Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Buffy M. Thomas
Abstract
This paper examines a case involving First and Fourth Amendment safeguards. The reviewer
gives a brief overview of the Establishment and Free Exercise of Religion Clause as outlined in
the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, along with the Fourteenth Amendment
Due Process Clause. The following Supreme Court Cases are discussed: Abington Township,
Pennsylvania v. Schempp, 1963; West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 1943; Goss
v. Lopez, 1975; Palmer v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago, 1979; and Florey v. Sioux
Falls School District, 1980. The examiner gives a detailed analysis of how the above court cases
are relevant to the current case under discussion. Based on the evidence, the reviewer found that
the Establishment Clause was impaired; however, the Free Exercise and Due Process Clauses
Case Review
In this case, Karen White is a tenured Kindergarten teacher and recent affiliate of the
Jehovah Witnesses. Her connection with the Jehovah Witnesses has necessitated adjustments in
her life to align her lifestyle with her faith. Some of those lifestyle changes would affect her
classroom; with that in mind, Karen decided to send parental notification home with her students.
White notified her student’s parents that due to her new religious beliefs, she could no longer
decorate her classroom for the traditional holidays, arrange for gift exchanges for Christmas, lead
the classroom in singing Happy Birthday to her students, nor would she be able to recite the
Pledge of Allegiance with her students. Disgruntled parents complained to the school principal,
Bill Ward, regarding White’s new policies. Subsequently, Principal Ward recommended Karen
White for dismissal, reasoning that her capacity to meet her student’s needs was ineffectual.
Discussion
The questions this case poses are whether Karen White’s free exercise of her religion,
granted through the First Amendment, as well as, her Fourteenth Amendment right to due
process were violated. Further, do the activities, that White will no longer be able to participate
in, encroach on the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment? The First Amendment of the
United States Constitution states that, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
2014, p. 41). Two well known clauses were forged from the First Amendment: the Establishment
Clause, which endeavors to separate the operation of the government from the practice of
religion; and the Free Exercise Clause, which protects its citizens’ freedom to practice their
RELIGION AND PUBLIC SCHOOLS !4
chosen religion. The Fourteenth Amendment applied First Amendment rights of the Constitution
to the states; assuring that states not “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due
process of law” (p. 285) Thereby protecting the “liberty” right, of freedom to exercise one’s
religion; and the “property” right to procedural due process before dismissal—in White’s case—
The plaintiff, Karen White, claims that Principal Ward’s recommendation for her
dismissal from her teaching position violated the Establishment Clause, Free Exercise Clause,
and the Due Process Clause safeguarded by the First and Fourteenth Amendment of the United
States Constitution. The plaintiff alleges that Ward’s accusation that she is not meeting the needs
of her students by not participating in certain activities which are religious in nature, such as
decorating her classroom for the holidays and planning for the gift exchange during the
Christmas season, encroaches on the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause
schools in Pennsylvania required that their students read ten verses from the Bible and recite the
Lord’s Prayer daily. The court held that requiring students to participate in activities religious in
nature did in fact violate the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause safeguards.
Although, White was not required to make her children read from the Bible or recite the Lord’s
Prayer, the principal’s dismissal was based on her decision not to participate in activities
religious in nature. The plaintiff contends that decorating for holidays and planning for gift
exchanges during the Christmas season was a religious ceremony and “intended by the state to
Secondly, the plaintiff alleges that the principal’s requirement that she recite the Pledge of
Allegiance, when it is against her religious beliefs, is a violation of her First Amendment rights.
In West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, the Board of Education required the
participation of each student to salute the flag and recite the Pledge of Allegiance each day.
Students could be expelled and parents could lose custody of their children if students refused to
do so. However, the court affirmed that the First Amendment safeguards individuals from being
compelled to recite beliefs that go against their own. Further, the court opined, “There is no
doubt that, in connection with the pledges, the flag salute is a form of utterance” (“First
Amendment Center,” 2015). Likewise, requiring the plaintiff to recite the pledge is a direct
Lastly, the plaintiff charges Bill Ward with disregarding procedural due process in the
dismissal from her position. The courts established procedural due process in Goss v. Lopez. In
Goss v. Lopez, students were suspended from school for ten days, without a hearing. The Court’s
decision fixed the rule of law that students have a property interest in an education and could not
contract with the school district established a property interest giving White the right to
procedural due process before her dismissal. White asserts that Principal Ward infringed on her
Fourteenth Amendment due process guarantee by recommending for her dismissal without a
hearing.
The defendant, points to Palmer v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago in defense
of Bill Ward’s accusation that Karen White did not effectively meet the needs of her students by
the City of Chicago, Palmer was a probationary school teacher who was affiliated with the
Jehovah Witness religion. Similar to White, Joethelia Palmer communicated to the school
principal that participation in the Pledge of Allegiance, national holidays and instruction in
patriotism was against her religious beliefs and she would not do so. In this case, the court found
that Palmer’s refusal to instruct her students in the recommended curriculum would divest her
students of the opportunity to gain a balanced intelligence and recognition of National History. It
was the court’s opinion that, “It cannot be left to individual teachers to teach what they please.
Plaintiff's right to her own religious views and practices remains unfettered, but she has no
constitutional right to require others to submit to her views and to forego a portion of their
education they would otherwise be entitled to enjoy” (“OpenJurist,” 2015). The defendant
argues that Karen White is not free to choose what curriculum she will or will not teach and her
students are “entitled to enjoy” the full scope of their education free of White’s religious
practices.
In response to the plaintiff’s charge that Bill Ward encroached on the Establishment and
Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, the defendant looks to Florey v. Sioux Falls
School District. In response to complaints about past religious based Christmas programs, the
Sioux Falls School District adopted a set of rules and regulations that attempted to appropriately
define the separation between Church and state in public school activities. The appellants in that
case claimed, “notwithstanding the actual intent of the School Board, the ‘principal or primary
effect’ of the rules is to either advance or inhibit religion” (“Belcher Foundation,” 2015). The
Court did not agree and opined, “The First Amendment does not forbid all mention of religion in
study of religion is not forbidden ‘when presented objectively as part of a secular program of
education’” (“Belcher Foundation,” 2015). In the same way, the defendant, Bill Ward, claims
that his school’s observation of the holidays is a “secular program of education” that is not
Conclusion
In reviewing Karen White’s case, it is the opinion of this court that the Establishment
Clause as set forth in the First Amendment was not infringed upon. This court did not find that
Bill Ward’s expectation for his teachers to decorate their classrooms for national holidays and
participate in a gift exchange for the Christmas season were conducted or implemented as
religious ceremonies. Thus, the court is not inclined to construe that the public school leads
these programs for the advancement of religion. However, the court found that the Free Exercise
and Due Process Clauses were impaired. White’s lack of participation in decorating her
classroom for the holidays and planning the gift exchange was a reasonable accommodation to
assure her constitutional rights. Furthermore, parental disgruntlement for White’s lack of
participation in such programs does not necessitate the need to implement them. For, although
these types of public school activities are “permitted by the Establishment Clause does not mean
it is required by the Free Exercise Clause” (Cambron-MacCabe, McCarthy, Eckes, 2014, p. 66).
Moreover, it is important to note that White did not indicate in her parent notification a refusal to
teach on the different religious or patriotic holidays in the recommended curriculum. The Free
Exercise Clause allows White to abstain from decorating her classroom and planning a gift
exchange as it does not adversely affect her student’s education. In addition, as established in the
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette case, the First Amendment safeguards
RELIGION AND PUBLIC SCHOOLS !8
White’s choice to refrain from reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. Finally, the court finds Karen
White’s recommendation for dismissal, without a hearing, infringed the Fourteenth Amendment
procedural due process clause. Based on these conclusions, it is the judgment of this court that
Karen White be reinstated with the school district and retain her tenured status.
RELIGION AND PUBLIC SCHOOLS !9
References
Cambron-MacCabe, N.H., McCarthy, M.M., Eckes, S.E. (2014). Legal rights of teachers and
Florey v. Sioux Falls School District, 619 F.2d 1311 (8th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 987
(1980).
Florey v. Sioux Falls School District. (n.d.). Belcher Foundation. Retrieved November 29, 2015,
from http://www.belcherfoundation.org/florey_v_sioux_falls_school_district.htm.
1974/73-898.
Palmer v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago, 603 F.2d 1271 (1979).
Palmer v. Board of Education of City of Chicago. (n.d.). OpenJurist. Retrieved November 29,
chicago.
School District of Abington Township, Pennsylvania v. Schempp (No. 142), 374 U.S. 203
(1963).
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943).
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette. (November 30, 2015). First Amendment
freedoms/case.aspx?id=442.