals

BRAUNFELD v. BROWN, No. 67 184 F. Supp. 352, affirmed (US Supreme Court May 29

1961) ​FindLaw, For Legal Professionals

McDaniel v. Paty (No. 76-1427) 435 U.S. 618 (Supreme Court April 19, 1978) ​Legal

Information Institute

Sch. Dist. of Abington Township, Pennsylvania v. Schempp (No. 142) 374 U.S. 203 (Supreme

Court Feb 27-28 1963) ​Legal Information Institute

TORCASO v. WATKINS, No. 373 223 Md. 49, 162 A. 2d 438, reversed (US Supreme Court

June 19 1961) ​FindLaw, For Legal Professionals