Religion and Public Schools 1

Artifact #6

Religion and Public Schools

Kam Hanna

College of Southern Nevada

December 9, 2018
Religion and Public Schools 2

A kindergarten teacher named Karen White recently became a Jehovah’s Witness and now

does not believe in contributing to any celebrations or school assignments that are considered

against her religious practices. The parents were told that holidays would not be recognized in

her classroom as well as any festivities involving recognizing students’ birthdays or leading them

in the Pledge of Allegiance. Because he felt that Mrs. White was not considering the educational

goals of her students, the school principal, Bill Ward, terminated her after acknowledging

complaints from the parents of students in her classroom.

The first case to analyze in favor of the principal’s right to dismiss the teacher is Epperson v.

Arkansas (1968). This case was brought before the Supreme Court to rule whether the current

law of Arkansas, which prohibited the teaching of the theory of evolution, was unconstitutional.

The higher court decided that the state violated the Establishment Clause because it forwards the

idea of Christianity while suppressing theologies that were not considered popular by some

(Epperson v. Arkansas 1968). One of the judges stated that prohibiting the teachings of different

perspectives “tends to hinder the quest for knowledge, restrict the freedom to learn, and restrain

the freedom to teach” (Epperson v. Arkansas 1968). The premise is that if teachers are going to

instruct students in subjects pertaining to religion, or any belief system, “teaching about a variety

of faiths and religious symbols” does not violate the laws, if it coincided with curriculum

(Underwood and Webb 2006). This case lays some important groundwork for the case of Mrs.

White’s refusal to acknowledge others’ beliefs in the classroom contrary to her own, which could

be construed as a violation of the state’s policies. Based on her disregard for her students’

diversity, principal Ward would have grounds for dismissal and the courts would uphold his

reasoning behind his decision.

The second case in favor of principal Ward’s reasoning for the termination of Karen White is

Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971). This landmark Supreme Court case is where the three-pronged test

was established to test if an action or policy, in similar situations, violates the First Amendment

Establishment clause (Lemon v. Kurtzman 1971). This case called in to question the funds given

to private religion-based school for employing teachers and providing materials in subjects such

as math, foreign language, physical education, and physical science. The school board auditor

argued that the money allocated to such schools “any subject matter expressing religious

teaching, or the morals or forms of worship of any sect,” which justified the expenses as

conforming to the Establishment Clause (Lemon v. Kurtzman 1971). The court disagreed and

cited that because it was considered “excessive government entanglement” repayment of money

to schools that teach religion is against the Constitution (Underwood & Webb 2006). Applying

the three-pronged test to our case would establish justification for dismissal by focusing on

number two which asks, “does its primary effect neither advance or inhibit religion” (Underwood

& Webb 2006)? In the case of Mrs. White removing all signs, symbols, and celebration of

religion in the classroom, she is both inhibiting others’ religion while advancing her own. Either

would be a violation of the Establish Clause and reasons to be dismissed from teaching. Based

on the finding of Lemon v. Kurtzman, principal Ward would prevail if the case was brought

before the courts.

The first case we will consider in favor of Karen White is West Virginia State Board of

Education v. Barnette (1943) where the Supreme Court overturned a previous ruling that forced

a student to recite the pledge of allegiance in school and were against his religious beliefs. The

student believed that by refusing to salute the flag in this way was not an act of insubordination,

but an adherence to what he believed to be true according to the Bible. The original Supreme
Religion and Public Schools 4

Court ruling, which came in 1940 under Minersville School District v. Gobitis, sided with the

district and argued that “national unity is the basis of national security” (West Virginia State

Board of Education v. Barnette 1943). Later, the courts were persuaded by the idea that “refusal

to participate in the ceremony does not interfere with or deny rights to others to do so” and felt

that forcing students against their will is unconstitutional and unnecessary. This case would be

vital to the defense that Karen White can choose to exercise her First Amendment rights and not

participate in the pledge of allegiance by coercion, or in her case, a dismissal that can be

considered by some as “showing hostility to religion” (Underwood & Webb 2006). Based on the

conclusion to this case, if Mrs. White were to pursue legal action against the school for

termination, she would prevail against the district.

The second case to consider in favor of Karen White is Russo v. Central School District

(1973) where a school teacher did not utter the Pledge of Allegiance based on her belief that the

words did not corelate with her understanding of our country’s practices. Instead, she stood

quietly during morning ceremonies. She continued this practice through April until it was more

fully observed by a principle of the school. Soon after, the teacher was dismissed after

administrators cited several problems inconsistent with her refusal to repeat the pledge with the

students (Russo v. Central School District 1973). The courts decided in the teacher’s favor and

cited a compelling argument in the Tinker case that stated “neither students nor teachers ‘shed

their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate’ which

would allow the silent protest of the Pledge of Allegiance (Russo v. Central School District

1973). This directly correlates to the issue with the kindergarten teacher, Mrs. White who

informed the school of her belief that reciting the Pledge of Allegiance was against her religious

practices. Based off this additional court case, Mrs. White may be able to appeal the dismissal
Religion and Public Schools 5

since the principal may have violated her First Amendment rights to freedom of speech

Underwood & Webb 2006).

Even though Karen White has obvious anxiety over her newfound religion, in my opinion,

this does not give her the rights to remove all forms from the classroom. This is a violation of

the Establishment Clause in the form of “inhibiting religion” and is probably the factor

considered to be the most substantial in determining action against her (Underwood & Webb

2006). I feel that, if Mrs. White were to sue the school for wrongful termination, the “Lemon

test” would show that her own religious agenda is the main contributing factor for her choice to

exclude all children in her classroom from participating in celebrations and activities

(Underwood & Webb 2006). Children of all backgrounds and beliefs should be able to feel

included and accepted in a school setting, and Mrs. Whites actions would prevent most activities

from occurring. I am sure the principal, Bill Ward, would have to consider the three-pronged

test, which has been established since 1973, to be able to establish his reasoning for his

recommendation of dismissal (Lemon v. Kurtzman 1973). No matter what our belief system or

our views of others’ religion, we as teachers cannot bring them into a public forum, like a

government sponsored school, for the purpose of endorsement. We should consider this issue

our personal responsibility to protect the school from lawsuits ensued because of violation to the

First Amendment Establishment Clause. Based on the culmination of evidence, I would side

with principal Ward, and hope that Mrs. White would understand her duty to her student’s

diverse education as vital to understanding the world around them.

References

Epperson v. Arkansas. No. 7. (1968). Retrieved Dec. 6, 2018. https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-

supreme-court/393/97.html.

Lemon v. Kurtzman. No. 71-1470. (1973). Retrieved Dec. 7, 2018. https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-

supreme-court/411/192.html.

Russo v. Central School District. 469 F.2d 623. (2d Cir. 1972). U.S. Court of Appeals for the

Second Circuit. Retrieved Dec. 8, 2018. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-

courts/F2/469/623/79725/.

Underwood, J. Webb, L.D. (2006). School Law for Teachers. Columbus, Ohio. Pearson

Education, Inc.

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette. No. 591. (1943). Retrieved Dec. 6, 2018.

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/319/624.html.