Running head: Religion in Schools 1

Religion in Schools

Erin A. DeSelms

College of Southern Nevada

Religion in Schools 2

Abstract

Karen White is a kindergarten teacher who is a recently converted Jehovah’s Witness.

She has made the decision to let her administration and parents know that she will not be

participating in certain activities such as singing “Happy Birthday” and decorating for holidays.

Karen’s administration dismissed her on the grounds of her not meeting her students needs.

While this may infringe on her First Amendment rights, the Establishment Clause states that

religion and government (in this case public school) do not mix. She is bringing religion into the

conversation and based upon the Establishment Clause, as well as findings in other similar court

cases, she would most likely not win a court case against her school.

Keywords:​ Establishment Clause, First Amendment, dismissed, court

Religion in Schools 3

Religion in Schools

In America, there are certain laws protecting religious freedom. Teachers are not immune

to these laws. The First Amendment protects freedom of speech, and with that comes freedom of

expressing religious freedom. In a case where a kindergarten teacher, Karen White, is expressing

her religious views at school, is she protected? Karen is a recently converted Jehovah's Witness

and therefore does not celebrate Christmas or birthdays. She expressed this to her peers at work,

as well as the parents of her students. Since she does not celebrate these holidays, she will not be

decorating for them or participating in any activities that involve them, such as singing “Happy

Birthday”. She also stated she would not be reciting “The Pledge of Allegiance” which is

protected by the First Amendment. Just because she is a teacher, does she have to participate in

these things that others would not be forced to do? Her principal recommended her dismissal to

the school board stating she was “ineffectively meeting her students needs”. Karen may be able

to sue her school because they are infringing on her religious freedom, but being a teacher may

sway the court the other way.

In the landmark case, ​Everson v. Board of Education​ in 1947, the Court reviewed the

First Amendment and the Establishment Clause (which is applied to states in the Fourteenth

Amendment). This clause states that “neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a

church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over

another” (Legal Rights of Teachers and Students, 41) therefore making it so the government can

have no part in religion in America. Another landmark case, ​Lemon v. Kurtzman,​ caused the

Supreme Court to create a test called the “Lemon test”. The test was applied to Establishment

Clause claims and there were three parts: does is have secular purpose, does it have a primary
Religion in Schools 4

effect that neither advances nor impeded religion, and does it avoid excessive governmental

entanglement with religion. (Legal Rights of Teachers and Students, 42) Though few cases still

rely on this test, it was used widely before the 90’s. These two landmark cases could determine

the outcome of Karen White’s case.

In a case that is not related to education, but related to religious freedom, ​Weinbaum v.

Las Cruces ​proves that the court can uphold certain religious symbols. In this case the residents

of Las Cruces, New Mexico are claiming the city is using a religious symbol on their equipment

and personnel. The symbol portrays three crosses. The Court upheld the city's decision to use the

symbols and concluded it did not impede or advance any religion. It was simply being used as a

logo. Based upon the findings of this case, though not related to education, we can make the

assumption that Karen White would win her case. She is not impeding or advancing religion

based upon the “Lemon test”. Karen White is not trying to convert her students to her religion,

she is simply expressing her First Amendment right to not participate in certain activities. Based

upon ​Weinbaum v. Las Cruces​, Karen is not impeding religion.

In a case out of Utah, ​Bauchman v. West High School​ in 2002, the Court concluded that a

high school choir should be allowed to perform religious material. A student at West High

School in Utah sued their school because the school was not allowing the choir to perform a

specific song during the Christmas concert due to it containing religious speech. The Court

decided that the choir should be allowed to sing religious songs not only because Christmas is a

religious holiday, but also because “t​he court saw no reason to conclude that the selection of

religious songs was illegal simply because they contained views different from the student’s

own.” (Bauchman v. West High School, 1) Based upon the findings of this court case, we can
Religion in Schools 5

conclude that Karen White would, again, be allowed to keep her job. Just because the school

participates in decorating for Christmas does not mean every teacher must. In ​Bauchman v. West

High School t​ he Court basically said that they were not negatively affecting anyone because

they had a different view than them. Karen White is not making a negative impact on her

students just because she does not decorate for holidays. They can still receive that culture from

their parents at home if they wish to celebrate. Some students may not be religious and may not

celebrate those holidays either. Karen should not lose her teaching job because her views differ

from that of her administration.

In a very similar, but opposing, case to​ Bauchman v. West High School​, students were not

able to perform a religious song during graduation. In ​Nurre v. Whitehead,​ a high school senior

sued the administration for not allowing them to perform a song that they believed showed off

their talents. Administration asked the school’s wind ensemble to choose a piece to play at the

high school’s graduation ceremony. They chose an obviously religious song and the principal of

the school denied them the right to play it. They reluctantly chose a different song to perform and

later a student, Nurre, sued the principal. The Court upheld the school’s decision to not allow the

song because it was “obviously religious in nature”. They concluded this did not violate the

student's First Amendment rights because the graduation ceremony was taking place in a public

venue where people would be basically forced to listen to the religious piece. When we apply

this logic to Karen White’s case, she is forcing the children in her class to observe what she is

practicing. While she is not preaching to them her religion, she is still subjecting them to the

practices of her religion in a public forum. Based upon the findings of ​Nurre v. Whitehead,​

Karen White would lose her job.

Religion in Schools 6

In ​Borden v. School District of the Township of East Brunswick​, Coach Borden was

denied the ability to lead his team in prayer before practices and games. Coach Borden had been

leading his team in prayer for many years and no one ever seemed to have a problem with it.

Until, the school district asked him to refrain. He did so, but not without filing a lawsuit against

the district stating his First Amendment rights were violated. In 2006 the Court came to a

decision that Borden’s First Amendments rights had been violated and he was able to resume the

prayer with his team. In 2008 the case was appealed and looked at again. This time the Court

ruled that Borden’s prayers were violating the Establishment Clause and concluded that he was

not able to lead his team in prayer any longer. He filed a petition a short while later but was

denied, the Court upholding their prior decision. Because of the ruling in this case, and based

upon the Establishment Clause, Karen White would not have a case against her administration.

She is not leading prayer at school, but she is subjecting her students to the content of her

religion just by not participating in decorating and singing “Happy Birthday”. She is teaching in

a public forum, therefore religion can not play a part in her teaching. Based upon that alone,

Karen would lose her job.

In conclusion, based upon the findings of these four cases and the Establishment clause, I

believe that Karen White would lose her job. In America, religion is usually very separated from

school and other parts of the government. This isn’t always the case, but for the most part they

remain separate. The First Amendment and the Establishment Clause, if Jefferson’s own words,

state that government and religion should not and cannot mix. There is a theoretical wall that

separates the two, and while the wall is getting shorter, it still remains intact. Therefore, Karen

White would most likely lose her job at this school simply because she is mixing religion and
Religion in Schools 7

government (public school). Even though Christmas and other holidays are religious holidays,

they do not have to portray them as such. When Karen states she is not participating in these

activities because of her religion, her students are now subjected to the content of her religion

and if we use the “Lemon test”, that could impede or advance a religion. Under the

Establishment Clause, this is illegal. Karen would be bringing religion into a public forum not

intended for that.

Religion in Schools 8

References

Nelda H. Cambron, Martha, M McCarthy, Suzanne E. Eckes (2014). Legal Rights of Teachers

and Students Vol 3, 41-42.

Weinbaum v. City of Las Cruces, N.M. (2006). Retrieved from

https://casetext.com/case/weinbaum-v-city-of-las-cruces-4

Bauchman v. West High School. (2002). Retrieved from

http://www.becketlaw.org/case/bauchman-v-west-high-school/

Nurre v. Whitehead. (2010). Retrieved from

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/09-671.pdf

Borden v. School District of the Township of East Brunswick. (2012) Retrieved from

http://au.org/our-work/legal/lawsuits/borden-v-school-district-of-the-township-of-east-br

unswick