Running head: 1

Artifact #6

Amber Shewman

College of Southern Nevada

 2

Abstract

In this artifact we have a scenario of a teacher that involves religious activities in the

classroom. I will be discussing the Due process of the Fourteenth Amendment and the

Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. There are some key cases that will help determine

the correct outcome of this scenario. These cases are Goss v. Lopez, Florey v. Sioux Sch.

District, Palmer v. Board of Education, School District of Abington Township, Pennsylvania v.

Schempp, and West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette.

 3

Artifact #6

Looking at the scenario we have a kindergarten teacher, named Karen White who

informed her parents and students that she could no longer lead certain activities or participate in

certain projects that had a religious nature to them. This was due to the new beliefs she gained

when she became a Jehovah’s Witness. Karen could no longer decorate her classroom for

holidays, nor could she plan for a gift exchange during the Christmas season. Reciting the Pledge

of Allegiance and singing “Happy Birthday” was another thing she could not do anymore.

Parents protested all these things that the teacher could no longer provide for their student. The

school principal, Bill Ward, recommended that Karen be dismissed based on her ineffectiveness

in meeting the needs of her students.

If we look for evidence to back Karen white in this scenario we can look at the case of

Barnette v. Board of Education. The school board required that the flag salute be part of the

program of activities in all public schools. This meant that all teachers and students were

required to honor the flag. Refusing to salute the flag was treated as insubordination. This court

was asked to determine if making the students salute the flag violated the First Amendment.

Their conclusion was as following, “A 6-3 decision, the court overruled its decision in the

Minersville School District v. Gobitis and held that compelling public schoolchildren to salute

the flag was unconstitutional. The Court found that such a salute was a form of utterance and was

a means of communicating ideas. Compulsory unification of opinion, the court held, was

doomed to failure and was antithetical to First Amendment values” (West Virginia State Board

of Education v. Barnette, n.d.). This is the same for the teacher of this scenario she cannot be

made to salute the flag due to this violating her First Amendment rights.
 4

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment is used to challenge governmental

advancement of religion This clause is important to educators to understand. Since education is

primarily a state function, most activities are strongly discouraged that help to advance or

promote a single religion. Religious documentation can be used in the classroom to be taught

when it is look at as literature. It says in our textbook, “The Establishment Clause means, 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. In the words of Jefferson, the

clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation

between church and state” (Cambron-McCabe, McCarthy, & Eckes, 2014, p. 41).

Another case that could be used to give reason to why it would be incorrect for dismissal

of the teacher is the case of Goss v. Lopez. The question of this case was if the imposition of the

suspensions without a hearing violate the students’ Due Process rights guaranteed by the

Fourteenth Amendment. In our scenario, our teacher is like the students in the Goss v. Lopez

case, she is not given a hearing or notice of the dismissal. This is a violation of the due process

clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court decision was the following, “The court held that

Ohio was constrained to recognize students’ entitlement to education as property interests

protected by the Due Process Clause that could not be taken away without minimum procedures

required by the Clause” (Goss v. Lopez, n.d.). This case determined that individuals have a right

to due process clause. The courts found that students facing suspension should at a minimum be

given notice and afforded a hearing.

The case of Abington v. Schempp was where a public school required students to read at

least ten verses from the Bible. Students were also required to cite the Lord’s Prayer. The

question this case raised was if the policies that the school put in place violated the religious
 5

freedom of students as protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendment. The majority opinion

by Tom C. Clark said this, “The court found such a violation. The required activities encroached

on both the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment since the

readings and recitation were essentially religious ceremonies and were intended by the State to

be so” (School Distric of Abington Township, Pennsylvania v. Schempp, n.d.). These cases have

helped clarify what religious activities can and cannot be conducted in the school setting.

If we look at the cases that would be able to determine that Karen White should be

dismissed. We first need to look at the case of Palmer v. Board of Education where we have a

teacher similar to Karen White. She teaches the same grade level, has suddenly changed religions

and therefore beliefs have changed. Due to this the teacher informed her principal of these

changes to the way she would be conducting her class on these different situations. She refused

to lead her class in certain patriotic songs and to conduct instruction and activities concerning

certain national holidays. The principal met with the teacher and instituted certain procedures to

accommodate her on these situations. During the course of the year these accommodations were

tried but proved infeasible. The school then provided a letter of the guidelines they needed her to

follow regardless of the situation of her religious beliefs. In this case the courts were ask to

determine the distinguishing between the freedom to believe in certain religious tenets and the

freedom to act. The courts recognized the school board as an undoubted right to regulate its

curriculum. Justia Law says, “The defendants clearly could have discharged the plaintiff because

of her refusal to follow the school curriculum requirement. As noted above, the refusal to

conform classroom teaching to a prescribed curriculum is not protected. Since the plaintiff

conceded that she failed to follow the curriculum, this neutral ground supports the conclusion
 6

that the defendants would have reached the same conclusion in the absence of the protected

activity” (Palmer v. Board of Education, n.d.).

When looking at all the evidence and past cases that have helped to interpret the laws that

are in place to protect every citizen, I would have to say that I am for the school district winning

this case. These certain things are part of the way we teach young children about different

cultures that celebrate in all different ways. Also this helps children to understand one another

and not judge each other based on the activities that we associate ourselves with. This scenario is

are to determine if the teacher is protected or if the school district was correct in the dismissal.

Overall, I feel that the school district made the correct call when it came to this situation.
 7

References

Cambron-McCabe, N. H., McCarthy, M. M., & Eckes, S. E. (2014). Legal Rights of Teachers

and Students. New York: Pearson.

Florey v. Sioux Sch. Dist. 49-5,464 F. Supp.911. (n.d.). Retrieved April 29, 2017, from Justia

Law: http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/464/911/1520042/

Goss v. Lopez. (n.d.). Retrieved April 29, 2017, from Oyez:

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1974/73-898

Palmer v. Board of Education. (n.d.). Retrieved April 29, 2017, from Justia Law:

http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/466/600/2361432/

School Distric of Abington Township, Pennsylvania v. Schempp. (n.d.). Retrieved April 29, 2017,

from Oyez: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1962/142

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette. (n.d.). Retrieved April 29, 2017, from Oyez:

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/319us624