Running head: RELIGION AND SCHOOLS 1

Karen I Villatoro-Gonzalez

Professor Sherry Herington

EDU210 * Artifact #6

May 13, 2016

 2
RELIGION AND PUBLIC SCHOOLS

ABSTRACT:

Last artifact of the class and what an interesting one. Here we review the case of Karen

White a Jehovahs Witness who informed her principal about her religious beliefs and how that

will not impact her activities in her classroom and school. She was dismissed. I will research

cases such as Edward Lewis Schempp v School District of Abington Township, Pennsylvania

and Palmer v. Board of Education, which I must admit, has some similarities. I will also review

free exercise clause and the establishment clause of the first amendment. After review, we will

come to a possible outcome of this case and support it with its findings.
 3
RELIGION AND PUBLIC SCHOOLS

There are so many people with different beliefs whether cultural or

religion based and we have to be respectful to their choice and right.

Freedom of religion is a big part of our amendment right and is a

constitutionally protected right. This does not mean that we have the right

to impose our beliefs but it does mean that others have to respect them.

Here we compare a couple of facts and cases to help us understand our case

at hand which is of Karen White v Board of Education.

The first case is that of Edward Lewis Schempp v School District of

Abington Township from 1963. This case is pertaining Bible reading in

Pennsylvania public schools. Edward Schempp father of Ellory Schempp filed

a law suit against the Abington School District in order prohibit the

enforcement of a Pennsylvania state law that required his children, specially

Ellory Schempp to hear and sometimes read portions of the Bible as part of

his education with the public school system. The law had required that at

least ten verses from the Bible be read without comment at the opening of

class each day. Ellory stated that his rights under the First and Fourteenth

amendment were being violated. During this time four other states had a

law that their school districts perform the Bible readings before class every

day. Twenty five others allowed optional Bible readings with the rest having

no laws in the matter. Eleven of the states that allowed the Bible reading

were then declared to be unconstitutional. During the first trial per case

documents, Edward had considered his children missing school but did not
 4
RELIGION AND PUBLIC SCHOOLS

want tension to become an obstacle for his children and their teachers as

well as classmates. He did not want them attending school because he felt

that some of the bible reading or doctrines that were being introduced went

against his familial teachings. The district court ruled in Schempps favor and

struck down the Pennsylvania statute. The school district appealed and

during the proceeding, the court case records tell us that the Pennsylvania

legislature actually amended the statute to allow children to be excused from

the exercises upon written request of their parents. Schempp was not

satisfied with the children being allowed to be absent, what he wanted was

more; he wanted a permanent change to the nature of the unconstitutional

establishment of religion. The school districts appeal was sent over to the

district court and the district court once again ruled in Schempps favor, the

school district appealed to the Supreme Court. The case records and

decision found sows that the Supreme Court upheld the District Courts

decision and found that the Pennsylvania prayer statute unconstitutional by

virtue of the facts in the case as well as the clear line of precedent

established by the Supreme Court. The Abington case related to Bible

readings in Pennsylvania public schools at the beginning of the school day.

After completing the readings, school authorities required all students to

recite the Lords Prayer but students could be excused if they had letter from

their parents. The required activities encroached on both the Free Exercise

clause and the Establishment clause of the First Amendment since the
 5
RELIGION AND PUBLIC SCHOOLS

readings and recitations were essentially religious ceremonies and were

intended by the State to be. Justice Clark argued the ability of a parent to

excuse a child from these ceremonies by the written note was irrelevant

since it did not prevent the schools actions from violating the Establishment

Clause.

The term Free Exercise Clause is defined by the United States as the

right of American citizens to accept any religious belief and engage in

religious rituals. The wording in the free-exercise clauses of state

constitutions that religious opinion, expressions of opinion, and practice

were all expressively protected by the Free Exercise Clause. The clause

protects not just religious beliefs but actions made on behalf of those beliefs.

The clause not only protects religious beliefs and expression but also seems

to allow for violation of laws as long as that violation is made for religious

reasons. In the terms of economic theory, the clause promotes a free

religious market by precluding taxation of religious activities by minority

sects. When the Amendment was drafted, it applied only to the U.S.

Congress but state and local governments could abridge the free exercise of

religion as long as there was no similar provision in the state constitution. In

1940, the Supreme Court decided that due to the Fourteenth Amendment,

the Free Exercise Clause is enforceable against state and local governments.
 6
RELIGION AND PUBLIC SCHOOLS

The other clause mentioned was the Establishment Clause which

prohibits the government from making any law respecting an establishment

of religion. This clause as explained, not only forbids the government

actions that unduly favor one religion over another but also prohibits the

government from unduly preferring religion over non religion or vice versa.

Although some government action implicating religion is permissible, and

indeed unavoidable, it is not clear just how much the clause tolerates. In the

past the Supreme Court has permitted religious invocations to open

legislative session, government funding of bussing and textbooks for private

religious schools, and efforts by school districts to arrange schedules to

accommodate students extra-curricular religious education programs. The

Court ruled against some overly religious displays at courthouses, state

funding supplementing teacher salaries at religious schools and some overly

religious holiday decorations on public land. As stated in the explanation of

the clause, one point of contention regarding the Establishment Clause is

how to

frame government actions that implicate religion. Framing questions often

arise in the context of permanent religious monuments on public land.

Although it is reasonably clear that cities cannot install new religious

monuments, there is fierce debate over whether existing monuments should

be removed. Both of these explanations help understand the decisions

behind cases and the outcome. If we compare the case of Edward Lewis
 7
RELIGION AND PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Schempp and the clauses we have spoken about, I believe that Karen White

has a freedom of religion and a choice to do as she so pleases; however,

there is no reason why she will allow her personal beliefs interfere with her

students, her classroom or her school. I think that there should not be a

dismissal but there should definitely be an explanation of boundaries for her

and how she needs to separate herself from an educators role to her own

personal beliefs.

The case of Palmer v Board of Education; per case notes, a case where

the first amendment is being questioned concerning a school boards

proposed discharge of a teacher because of her refusal, based on religious

belief, to instruct her students in the Pledge of Allegiance, to lead them in

certain patriotic songs and to conduct instruction and activities concerning

certain national holidays. Though the case was presented, the plaintiffs

(Palmer) motion was denied and the defendant (board or education) motion

was granted. Palmer a Jehovahs Witness met with her school principal,

Florence Paskind, prior to the start of 1976-1977 school years and informed

her that due to her sincerely held religious convictions, she would not teach

anything having to do with the love of country, the flag or other patriotic

matters. Paskind did make accommodations for her and during the school

year, Paskind permitted a team teacher, a student teacher and in some

cases parent volunteers to teach the children on

 8
RELIGION AND PUBLIC SCHOOLS

matters of patriotism and yet all of the accommodations proved infeasible.

Palmer refused to lead activities related to holidays like Columbus Day,

Halloween, Thanksgiving and Christmas. It is documented that at times, she

allowed her five year old students to recite the pledge on their own and

according to Paskind, it was chaotic. She not only failed to participate in

patriotic events and accommodations were made, she also overemphasized

or ignored certain areas, failed to use toys provided and failed to prepare

adequate lesson plans and was otherwise disorganized. Paskind had

received complaints from parents concerning the fact that their children were

not receiving the same instruction as other classes. During her second year

teaching, according to records and case notes, in September 1977 Palmer

received a letter from Paskind with the following instructions; teach and

direct all of the following, with proper diction and understanding, The Pledge

of Allegiance to the flag of the United States, teach and direct the proper

words and music of America, the proper words and music of other

appropriate patriotic songs as well as other songs customarily taught to

kindergarten children, proper rhythms, dances and body movements to

develop large motor skills, as well as conduct activities preparatory to a

variety of holidays commonly observed so children learn the ethos of all

people and develop tolerance and appreciation, play activities which develop

social and personal interrelationships, teach by direction and example to

express skills of appreciation and gratitude. In October 2, 1977 Palmer

responded that because of her religious beliefs and principles, she would not
 9
RELIGION AND PUBLIC SCHOOLS

comply with instructions 1, 2, 3 and 5 because most importantly it would

damage her spiritual relationship with God. She did state that she would

follow through and put extra effort with instructions 4, 6 and 7. On

December 21, 1977 according to records, she was served with a notice from

Joseph Hannon stating that she had not complied with the required

curriculum and

her services as a probationary teacher would be terminated on December

23. Courts state that a plaintiffs freedom of religion is a fundamental one

and can be infringed only by the existence of a compelling state interest. The

court also compared many cases with this one and found that for the

purpose of this case, the court can assume that the discharge of a teacher

for her refusal to instruct her students in the Pledge is a constitutional

violation. Assuming that her refusal to instruct her students the pledge is a

constitutional violation, her refusal to teach the pledge is protected as the

cases cited above hold in a free speech context. The fact that the decision

to discharge was based in substantial part on the protected activity does not

end court inquiry. Paskind rejected using older students at the school and

also noted that the Pledge of Allegiance was broadcast daily at 9:00am but it

was rejected by Paskind herself because she felt that the kindergarten

classes needed actual guidance in order to properly learn the pledge. The

holidays activities included storytelling, play acting, singing and classroom

decorating which were held on a weekly and sometimes daily basis. Paskind
 10
RELIGION AND PUBLIC SCHOOLS

stated that the plaintiff was allowed to teach a different level but initially

refused and not until later did she state she would work with kindergarten to

third. The court found that any alleged religious overtones to those activities

are not grounds for refusing to teach them and that Palmers contention that

she was deprived of due process by virtue of Paskinds failure to afford her

notice and a hearing prior to discharge is without merit. Palmer as a non-

tenured teacher has no entitlement to continued employment under state

law and further as noted in the courts opinion, she was not ordered

discharged for exercise of liberty protected by the constitution.

References:

Edward Lewis Schempp v School District of Abington Township, Pennsylvania Citation 374 US

203 (1963) argued February 26-27 1963 and Decided June 16, 1963 Decided By: Warren

Court (1962-1965)

Palmer v Board of Education of Community Unit School District 201 Will County Illinois nos.

93-3591, 94-1229

Free Exercise clause

 11
RELIGION AND PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Establishment clause of the First Amendment