Running head: KAREN WHITE V.

BOARD OF EDUCATION ARTIFACT #6 1

Karen White v. Board of Education Artifact #6

Mekhaela Klimer

Professor Nancy Webb

EDU 210

April 23, 2017

KAREN WHITE V. BOARD OF EDUCATION ARTIFACT #6 KLIMER 2

Karen White v. Board of Education Artifact #6

Karen White was a kindergarten teacher who decided to become affiliated with the

Jehovahs Witnesses. In doing so, she had to informed the parents of her students that she

couldnt continue with certain activities or participate in specific projects because they may have

been religious according to the Jehovahs Witnesses. She would no longer decorate the

classroom for holidays participate in an holiday exchanges. She would also stop singing Happy

Birthday and saying the Pledge of Allegiance. With parents protesting, the school principal Bill

Ward, suggested her dismissal because of her not effectively meeting her students needs.

White has the right to worship or not to worship as she likes. According to the Free

Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, it guarantees individuals the right to worship as they

choose. (Underwood, Webb. 211). Similar to this case is Wisconsin v. Yoder. The school tried to

enforce an attendance law against Amish children after they had completed the eighth grade. The

U.S. Supreme Court concluded that this infringed on their free exercise of religious rights.

(Underwood, Webb. 211). Therefore, the school would be taking away Whites free exercise of

religion rights if they forced her to participate in things that were not a part of the Jehovahs

Witnesses.

In 1943, the case of West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, the Supreme

Court ruled that requiring the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools violated the First and

Fourteenth Amendments. (education.findlaw.com). Some students who happened to be Jehovahs

Witnesses were having to pay fines and eventually were expelled for not participating in the

Pledge of Allegiance. This was a violation of the students religious rights. Just like Karen

White, as a Jehovah Witness she was not allowed to honor the flag or recite the pledge. For her
KAREN WHITE V. BOARD OF EDUCATION ARTIFACT #6 KLIMER 3

to be dismissed is considered unconstitutional because it is a violation of her religious rights and

her free exercise.

Principal Ward did not believe that White was effectively meeting the needs of her

students. What is not understood, is that although White chose not to participate in specific

activities, she did not totally veto it in the classroom. In reference to holidays, there can be

recognition of a holiday, and the teacher can teach about the holiday, but any holiday program

should serve an educational rather than religious purpose. (Underwood, Webb. 216). In the case

of Florey v. Sioux Falls School District, Flory was an atheist who thought it was wrong for the

schools to have holiday programs that sing religious Christmas songs. The Court concluded that

programs and study of the religious songs were constitutional because it was teaching students

about cultural and religious heritage. (skepticism.org). In Principal Wards defense, if activities

in her classroom had a purpose of teaching students about religion and heritage then White

should be able to meet the students needs with this in a way that is educational.

In additional defense of Principal Ward, the teacher, being Karen White shouldnt

completely take away holidays or birthdays because it takes away the rights of the students to

acknowledge and learn about religious activities. As long as there is an educational purpose then

the students shouldnt be denied to learn. Two similar cases are Skoros v. City of New York and

Clever v. Cherry Hill Township Board of Education, courts allowed the public schools to display

religious holiday symbols in hallways and on calendars. The Court also states, holiday displays

shall no appear to promote or celebrate any single religion or holiday. Underwood, Webb. 217).

This makes it so holiday symbols or decorations should reflect many different religions or

customs. This allows schools to promote knowledge and understanding of others and their
KAREN WHITE V. BOARD OF EDUCATION ARTIFACT #6 KLIMER 4

beliefs. Although Karen White does not need to follow or participate in religious activities, she

should still allow her students to learn and partake in them if they so choose.

In conclusion, Karen Whites requested dismissal is not justifiable. The court will be on

her side as she has rights to free exercise and religion. Even though the school allows activities

that incorporate religion in nature, Whites religion does not allow her to participate. I think that

White could find a balance so that although she is not breaking the systems of her own religion

she can still allow a group of diverse students the opportunity to learn about different religions

and cultures.
KAREN WHITE V. BOARD OF EDUCATION ARTIFACT #6 KLIMER 5

References

http://education.findlaw.com/student-rights/the-pledge-of-allegiance-and-legal-

challenges-in-education.html

http://skepticism.org/timeline/september-history/8909-florey-v-sioux-falls-school-atheist-

files-suit-against-school-holiday-programs.html

https://casetext.com/case/skoros-v-city-of-new-york

http://www.belcherfoundation.org/clever_v_cherry_hill.htm

Underwood, J., & Webb, L. (2006). Teacher's Rights. In School Law for Teachers. Upper Saddle

River, New Jersey: Pearson Education.