DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 070 972 CG -007 660

'AUTHOR Bartoo, Jean

TITLE Major Legal Aspects of Sex Education.
PUB DATE Nov 7.2
NOTE 19p.

ERRS PRICE' MF-16.65 HC-$3.29

DESCRIPTORS *Court Litigation; Ethical Instruction; *Family Life
Education; Legal Responsibility; Parent
Responsibility; *School Responsibility; *Sex
Education; Teacher Responsibility
ABSTRACT
The legal status of sex education in the public
schools in the United States as it existed at the close of the
1971-72 school year was investigated. The investigation included
surveys, analyses, and interpretations of statutes, significant rules
and regulations of state departments of education, and court holdings
as they applied ,specifically to sex. education. Investigation and
analyses of the court cases involving sex education'indichted that
the courts are not in accord on the question of an inherent parental
right to instruct in matters of morality and religion-. It appears
that the courts will support the right of school authorities, to
establish curriculum in sex education, family life,,or human
sexuality so long as it is not arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable,
or in violatibn of state or federal laws or-constitutions. The courts
will also uphold the individual constitutional right to excusal from
such instruction on the grounds of invasion of religious freedom or
personal morality. (AueumAiS)
 FILMED FROM BEST AVAILABLE COPY

U S (APARTMENT OF HEALTH
EOUCATION & WELFARE
OFFICE OF EOUCATION
THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRO
OUCE0 EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROM
THE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIG
INATING IT POINTS OF VIEW OR OPIN
ri0 IONS STATED DO NOT NECESSARILY
REPRESENT OFFICIAL OFFICE OF EOU
CATION POSITION OR POLICY

MAJOR LEGAL ASPECTS OF SEX EDUCATION

11.0 by

Jean Bart o0

Principal

Spruce Elementary School

'forth Olmsted, Ohio

Organized opposition to Sex Education in the public

schools of the United States has flared and subsided
sporad-
ically in recent years. There has been no apparent pattern
to the controversial attacks which have exploded here and

there across the country from Parsippany, New Jersey and

'Bexley, Ohio, to San Hate() and Anaheim, California.

During the 1968-69 school year, rising concern and

increased activity on the part of the forces of opposition

resulted in moratoriums on sex instruction in some states

while others considered or took legislative action to

restrict
or to control such school programs. The slightest suggestion
of public instruction in sex education has been
enough to
evoke prohibitory legislation. Sporadic attempts to enact
enabling legislation have been enthusiastically endorsed on
CD the one hand and vehemently denounced on the,othet by idea-,

C.) logically opposed groups of parents and citizens.

1
 2

For some protagonists the individual right to examine

all aspects of human life is the basis for public sex educa-

tion. Some practical supporteis see the need for sex educa-
tion as a socially significant answer to needless tragedy

such as unwanted pregnancies and incidence of venereal disease.

Reputable organizations on record as supportive of sex educa-

tion include: American Association for Health, Physical

Education and Recreation (AAHPER); American College of

Obstetricians and Gynecologists (Committee on Maternal

Health); American Medical Association; American Public Health

_Association (Governing Council); National Congress of Parents

and Teachers; National Council of Churches of Christ in the

U.S.A.; National Education-Association; National School Boards

Association; American Association of School Administrators;

YMCA; YWCA; Synagogue Council of America; United States

Catholic Conference; United States Department of Health,

1
Education and Welfare.

Many major opponents of public sex education assert

that it is primarily a parental function and that public ,

instruction imposes a state selected moral code upon individual

citizens in violation of the establishment clause of the First

Amendment to the United States Constitution. Some of the

groups working toward the elimination of sex education in the

schools are: The Liberty Lobby; Sanity on Sex (SOS); Mothers

Organized for Moral Stability (MOMS); People Against Uncon-

stitutional Sex Education (PAUSE); Parents Opposed to Sex and

Sensitivity Education (POSSE); Citizens for Parental Control;

 Parents for Orthodoxy in Parochial
Educaton (POPE);'Citi-
zens for Parental
Control;, Citizens Committee of
California;
Truth About Civil Turmoil (TACT);
Southwest Church orf-the
Air; Uhited Republicans of
California; Arizona Committee
for Responsible Education (ACRE);
People Opposed to
(compulsory) Sex Education (POSE);
We, The People, and
other unnamed organizations that
denounce sex education as
an ominous sign of moral degeneracy
in our society.
MOTOREDE (Movement to Restore Decency)
committees have
roots in the John Birch Society,
and, among other things,
they actively propose to, "prevent
the introduction of the
carefully plotted 'program of
sex education -into more school
systems, and to get it removed
2 from those that already have
it."

A voluntary, non-profit
organization founded in
1964, SIECUS (Sex Information
and Education Council of the
United States) contributed to
the dichotomy in the sex
education issue.

Founded by six representatives

and professions, SIECUS has actedfrom several disciplines
in a consultative
capacity, emphasizing the need of
move deliberately in implementing each community to
local sex education
programs, to involve community leaders
roles, .to scrutinize with in supporting
care
the 'school programs, to train all materials used in .

to construct competent teachers, and

appropriate curricula. As a result of
the efforts and with the
aid of SIECUS, many communities,
churches and school boards
were able by,1968 to establish
or improve sex instruction programs.3

So, the battle lines have been

drawn by opposing
groups and individuals.
Although the protestors apparently
represent a minority
viewpoint, and it is obvious that some
 of the.organized opposition groups have other vested inter-

ests,the fact remains that citizens and taxpayers today are

questioning, more and more, every aspect of the school'pro-

gram. It was inevitable that the courts would be drawn

into the maelstrom of conflicting views on the issue of sex

education in the public schools. Basic issues to be resolved

by the courts appear to be the , constitutional limits of pro-

scriptive, mandatory, and elective sex education legislation.

Questions which arise are: (1) Is mandatory sex education

in the public school curricula-Constitutionally permissible?

(2) Is proscriptive sex education legislation constitutional?

(3) Is voluntary elective sex education in the school pro-_

gram constitaional?

Inherent in this problem is the question of the

.rights of parents to determine certain. aspects of the life

of their child. Can the school legally assume the responsi-

bility for the instruction of the child in such a vital and

delicate subject? May a student be rightfully excluded from

sueh instruction and, if so, for what reasons? Is the in-

struction of youth in sex education such an essential need

orsociety today that this need supersedes the rights of the

individual in that society? The polarization of opinion

,and the increased probability of conflict on this issue

indicate a need for clarification of the legal aspects of .

- -
sex edudation in the public school domain.

Thii research investigated the present'legal status

of sex education in -the public schools of the United States

 5

as it existed at'the close of the 1971-72 school

year. The
question of the propriety of sex education
as a part of the
public school curriculum was considered only as it related

directly to administrative,.statutory, or case.law.

The
study was confined to administrative rules,
legislative
enactments, and court decisions which specifically
forbid,
t.
require, or regulate instruction in sex education in
the
public schools.

Constitutional'Aspects

As a form of law Constitutions are usually

broad and
general in nature. They are not intended
to circumscribe
the fine points of the daily operation of
the governments
they esp' Ise. On the question of sex education in the
schools the Constitution of the United States
does not specify
any proscription, prescription, or limitation.
Matters of
-education, general and specific, are delegated to the states.

Constitutional questions have been posed,in all of

the sex education court cases as to the
rights and-free-
dons of the individual citizen in juxtaposition
to the
interests of the state. The' "establishment" and the' "free
exercise" clauses of the First Amendment of the United

States Constitution are most often invoked

as supporting
the rights of,the individual in the
sex education cases.
The plaintiffs complain of a violation of their religious

freedom as a result of the instruction

received by their
children in sex education classes.
Another claim has been,.
that the implementation of sex education courses in the

school curriculum amounts to an establishment of religion

in the sense,that it promotes the theory of no,religion.

The plaintiffs contend:that moral and spiritual tenets should

properly be a part of training in human sexuality and that

sex education, therefore, cannot be a part of the school

curriculum if the separation of church and state is to be

4
maintained.

The "due - process" clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

has also been exposed to court scrutiny in the sex education

5
cases., It has ben alleged that the plaintiffs' rights to

due process have been violated because the sex education

courses were established and operated in'the school without

their prior knowledge or consent.

Plaintiffs have also claimed that sex education

courses are unconstitutional in that these programs violate

the personal liberty of a parent to'determine the education.

6
of the child.

Violation, of the Ninth Amendment was claimed in two

of the cases on the basis that the.People, acting through

the legislature, had not empowered the defendant school

'7
board to carry on such a program.

Plaint:i.ffs in these same- two cases also alleged a

violation of the Tenth Amendment on the grounds that author-

ity to conduct the program was not granted to the local dis-

tricts by the state constitutions nor by legislative prOvi-

sions, thereby reserving the authority to instruct children

 7

in sex education to the people.

The state constitutions, while making provisions for

the instruction of children in some specific subjects, have

not included sex education among the requirements nor have

they prohibited such instruction. Nevertheless, it has been

alleged that defendants have violated state constitutional

8
provisions la some cases%
--

Statutory Aspects

On the federal level there is no statutory provision'.

for prohibiting permitting, or mandating instruction in

sex education in the public schools of the United States.

The delegation of responsibility and authority for educa-

tional matters is basically committed to the states.

Recently, some federal grants for funding have placed some

requirements or limitationS on local educational programs,

but thdse are administrative rather than statutory in

nature.

The state legislatures have plenary powei,s over the

educational .programs of the states: Corpus Juris Secundum'

is explicit in the description of the authority of state

legislative bodies in educational matters:

Subject to constitutional provisions, the power of the

legislature as to the management, operation and regula-
tion of school districts is plenary; local regulations
and charter provisions as to school matters must conform
to constitutional and statutory provisions.9

Some state legislative bodies have accepted the

responsibility and have assumed the authority to determine

 za,

school programs in much more specific ways than others. '

10
WIth the exception of Michigan, none of the state
legislatures had invoked their authority to prescribe, pro-
,

scribe,.or limit sex education programs in the schools

,11
before 1967. Since that time the legislatures of Florida
12
and of Louisiana have moved-to.prohibit family life and
sex education instruction. in the schools of their respective

states. Michigan; Illinois, and Idaho haveenacted legisla-

tion which permits and even encourages the establishment of
13
sex education programs in _the public schools. The
California legislature has provided forthe teaching of sex
14
education courses with some exacting and limiting factors.

The law making bodies in Tennessee have provided for penal-

ties if such courses and the materials used in the instruc-

tion are not carefully screened and approved by,state and

15
loeal boards of education: Most of this legislation also
proVIdes'for the, exemption of individual students from par-

ticipation In the prescribed classeb. The New Jersey legis-

lature pioclaimed a moratorium on sex education courses in

schools of the state in 1969 and *in the following year, 1970,
16
rescinded- that action after investigation and deliberation.

Litigation in the higher courts on this issue of

sex education, in the schools has not occurred where the

legislatures have enacted laws to deal with it The recent

.

nature of existing legislation might indicate that legisla-

tures of other'states might soon consider the establishment

of some statutory guidelines for,educators on the issue..

0
 9

Administrative Aspects

At least twenty-done of the fifty state,

departments
of education have issued policy statements
or guidelines-for
local boards of.education on the subject of sex education
or
family life instruction in the public schools.
The rationale
for such action is clearly enunciated in a document issued

by the Pennsylvania Department of Education:

There seems to be little question that,sex educa-

tion is a responsibility which should. be shared
by the
home, church, school and community. Yet it appears clear
that the school has a fundamental role-to perform.
In
a concerned effort to assist-young people to confront-
the physiological, psychological, social and
ethical
implications of sexuality, the schools must share a
definite responsibility for assuring that
opportunities
prevail through which accurate information and trained
leadership are available. Central to-'such responsi-
bility are opportunities to make responsible choices
based on facts relative to competing'codes of conduct,
'the implications of one's sex role, and
the standards,
attitudes and ideals which combine to form one's self-
concept and personal-behavior: Therefore, sex education
is implicit in the school's commitment to-the
ment of the whole personality,17 develop-

Some of the State Department of Education edicts

have ,been mandatory in nature such as those of

Connecticut,
Idaho, Maryland, New JerSey, and Oregon which
require the
teaching of family life and/or sex education, in some form in
18
the school curriculum. Most often the statements have been
in the -form of encouragement and support
for the establish-
ment of such programs as in Arizona, Michigan, New
Hampshire,
19
North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Vir!ginia.

Nebraska and Virginia State Boards of Education

guidelines prohibit the teachihg of the reproductive system

 10

of the human body in co-educational classes, thereby requir-

ing the establishment of separate courses in sex education.20

on.

Conversely, several others specifically proscribe the teach-

ing of sex education in separate courses but instead require

that it be integrated into other areas of-the curriculum.21

The Indiana State Board of Education and the Nebraska

State Board of Education'have specifically warned local dis-

tricts against the use of SIECUS materials in their sex edu=

.cation classes.22 The faCt that SIECUS does not actually

produce materials for use in the classroom but 15, rather, an

advisory council seems to have escaped their notice.

Many df the state board of education guidelines.re-

quire the employment of specially trained personnel in the

operaftOn of sex education and family life programs.23 A

few departments make provisions for State Colleges to provide

for such training of personnel.

Numerous state board regulations require that local

boards of education provide for the excusal from instruction

Of pupilS who request such exemption and some boards demand

that parental approval for instruction in sex education must

be in'writing.24

The Nebraska State Department of Education requires

that only married teachers may sgrve as instructors in sex

educatiori courses in the public schools until such time as

specially trained personnel is available. 5

Most of the state departments provide guidance and

ass/stance for local boards in the implementation of sex edu-

cation programs, They also leave the decision as to the

 11

establithment of such courses to the discretion of the indivi-

dual local school community.- It is notable that in each of

the court cases involving sex education in the public,schools

the State Department of Education in that state has issued

statements on the subject and the policy and position of the

state on the subject have been in contention.

Judicial Aspects

Since the lei, is what the court says it is, the

judiciaX aspects of sex education in the- public schools of

the United states are even more significant than the statutory

provisions or the administrative rules and-regulations whIch

proscribe, prescribe, or limit the content of such courses.

Interpretation by the courts of the constitutionality and

the legality of such statutes and of rules governing the

actions of local districts is, in reality, the dete7.-mining

factor'in the ultimate operation of.sex educatidn courses in

the schools.

Five cases dealing specifically with sex education

in the.public schools have been adjudicated in the United

States. These are: Valent v. New Jer?ey State Board of

education; Cornwell v. State Beard of Education (Maryland);

Clemmer v. Unified School District #501 (Kansas); Medeiros

v. Kiyosaki (Hawaii); and Hobolth v. Gieenwly. (Miehin):26

The Cornwell case, appealed to the Supreme Court of the

United Static, was denied a hearing by that court. All of

these cases have been litigated since 1969.. The recency of
.._ .
4
the litigation in this particular field of school curriculum
 t.

12

would lead one to that the issue will arise again

before it becbmes settled as a point of -law. It is an extreme-
ly emotion-provoking issue--one which arouses intense pro and

anti sentiment--and also a problem which-attracts fanatical

pressure groups. It is these kinds of issues which histor-
ically have been brought to bar again and again. The landmark
"flag salute" cases are superb examples of the effect
of'deep
sentiment and patriotic fervor upon the judgments of the
courts.27 The courts are not unresponsive to the temper of
the times. Therefore, it is difficult to predict precisely
what the social milieu may hold for the future for sex educa-

tion in the schools of the land.

Two major legal issues have been contested in the sex

education suits. One is the constitutional question of the

'yiolation of the rights of the individual under the First and

Fourteenth Amendments. The other challenges the authority

of school officers to establish and operate courses in sex

education and family life instruction in the local school.

On the first question, the courts in Cornwell, Hobolth,

Clemmer, and Mede!ros-have held that the constitutional rights

of the individual plaintiffs were not-violated in the imple-

mentation and the operation of such courses in the public

schools; These courts supported the defendant school boards
in holding-that the plaintiffs' right to free exercise of

their religion was not violated nor could the teaching of sex

education be regarded as an establiMment of religion.

Neither had the plaintiffs' right to due process been violated

 13

in any of the cases,in the opinion of'the courts.

TheIralent court in New Jersey, on the other hand,

held.the defendant school board to have violated the consti

tutional rights of the plaintiff with respect-to the free

exercise cruse of the First Amendment. In this case the

court said thatthe State may not require attendance at such

classes.--,The court did not deny the right of the school

authorities to offer the course in human sexuality-but did

deny rice right- of the state to compel attendance. The. court

said that individuals must be excused from participation' on

the claim of the right to free exercise of their religion.

School-board policy in the other cases did allow for exemption

from the controversial instruction.

In Michigan,' as recently as October of'1972, the

.Hobolth court found that the sex education program in the

'Howell public schools was not a substantial invasion of state

or federal, constitutional rights of the plaintiffs even though

the course might be distasteful to them. The court did find,

however, that the enrollment procedures in the sex education

courses were defective and resulted in students being enrolled

in such courses without the knowledge and/or consent of their'

parents. The defendant school board was ordered, in this case,

to providethat no student be enrolled in any sex education

course unless that student's parent or parents authorized such

enrollment.
.

The other major legal issue in the sex .education

cases has been the question of authority and responsibility

for state and local school officials to establish and to con-

duct sex education and/or family life courses. This has not

been as difficult a question for the courts to decide since

precedent has been established early and often as to the

rights of state and local school authorities to determine the

content of the school program. Much evidence may be cited

from prior court holdings on this question with regard to many

facets of the school curricului. The courts tre just now

being asked to deliberate the sex education issue in light-of

earlier curricular decisions. On this particular point of

~law the courts have been inclined to rely on the precedent

established most often that the school authorities do indeed

have the right, aswell as the responsibility, to establish

curriculum and to determine the school program.

The courts have tried, of course, to treat the sex

education question rationally rather than emotionally. For

example, the Cornwell court regarded the courses in sex educa-

tion as a public health measure and the Clemmer court per-

.

ceived the courses as related to the public welfare, thereby

placing them in the category of being necessary for the public

good. The Maryland court also held that sex education courses

shbuld properly apply, to non-pregnant as well as to pregnant

pupils. The Supreme Court of Hawaii, in the Medeiros case,,

viewed sex education instruction as one of the significant-

measures to be taken by the state to'solve social problems.

Actually, the courts have held that sex education courses have

a rightful place in the school domain so long as they are

reasonable and are administered fairly and Judiciously.

 15

. Conclusion

The primerintention of this research was to'dgtermine

the present legal statis of sex education in the public schools'

of the:United States. It has not been the purpose to take a'

position on any Side of the controversial issues revolving

4
arQund sex education in the schools,.but rather, to analyze--=

and clarify those iLsues.

. The study indicated 'thdt the courts will support

right of school authorities to establish curriculum so long

as it is not arbitrary, capridious, unreasonable or in viola-

.

tion-of state or federal laws or constitutions. As long as

such courses are in the interest of the welfare and the safety,

of the citizens and of the state the courts will sustain them.

It was:found that a few state legislatures have enacted speci-

tic legislation governing sex education courses in the schools.

It was also evident that many more state boards of education

have issued policy statements and/or rules and regulations

governing instruction in sex education in the absence of stagy

tutory rulings. A significant finding was that in addition

to supporting the right of school officials to inaugurate and

operate courses in sex education the courts will apparently

uphold the individual constitutional right to excusal from

such instruction on the grounds of religious-belief or con-

science.

The ancient Greek philosopher, Heracleitu's, has been

quoted as saying, "There is nothing permanent except change."28

This process of change has moved iconoclastically into the

 16

arena of public education in recent years. The sex education

issue is only one of the many issues not yet resolved. Pro-

tests and concerns about the topic.will most certainly con-

tinue to appear since the population of parents of school

children is continually changing and fluctuating. It is by

no means a stable group. As the pendulum of public opinion

continues to swing, certainly the views on sex education will

continue.to change and assuredly the legislatures and the

courts will be called upon to legislate and to mediate the

differences. The question of sex education as a proper part

of the school curriculum will undoubtedly remain at issue for

some time to come.

 Footnotes

1 Joanne Zazzaro, "Americans Do Support Sex Educa-

tion," The American School Board Journal, CLVII (September
1969), p. 30.

2 Ibid, p. 13.

3 "Sex Education: The Constitutional Limits of State

Compulsion," 43 So.Cal.L.Rev. 548 (1970).
-4 Valent v. New Jeriey State Board of Education, 274
A.2d 832 (1971); Cornwell v. State Board of Education, 314
F.Supp. 340 (1969).

5 Clemmer v. Unified School District #501, Case

Number 112,064 District Court of Shvinee County, Kansas (1970);
Cornwell supra Note 4; Valent supra Note 4.

6Medeiros v. Kiyosaki, 478 P.2d 314; Clemmer supra

Note 5.

7 Clemmer supra'Nbte 5; Valent, supra Note 4.

8
Clemmer supra Note 5; Valent supra Note 4; Medeiros
supra Note 6.

9 Corpus Juris Secundum, Schools and School Districts,'

- p. 812 sec., 83a.

10 Michigan, P.A. 1919; No. 274, Sec. 2.

11 Fla. Stat. Ann. Sec. 233.067 (8) (1970).

12 La. Rell. Stat. sec. 17:281 (1970).

13 Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. sec. 340.789 (1968); Ill.

Rev. Code sec. 122.27-9.1 (1969); Idaho Rev. Stat. sec.
33-1609, 1611 (1970).

14 Cal. 'Code Ann. Education Ch. 3, sec. 8506 (1969).

15 Tenn. Rev. Stat. sec. 49.1924 (1969).

16 Cali]. L. Marburger, Commissioner of Education,

"Memorandum on REPORT to the Legislature by the Senate and
Assembly Committees on Education concerning Sex Edudation in
the Public Schools (Pursuant to.Assembly Concurrent Resolu-
tign No. 69 of 1969)," (Trenton, N.J.: State Department of
Education, July 27, 1970).

17
 18

17 Guidelines for SEX EDUCATION in Public Schools of

Pennsylvania,. Pennsylvania Department of Education, Harrisburg,
Pa., 1969.
.18
Connecticut State Board of Education, Policy
Statement on Family Life and Sex Education for Connecticut
Schools," Hartford, April 1968. (Mimeographed.); Idaho State
Department of Education, "Family Life and Sex Education' -
Resolution," Boise, October 23-24, 1969. qlimeographed.);
Marburger supra Note 16; Maryland State Department of Educa-
tion, Bylaw 321:1 Family Life and Human Development,January
1970; Oregon Board of Education, "Polidy Statement on Sex
Education," Salem, Oregon, August 21, 1970. (Mimeographed.).
19 Arizona State Board of Education, "Recommendations
and Guidelines on;Sex Education," Tucson, 1971. ( Mimeographed);
Michigan Department of Education, Sex Education and Family
Information, Lansing, 1971; New Hampshire State Board of
Education, 'Policy Statement Relattng.to a Comprehensive
Health Education Program," Adopted February 11, 1970.
(MimeOgraphed.); North Carolina State Department of Public
Instruction, "Sex Education - A Policy Statement," Raleigh
November 1968, Publication No. 422; Pennsylvania supra Note 17;
Virginia State Board of Education, "Report on Sex Education,"
Richmond, August 19, 1970. (Mimeographed.).
20 Nebrask* State Board of Education, Resolution, Omaha,
December 17, 1970. (Mimeographed.); Virginia supra Note 19.,
21
Arizona supra Note 19; Connecticut supra Note 18;
Florida.Department of Education, "Position Statement on Family
Life and Sex- Education," Tallahassee, November 2, 1969.
(Mimeographed.); Idaho. supra Note 18; Kansas State Board of
Education, "Guidelines for Sex Education in Public Schools of
Kansas," Wichita,. January 1970; Pennsylvania supra Note 17 ;
Virginia supra Note 19.

22 Indiana State Depai,tment of Education, "Report of'

the Committee on Sex Edudation," p. 4, 1970; Nebraska supra
'Note 20.

23 Connecticut supra Note 18; Delaware State Depart-

ment of Public Instruction, "Famii5vLife and Personal Living:
Guiding-Principles," Dover, February 25, 1970. (Mimeographed:); -

Florida supra Note 21; Idaho supra Note 18; Kansas supra Note
21; Maryland supra Note 18; Michigan supra Note 19; North
Carolina supra' Note 19; Oregon supra Note 18; Pennsylvania
supra Note 17.
 19

24
Arizona supra Note 19; Nebraska supra Note 20;
Oklahoma State Superintendent's Newsletter, Vol. X, No. 6,
Oklahoma City, Febrdary, 1970. (Mimeographed.); Washington
State Office of Public Instruction, "Suggested Guidelines
for, Including Sex Education in School Curriculal' Olymbia,
January, 1970.

25 Nebraska State Board of Education,, Resolution,

Omaha, AOil 11, 1969. (mimeographed.). .

26 Valent siipra Note 4; Cornwell

supra Note 4;
Medeiros supra Note 6; Hobolth v. Greenway, File No. 1323,
Circuit Court for the County of Livingston, State of Michigan.

27 Board,of Education of Minersville School District

v. Gobitis, 310 U.S. 586, 60 S.Ct. 1010 (Pa: 1940); West
Virginia State Board orEducation v. Barnetta, 319 U.S. 624,
63 S.Ct. 1178 (W.Va. 1943).

28 Burton SteVenton, ed., The Macmillan Book of

Proverbs Maxims, and Famous Phrases (New York: The
Macmillan Company, 1948), p. 315. "All'thintts make room for
others and nothing'remains still." HERACLEITUS, Maxim,
(c. 500 B.C:). As quoted by Plato, Cratylus, se877(72a.
Rogers, Students' History of Philosophy, p. 15, quotes
0 Heracleitus as saying, "There is nothing permanent except
phange*."

I.