Running head: ARTIFACT #6 RELIGION AND PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Artifact #6 Religion and Public Schools

Sarmiento Daisy

College of Southern Nevada

ARTIFACT #6 RELIGION AND PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2

Abstract
In our modern world, religion continues to be a controversial topic of debate. This paper

will go over the case of kindergarten teacher Karen White. Due to her religious faith, she could

not participate in certain activities in school. The parents of the students disapproved, and the

principal suggested her dismissal. To determine of White should have been fired, four court

cases are analyzed. Two cases support White's case while the other two support the school

district. Due process and the Establishment Clause are also briefly analyzed. The courts should

ultimately rule in Karen White's favor since she did not fail to teach the curriculum and her

actions contributed to the separation between church and state.

ARTIFACT #6 RELIGION AND PUBLIC SCHOOLS 3

In the United States, individuals have the right to exercise their freedom of religion. That

is the reason why so many people migrated to this country in the first place. Sometimes, those

differences in beliefs can create problems in the workplace, school, or any other public setting. A

kindergarten teacher named Karen White had recently made the appropriate changes in her life to

join the Jehovah's Witness faith. Those changes included no longer leading or even participating

in activities associated with any other holidays or religions. The activities included would deal

with Christmas, birthdays, and reciting the Pledge of Allegiance amongst others. Despite

expressing her motives to her students and their parents, White received major backlash and

faced protests. As a solution to the problem, the school principal, Bill Ward, suggested the

dismissal of Karen White.

To better understand the following cases, one must understand the Establishment Clause

and Due Process. The First Amendment's Establishment Clause forbids any law that may

promote a religion from being implemented. Also, it forbids the government from underlying

any other religions. It is a way of keeping church and state separated from each other. Due

process allows anyone to have a fair trial. Each individual's rights must be acknowledged and

respected (Cornell Law School).

The first court case to support Karen White is West Virginia State Board of Education v.

Barnette. In West Virginia 1943, the board of education required that all students in public

schools salute the flag as part of the activities. Teachers also had to abide by the rule. If anyone

failed to do so, it was seen as insubordinate and one could either be expelled, or in some cases

charged as a delinquent. The court held that "Compelling school children to salute the flag

violates freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment" (West Virginia State Board of

Education v. Barnette). This means that "compulsory unification of opinion" goes against the

values of the First Amendment and everything it stands for (West Virginia State Board of
ARTIFACT #6 RELIGION AND PUBLIC SCHOOLS 4

Education v. Barnette). Individuals should not be forced to follow one specific ideology if they

do not feel comfortable doing so.

The next court case that supports White is School District of Abington Township,

Pennsylvania v. Schempp. In 1963, students in Pennsylvania public schools were required to read

a minimum of ten versus from the Bible each morning. After that, the Abbington Township

students had to "recite the Lord's Prayer." If a student could not or did not want to be a part of the

activities, they would need a written note from the parents to be excluded. The court ruled that

the activities infringed upon "both the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause of the

First Amendment since the readings and recitations were essentially religious ceremonies and

were intended by the State to be so" (School District of Abington Township, Pennsylvania v.

Schempp). Even if a child could be excused by the written note, it did not matter. Regardless, the

recitations and readings were still in violation of the Establishment Clause.

The first case to support the principal and the school district is Palmer v. Board of

Education. In 1979 Chicago, a public-school teacher names Joethelia Palmer could not teach

patriotic lessons due to her religious beliefs. Palmer was a Jehovah's Witness and could not

participate in the "pledge of allegiance, singing of patriotic songs, and celebration of certain

national holidays" (Palmer Significance to School Policies/Procedures). The big problem was

that " she would be unable to teach any subjects having to do with love of country, the flag or

other patriotic matters in the prescribed curriculum” (Palmer Significance to School

Policies/Procedures). The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals did not rule in Palmer's favor. The

court decided that she has every right to her religious convictions and beliefs but may not take

away part of the curriculum from the students because of it.

The last case to go against White is Florey v. Sioux Falls School District. In 1979, an

Atheist named Roger Florey filed suit against the Sioux Falls School District. The district's
ARTIFACT #6 RELIGION AND PUBLIC SCHOOLS 5

holiday program contained religious themed carols such as "Silent Night" and "Oh Come Ye

Faithful" for the Christmas time concerts (Cline). Florey believed that this violated the separation

between church and state. Although the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals did rule in favor of

Florey, in 1980 the program was revised and ultimately considered constitutional (Cline).

Although the new program had a new variety of songs, it still included to have "Silent Night"

and "Oh Come Ye Faithful." These two religious songs continued to be part of the Christmas

concerts.

After the analysis of all four cases, the Courts should ultimately rule in favor of Karen

White. Just like is West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnett, the "compulsory

unification of opinion" is unconstitutional. No student or teacher should be forced to participate

in practices that go against his or her faith. In Abington v. Schempp, even if one can choose not to

participate in a religious activity, that does not take away from it being in violation of the

Establishment Clause. In White's case, even if she were allowed to opt out of participating in the

Christmas exchange, the exchange should not be allowed in the first place due to it having ties

with Christ and in some way, promoting Christianity. Unlike in Palmer v. Board of Education

and the patriotic lessons, Christmas and birthdays are not part of the curriculum. It is not

something one has to teach. Also, White would not necessarily opt to leave out the Pledge of

Allegiance from the curriculum, she would simply not participate in it. Lastly, just like in Florey

v. Sioux Falls School District and the Christmas concert, a Christmas gift exchange would fail to

keep a separation between church and state. Overall, just because the parents were upset with

White's decision to stay clear from holidays and other religious or patriotic activities, this did not

mean that she failed at her duties of providing the appropriate and adequate curriculum for her

students.
ARTIFACT #6 RELIGION AND PUBLIC SCHOOLS 6

References

Cline, A. (n.d.). Florey v. Sioux Falls School: Atheist Files Suit Against School Holiday

Programs. Retrieved from http://skepticism.org/timeline/september-history/8909-florey-

v-sioux-falls-school-atheist-files-suit-against-school-holiday-programs.html

Cornell Law School. (n.d.). Due Process | Wex Legal Dictionary / Encyclopedia | LII / Legal

Information Institute. Retrieved from https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/due_process

Palmer Significance to School Policies/Procedures | Curriculum Law Blog. (n.d.). Retrieved

from https://shannon3457.wordpress.com/palmer-significance-to-school-

policiesprocedures/

School District of Abington Township, Pennsylvania v. Schempp. (n.d.). Retrieved from

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1962/142

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette. (n.d.). Retrieved from

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/319us624