Running head: PORTFOLIO ARTIFACT VI 1

Religion and Public Schools

Portfolio Artifact VI

Khadeejah Griffin

College Of Southern Nevada

A kindergarten teacher named Karen White stated to both her student’s and their parents

that she could not participate in some of the activities her students would be doing because it

interferes with her religious preference. As a new Jehovah witness member, Karen would not be

able to decorate her classroom for Holidays or make gift gesture to her students around

Christmas time. This also meant that she could not participate in singing Happy Birthday to her

students and recite the pledge of allegiance with them. White’s actions eventually upset most of

her students parents which led to her being recommended to be dismissed by Bill Ward, the

schools principal. The question then becomes is Karen’s recommended dismissal from her

position justifiable or has the school went against her self- given rights?

Pro Support

In agreeance with the schools’ position, it is arguable that Karen White’s religious

preference may interfere with the students learning environment. In ​Skoros v. City of New York

case, the courts' display policy promulgated by the Department of Education. Andrea Skoros, a

mother of two minor students, sues a school in New York expressing that the policy violates her

children's rights under the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment. The

court rules that “The primary purpose of all displays shall be to promote the goal of fostering

understanding and respect for the rights of all individuals regarding their beliefs, values, and

customs” (Underwood & Webb 217). This case supports principal Ward because the displays can

be seen as a way of teaching students. So, if Ms. White refuses to decorate her classroom

because of religious preferences, she could be minimizing the way students could see other

religions and their values. Teachers are given a responsibility to teach students regardless if they
 3

disagree with certain values and religions. The court also ruled that an individual does not have

to actively participate in any religious activities. But, this does not mean that the teacher can

refuse to not display or teach something that can help their students learn more about different

cultural values. If Karen refuses to teach her students about different religions, then she should

be dismissed.

In the support of principal Ward and his decision of wanting Ms. White dismissed, the

Epperson v. Arkansas​ case supports this idea and its recommended ruling. An Arkansas public

school teacher challenges a statute adopted by the State of Arkansas in 1928 that states that

teachers have to teach the theory that man evolved from other species of life to their students. He

believes that the state should support different ideas in regards to how mankind got here. The

court ruled that “The state has no legitimate interest in protecting any or all religions from views

distasteful to them”(Cornell Law). In agreeance with principal Wards ruling, it is justifiable to

say that Ms. White’s actions are not supported in her rights. The state does not protect a teacher

from beliefs that they disagree or do not support. Ms. White should be dismissed if she refuses to

not participate in things that may make students feel discouraged or uncomfortable. Teachers

should always understand that teaching is a diverse role which is why you should always stay

neutral when it comes to these type of situations.

Con Support

In support of Karen White, she could argue that the First Amendment gives each

individual the right to choosing what they worship. In the case of ​Wisconsin v. Yoder,​ the

Wisconsin school district tried to sue Amish children for violating Wisconsin's compulsory

school attendance law. The law expresses that all students must attend school until they reach the
 4

age requirements of 16. The Supreme Court ruled that, “The State's interest in universal

education is not totally free from a balancing process when it impinges on other fundamental

rights, such as those specifically protected by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment

and the traditional interest of parents with respect to the religious upbringing of their

children”(Cornell Law). Free exercise of religion gives each individual the right to believe in

what they feel is right regardless of the opinion of others. This case supports the side of Karen

White because her rights of not wanting to decorate nor participate in certain activities are

expressed under the First Amendment. Each individual is given the right to freedom of religion

which is why Ms. White will not be dismissed. Her choices regarding her faith and religion will

not affect her teaching nor her students learning.

Ms. White could also argue that the school does not have the power to force Ms. White to

recite the pledge of allegiance. In the case of ​Engel v. Vitale,​ the state board of regents of New

York established a prayer that was to be recited by the students every morning. Tensions arose

when parents found out that school officials initiated this prayer. Parents believed that their

children’s rights were being violated under the First Amendment. The court ruled that, “Because

of the prohibition of the First Amendment against the enactment of any law "respecting an

establishment of religion," which is made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment,

state officials may not compose an official state prayer and require that it be recited in the public

schools of the State at the beginning of each school day -- even if the prayer is denominationally

neutral and pupils who wish to do so may remain silent or be excused from the room while the

prayer is being recited” (Justia). Ms. White cannot be forced into reciting something that goes

against her religion and values. Reciting the pledge of allegiance is an option to both students
 5

and teachers because it is not part of the curriculum of the school nor is it a factor holding back a

students education. The pledge of allegiance is simply a choice and so is Ms. Whites’ choice in

refusing to participate in anything that goes against her religious views.

In reference to Karen White, the court will rule in her favor. Although parents are

concerned about their children feeling uncomfortable in her classroom, there has not been any

evidence presented that shows that their statement is true. Karen White’s religious preference is

protected through the First Amendment and the Free Exercise of Religion clause. The ​Wisconsin

v. Yoder​ case underlines that no school official can impose on the religion of individuals because

they have the power to believe in what they feel is right and true to them. Regardless of Principal

Ward’s recommendation of dismissal, Ms. White simply stated what she will not be participating

in, she never violated the rights of her students nor their parents.
 6

References

Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962). Retrieved March 4, 2019 from justia.com website:

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/370/421/

Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (1968). Retrieved March 3, 2019 from law.cornell.edu

website: ​https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/393/97

Skoros v. City of New York, 437 F. 3d (2nd. Circuit 2006). Retrieved March 4, 2019 from

casetext.com website: ​https://casetext.com/case/skoros-v-city-of-new-york-2

Underwood, J., & Webb, L. D. (2006). ​School law for teachers: Concepts and applications.​

Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.

Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972). Retrieved March 2, 2019 from law.cornell.edu

website: ​https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/406/205