Alyia Davis

Portfolio 6

Professor Nancy Webb

EDU 21
 Religion and Public Schools

5004800822

November 9, 2018

Edu 210-1004

In this scenario Karen White who was a kinder garden teacher let both her parents and

students know that she had become a Jehovah’s Witness was no longer able to participate in

certain project due to their religious nature. This meaning Karen was no longer able to decorate

the classroom for any holiday or sing happy birthday and ever recite the “pledge of allegiance”.

Students of the parents protested and Bill Ward the school princess dismissed Karen due to him

and the parents feeling she was not meeting the needs of her students.

In Karen’s defense as we read in chapter 11 of our book, Karen is entitled to her first

amendment right which included the free exercise clause. Karen has every right to practice

whatever religion she chooses. The free expertise law clearly states “The first amendment

guarantees individuals the right to worship as they choose”. I believe Karen can argue this

statement in court in her defense.

I fell that Karen should also argue in her defense that she should not have to recite the

pledge. It was wrong that, that was part of the reason she was dismissed. Just like in the case of

ENGEL V. VITALE the case stated “ students cannot be compelled to recite a state -composed

prayer at school even if it is nondenominational”. The courts ruled in this case “it is no part of

the business of government to impose official prayers for any group of American people.” In

Karen’s defense why should the students not have to recite this but is she doesn’t she gets
 Religion and Public Schools

punished. How does Karen not reciting the pledge have any effect on her meeting her students

needs.

To move into the courts defense Karen can defend herself and state she is entitled to her

first amendment right which she does have the right to FREE EXERCISE but as it stated in the

text in chapter 11 “ The free exercise of religion right is not absolute. Although individuals are

free to believe whatever they want, they are not always free to act on those beliefs.” Karen acted

on all her beliefs and though she communicated to her students and parents she did not

communicate what would be permitted for her to act on by her administration and principle.

In the principles and parents defense the did not violate Karen’s first amendment right her

dismissal was about there concern on her not meeting the requirements for her students. The

courts will see the principles and parents side that there concern that the students where losing

out on celebrations and the joys of celebrating the holidays during school hours due to Karen’s

new found Belief. Bill was only doing his job as the principal just has the principle was in the

case of HAZELWOOD SCHOOL DISTRICT V. KUNLMEIER when the courts convulsed

that the principal could restrict the content of the mural.

I do Believe the court will end up ruling in favor of Karen. I feel as sad as it is any of her

students won’t be able to have her participate in activities we all enjoy Karen is still entitled to

her first amendment right. She did not push her religious beliefs on any of her students or disrupt

the students learning environment. In reading chapter 11 I see more cases rule in favor of the

students and teachers which leads me to believe in a case such as Karen’s where she did far less
 Religion and Public Schools

wrong she will have this ruled in her favor. Karen’s dismal was wrong and should and I think

will be overturned.
 Religion and Public Schools

Bibliography

L. (1970, January 01). Law School Case Briefs | Legal Outlines | Study Materials. Retrieved
from http://www.lawschoolcasebriefs.net/2013/02/eisel-v-board-of-education-of.html