1

Running Header: Portfolio Artifact 6

Portfolio Artifact 6

Religion and Public Schools

Rubicela Chavez- Lazcano

Education 203

Professor Dr. Dale B. Warby

March 11, 2019

 2
Portfolio Artifact 6

Introduction:
Karen White is a kindergarten teacher who recently began to affiliate with the Jehovah’s

Witness religion. Because of this she can no longer participate in or lead any class projects that

are religious in nature because they go against her religious beliefs. This includes participating in

the Pledge of Allegiance, singing Happy Birthday to her students, planning Christmas gift

exchanges, and decorating the classroom for the holidays. This really upset the school parents.

Principal Bill Ward made the decision to dismiss her from her position because is no longer

effectively meeting her students’ needs. It must now be decided if the principal’s decision for her

dismissal is justifiable.

Pro Support:

In Doe v. Duncanville Independent School District, 70 F.3d 402 (5th Cir. 1995), a student

and her family sued the school district because her school was I Establishment Clause of the

Constitution which prohibits schools from endorsing any particular religion. The school was

using teacher led prayer during sports events, handpicking Christian hymns for Choir

performances, and distributing bibles to students. When she refused to participate, she was

singled out. The Court ruled in the students favor and said that the school showed an obvious

pattern for picking choir songs in performances that gave a Christian message. However, the

court did state that a song with religious elements does not necessarily violate the first

amendment. As long as the school can show that the purposes for including it in the curriculum

are secular and there is a variety or other types of songs it can be included. Prohibiting songs that

may be religious in origin but have recognized musical value would actually be showing hostility

toward religion. That would result in a violation of the Free Exercise Clause. Karen White’s
 3
Portfolio Artifact 6
refusal to participate in all types of holiday activities can be seen by parents and administrators

as hostile towards religion. As long as the school is not promoting any specific religion but

including a variety of cultures and celebrations in their holiday activities, students should have

the right to enjoy these.

In Skoros v. City of New York, F. Supp.2d (E.D. N.Y. 2004), it was decided that holiday

displays are an acceptable part of the school environment and they may include religious

symbols as long as the school doesn’t explicitly endorse a particular religion or belief. They also

need to be temporary and include a diverse group of religions, cultures, and symbols. These

displays are important because they are educational. The goal of these displays is to promote

understanding and respect of the diverse cultures of the student community. The principal could

argue that Karen White’s refusal to participate in organizing them in her classroom is depriving

her students of this important learning opportunity. This would justify her dismissal.

Con Support:

In Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972), the state of Wisconsin filled suit against

families of Amish children because they were in violation of the state compulsory attendance.

Children in the Amish community would stop attending school after 8th grade because of their

culture and beliefs. The court found that the state could not actually enforce this law without

infringing on the students’ rights to exercise their religion. By 8th grade students would have

acquired the basic educational skills necessary to be successful in the Amish community, so it

was decided that there was no compelling interest from the State of Wisconsin to have these

students attend school past that time. This was a landmark case in defense of the Free Exercise
 4
Portfolio Artifact 6
Clause gives people the right to exercise their religion as they see fit if there is no compelling

interest such as an issue of public safety. Forcing Karen White to participate in these religious

activities would be a violation of her first amendment rights as stated in the Free Exercise

Clause. Her not participating in these activities does not affect the quality of her student’s

education or put them in any danger so the school has no compelling interest in forcing her to

change her religious practices.

In Clever v. Cherry Hill Tp. Bd. Of Educ., 838 F. Supp. 929 (D. N.J. 1993), a lawsuit was

filed against the Cherry Hill Board of Education for their policy which uses cultural, ethnic, and

religious themes in their program of Education. The school believed they were not violating any

rights because they were not promoting any specific religion and were promoting education of

multi-cultural diversity. However, parents did not want their children to participate in any of it.

The court stated that children can be excused from certain activities and be given an alternative

activity when their parents believe that activity to be religiously objectional. This also means that

students can be excused from discussion of certain holidays in the classroom, even if they have

an academic approach, and are able to request absences for religious reasons. This is all due to

the Free Exercise Clause. This means that Karen White has the right to excuse herself from

holiday practices as well because she finds them religiously acceptable. The school needs to

respect her free exercise of religion.

Conclusion:

This scenario involves the issue of schools enforcing an important section of the first

amendment dealing with freedom of religion, the Free Exercise Clause. It gives individuals the
 5
Portfolio Artifact 6
right to practice religion and worship as they choose. The school’s goal is not to promote a

specific religion but rather to give their students the opportunity to participate in different

holiday activities and receive diversity education. The principal believes that Karen’s refusal to

participate is depriving their students of this and therefore preventing them for celebrating their

important holiday observances. It seems that they are concerned with restricting the students’

free exercise of religion, but in the process, they violated the teacher’s rights. By forcing her to

chose between her job and ability to practice her religious beliefs is unconstitutional so the

principal’s decision to dismiss her cannot be justified. As stated in Wisconsin v. Yoder, the

school has no compelling interest to force her to participate in these kinds of activities because

they do not hinder her ability to perform in any academic areas and she is not promoting her

religion to any of the students. All her students can still participate in holiday events, but she will

not be running them. She is only choosing to respectfully abstain from practicing. There is such

clear precedent for this, that most schools have policies in place and alternate activities planned

for student’s who cannot participate in events with religious content. If the school truly believes

in the educational importance of holiday events, they will make alternate adjustments to make

sure her students are still able to participate.

 6
Portfolio Artifact 6
References

Clever v. Cherry Hill Tp. Bd. Of Educ., 838 F. Supp. 929 (D. N.J. 1993)

Doe v. Duncanville Independent School District, 70 F.3d 402 (5th Cir. 1995)

Skoros v. City of New York, F. Supp.2d (E.D. N.Y. 2004)

Underwood, J. (2006) School Law For Teachers Concepts and Applications. Upper

Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.

Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972)