Running head: Artifact #6 Religion in Schools 1

Artifact #6

Religion in Schools

Callie L. McLean

College of Southern Nevada

October 21st, 2017

Running head: Artifact #6 Religion in Schools 2

Karen White, a kindergarten teacher, was recommended for dismissal by her principal,

Bill Ward on the grounds of her inability to meet her students needs. Karen had recently

informed the parents of her students that she would no longer be involved in holiday decorating,

gift exchanges during Christmas, singing happy birthday or reciting the Pledge of Allegiance for

it went against her newly formed beliefs as a Jehovah's Witness. This lead the parents to protest

against Karen and lead principal Bill Ward to cite Karen as an ineffective teacher.

In the case of Florey v. Sioux Falls School District (1979) numerous christmas

assemblies had been held and performed within the Sioux Falls public schools. During the winter

season in 1977 students practiced and performed at an assembly that included numerous

religious content, including a Christmas Quiz where the teacher would ask things such as, “What

is the day we celebrate as birthday of this One so great,” to which the students replied,

“Christmas” Florey v. Sioux Falls School District (1979). The religious context of the assembly

lead Roger Florey, a parent to one of the students, to lead a complaint against such material. In

response to the complaints the Superintendent developed a committee to analyze and establish

rules regarding religion in schools. When the rules were implemented in 1978 this lead Florey

and others to file suit claiming that the policy and rules adopted by the School Board violated the

Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. However, the

Court ruled in favor of Sioux Falls School District stating that “the study and performance of

religious songs, including Christmas carols, are constitutional if there purpose is the

advancement of students’ knowledge of society’s cultural and religious heritage” Florey v. Sioux

Falls School District (1979). This case supports Principal Bill Ward’s decision to recommend

Karen White for dismissal for her actions to remove herself and her students from religious

activities violates those student’s rights to advance their knowledge of culture and religious
Running head: Artifact #6 Religion in Schools 3

history. Therefor Karen’s actions to keep such content and opportunities away from her students

makes her an ineffective teacher.

In the case of Stone v. Graham (1981) Sydell Stone and numerous other parents filed a

claim against Superintendent of Kentucky Public Schools, James Graham, in order to challenge a

state law that ordered the display of the Ten Commandments in each public school classroom

setting. From this case the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that displays in school may not promote or

endorse religion. Displays can be analyzed of their content, “in keeping with the Lemon test, if

the purpose or effect of the display is an apparent endorsement of religion, it violates the

Establishment Clause” (Underwood & Webb, 2006). Therefore if Karen White’s actions keep

her students from participating in holiday activities that is an endorsement of her own religion

and keeps her from being an effective teacher. Seeing that the school can participate in religious

context so long as it is furthering the student's knowledge of culture and history as established in

Florey v. Sioux Falls School District (1979), and isn’t promoting any such religion as established

in Stone v. Graham (1981), then Karen White should be expected to conduct holiday activities in

her classroom for the sake of her students experiences.

In the case of West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943) the West

Virginia Board of Education required that all public schools recite the pledge of allegiance in

their daily programs. Faculty and students were forced to salute the flag, failure to do so would

be seen as insubordination, resulting in expulsion and charges of delinquency. However, the U.S.

Supreme Court in a 6-to-3 decision ruled that, “compelling public schoolchildren to salute the

flag was unconstitutional,” and that any "compulsory unification of opinion," would be in direct

violation the first amendment West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943). This

case supports Karen White’s decision to not engage in the pledge of allegiance as it goes against
Running head: Artifact #6 Religion in Schools 4

her religious belief. Therefor Karen should not be held accountable for acting upon her first

amendment right which she has full liberty to do so. While Karen cannot require other students

to not participate in the pledge of allegiance, she cannot be disciplined for her independent

choices to not participate. Therefore principal Bill Ward has no grounds to recommend for

Karen’s removal.

In the case of Engel v. Vitale (1962) the Board of Regents for the State of New York

authorized an involuntary prayer recital at the beginning of each school day. While this prayer

was open to any Christian denomination the implication of its recital by the school was found to

be unconstitutional. The supreme court ruled that “students cannot be compelled to recite a state-

composed prayer at school even if it is nondenominational, nor may they be subjected to prayer

under circumstances raising the perception of school sponsorship” (Underwood & Webb, 2006).

This case highlighted the students rights to not be subject to prayer. In Karen White’s defence

she has the same rights to remove herself from religious practices that go against her beliefs.

Karen’s decision to remove herself from these activities does not enforce such restraint on her

students. For Karen is only acting for herself and not imposing such beliefs on her students.

While Karen should be expected to allow her students the choice to engage in holiday activities

and religious content, the school cannot discipline Karen for not engaging in such activities for

herself only. Therefore principal Bill Ward has no grounds to recommend her dismissal and

doing so would only infringe on Karen’s rights to free exercise of religion.

In view of this case I lean in favor of Karen White. Her decision to not participate in

holiday activities or the pledge of allegiance is a decision protected by her first amendment

rights. In the case of West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943) the U.S.

Supreme Court ruled that students and faculty cannot be forced to participate in the pledge of
Running head: Artifact #6 Religion in Schools 5

allegiance. This decision highlights the rights that faculty and students maintain as citizens even

when they are in the classroom. While it is important to understand that Karen White’s religious

beliefs shouldn’t keep her from allowing her students to engage in holiday activity or the pledge,

she herself has the right to not participate. It is this balance of understanding that principal Bill

Ward should have expressed towards Karen and the concerning parents instead of recommending

Karen’s dismissal. For as long as Karen’s own personal decision to not participate in such

activities doesn’t interfere with the student’s education or rights, there is no grounds to fire

Karen White.
Running head: Artifact #6 Religion in Schools 6

Reference

Engel v. Vitale. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved October 20, 2017, from

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1961/468

Florey v. SIOUX FALLS SCH. DIST. 49-5, 464 F. Supp. 911 (D.S.D. 1979). (n.d.). Retrieved

October 20, 2017, from

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

Stone v. Graham. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved October 20, 2017, from

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1980/80-321

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

River: Pearson Education.

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved October 20, 2017,

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