You are on page 1of 7

Running Head: ARTIFACT #6

Artifact #6

Deidra Marie Glaser

College of Southern Nevada


ARTIFACT #6 2

Abstract:

The following paper is written based off of the scenario regarding an elementary school teacher,

and her religious rights at the workplace. Ms.White recently changed religions to Jehovah's

Witness and would not be able to part-take in certain activities around the school. This action

angered some of the parents and staff members and they motioned for her dismissal. The

problem here is in regards to The First Amendment which does outline a separation from church

and state. The teacher here is trying to impose her views and beliefs on the students in a very

passive manner, although it can be looked at as a breach of duty if the basic school curriculum

standards are not meet. The court cases being analysed in regards to this scenario are: ​Goss v

Lopez​, ​Florey v Sioux Falls​, ​Abington School District v. Schempp​, and ​Palmer v. Board of

Education​. The overall conclusion of the case would probably be similar to the ​Palmer v. Board

of Education ​case.
ARTIFACT #6 3

Body:

There are many events and activities that students and staff get to enjoy and participate in

if they want throughout the school year. Although, a lot of these activities are voluntary. One

school year, Karen White, a kindergarten teacher, sent home a notification to parents that she

would not be able to participate in certain projects, activities and events due to religious reasons.

Ms. White had recently changed her affiliations to Jehovah’s Witness which has very strict

guideline to how one should live one's life like most religions. Moreover, due to this affiliation

Ms. White announced she would not be able to sing “Happy Birthday” or recite the Pledge of

Allegiance. This irritated some of the parents and brought it up to the principle. Bill Ward, the

school principal, recommended her dismissal based on her ineffectively meeting the needs of her

students.

Is it within Karen White’s rights to be able to do this within her classroom? Or is she

violating one of her job duties? The First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law

respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” which can also

be considered under the Establishment Clause. In short, there is supposed to be a separation

between church and state. However, Ms. White does have a right to due process thanks to the

Fourteenth Amendment which allows to challenge her dismissal and have her complaint heard

before an impartial jury. In addition, a major factor in this case concerns the right to the teachers

due process in regards to the dismissal. According to the textbook, The Legal Rights of Teachers

and Students:

In 1975, the Supreme Court provided substantial clarification regarding the

constitutional rights of students faced with short-term suspensions. In Goss v.


ARTIFACT #6 4

Lopez, the Court held that minimum due process must be provided before a

student is suspended for even a brief period of time. Recognizing that a student’s

state-created property right to an education is protected by the Fourteenth

Amendment, the Court ruled that such a right cannot be impaired unless the

student is afforded notice of the charges and an opportunity to refute them before

an impartial decision maker (Cambron, 2014).

The ​Goss v Lopez,​ helped decided that it was necessary for students regardless of suspension

time that they must have a due process hearing. When teachers are being put up for dismissal

courts have generally held that a teacher facing a severe loss such as termination must also be

afforded full procedural due process.

Moreover, in defense of the plaintiff during the trial of the ​Florey v Sioux Falls​ the courts

ruled that “the historical and contemporary values and the origin of religious holidays may be

explained in an unbiased and objective manner without sectarian indoctrination” (Justia, 2018).

Ms. White is trying to explain her religious and teachings to her students in an unbiased way.

She clearly stated that she would not be participating in certain activities and why.

The school does have a right to separate church affiliations from school requirements. In

Abington School District v. Schempp​, the courts ruled that school sponsored bible readings in

school was unconstitutional (Wikipedia, 2018). There needs to be a separation between church

and state, and the state being school and things being taught in school. Ms. White is choosing to

promote her religious affiliations while at school, or within her workplace which is a possible

violation. She is technically trying to promote her religious beliefs on her students by not

allowing the to sing happy birthday or say the pledge. These may not be required by the school,
ARTIFACT #6 5

however a teacher has no right to bring in her beliefs to change the current school culture, or

climate, unless she is either offended or disrespected by the current practices.

Another point the school district has in justifying her dismissal is that courts have

approved of dismissing a teacher because they chose to put their religion before the school. In

Palmer v. Board of Education​, a similar scenario where another elementary school teacher did

not want to teach the pledge or any specific type of “love for one’s country” because of the

teachers recent change in beliefs. The teacher in the Palmer case refused to follow the guidelines

the court gave her after the first hearing, stating it impeded on her religious rights and practices.

According to a local law company called Justia, the article stated:

The court found necessary to distinguish between the freedom to believe in

certain religious tenets and the freedom to act.... The refusal to conform classroom

teaching to a prescribed curriculum is not protected. Since plaintiff conceded that

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

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

protected activity (Justia, 2018).

In conclusion, the teacher was dismissed due to a breach of duty, which is very similar to what

Ms.White is doing.

The courts would probably rule similar to ​Palmer v. Board of Education​. The Courts

would definitely follow the ​Goss v Lopez ​case and allow this teacher her due process rights.

However, they probably would not find her eligible for the ​Florey v Sioux Falls ​case ruling,

because Ms.Wright was not separating her religious practices from the school in a sectriatrain

way. The Courts would also find that in matters regarding to the ​Abington School District v.
ARTIFACT #6 6

Schempp ​case uphold and that teaching any type of religious materials in schools is

unconstitutional. Lastly, that the similar court ruling for ​Palmer v. Board of Education​ would

apply because the teacher in this scenario is trying to put her religious feelings or beliefs before

the practice of the school and in teaching the students the proper school curriculum.

My personal opinion on the matter is Ms.White has a right to her religious affiliations and

practices; however, once they cross over into the school and begin interfering with the

curriculum there is a problem. The First Amendment does outline a separation from church and

state. The teacher here is trying to impose her views and beliefs on the students in a passive

manner, although it can be looked at as a breach of duty if the basic school curriculum standards

are not meet.


ARTIFACT #6 7

References:

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

Students. (Third edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Justia Company. (2018). Florey v. SIOUX FALLS SCH. DIST. 49-5, 464 F. Supp. 911 (D.S.D.

1979). Retrieved from

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

Justia Company. (2018). Palmer v. Board of Ed. of City of Chicago, 466 F. Supp. 600 (N.D. Ill.

1979). Retrieved from

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

Wikipedia. (2018, May 09). Abington School District v. Schempp. Retrieved from

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abington_School_District_v._Schempp

You might also like