PORTFOLIO #6 KAREN WHITE V.

BOARD OF EDUCATION 1

Karen White v. Board of Education

Portfolio #6

Kelsey McCormick

EDU 210

October 14, 2018

ARTIFACT #6 KAREN WHITE V. BOARD OF EDUCATION 2

Karen White, a kindergartener teacher, informed her students and their parents that she

could no longer lead activities or participate in projects that were religious in nature because she

is a part of Jehovah’s Witness. This included holiday decorations, gift exchanges during the

Christmas season, singing “Happy Birthday” or reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. The parents

protested her statement. The principal of the school, Bill Ward, recommended her dismissal

based on her ineffectively meeting the needs of her students.

Under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, Karen White has the right to

worship as she chooses. In the case Wisconsin v. Yoder the Supreme Court said that the state

could not interfere with the free exercise of religion unless it could show a compelling state

interest in so doing. In the Wisconsin v. Yoder case the court concluded that enforcing a state

compulsory attendance law against Amish children after they had completed the eighth grade,

infringed on their free exercise of religion rights (Wisconsin v Yoder, 1972). Karen White’s

religion does not permit her to lead or participate in any activity that may be against her religious

beliefs. Therefore, the school would be violating her free exercise of religion rights if they forced

her to do otherwise.

In the case of West Virginia State Board of Education v Barnette, the Board adopted a

resolution requiring students and teachers to salute the flag and recite the Pledge of Allegiance in

school as a part of the program of activities in all public schools. A student’s failure to do so was

seen as “insubordination” and resulted in suspension. As a Jehovah Witness the student is

forbidden from honoring the flag. Because of this The Court ruled the West Virginia State

School Board’s actions as unconstitutional because (West Virginia State Board of Education v

Barnette, 1943). The same goes in the justification of Karen White’s case. Bill Ward, the

principal, recommending her dismissal for not participating in certain activities, one being the
ARTIFACT #6 KAREN WHITE V. BOARD OF EDUCATION 3

reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance, would be unconstitutional because it violates her religious

rights.

The principal recommended that Karen White be dismissed based on her ineffectively

meeting the needs of her students. Although she may not celebrate or participate in certain

activities because of religious reasons, that does not mean she should totally disallow it in her

classroom. In the case Clever v. Cherry Hill Tp. Board of Education, the Court upheld that it is

permissible for public schools to display religious holiday symbols in school calendars. They are

allowed to do this as long as it is absent of denominational preference (Clever v Cherry Hill Tp.

Bd. Of Educ., 1993). Just as in the case of Karen White, the principal wants to meet the needs of

the students. The students’ rights to acknowledge activities that may be religious in nature should

not take away by the teacher. As long as there are educational purposes and do not appear to

endorse the religious nature of the holiday, Karen White should allow her students to partake in

certain activities. She does not have to be involved for certain things can be student lead like the

pledge of allegiance.

In conclusion, the principal recommended that Karen White’s dismissal based on her

ineffectiveness to meeting the needs of students. I believe that there was not a justifiable basis

for Karen’s dismissal. Due to the free exercise of religion right, the Court will rule in her favor.

“The Free Exercise Clause guarantees individuals the right to worship as they choose”

(Underwood, Webb, 211). Because Karen White’s religion prohibits her to participate in certain

projects or activities, although approved by the school, that are religious in nature she should still

be allowed to work at the school. The Court will also find that the school infringed on Karen

White’s free exercise of religion rights by recommending her dismissal for disallowing activities

that she believe are religious in nature. Although there was no justifiable basis for Karen’s
ARTIFACT #6 KAREN WHITE V. BOARD OF EDUCATION 4

dismissal, I do believe that there should be an appropriate balance in the classroom concerning

certain activities so that both the teacher and the students’ needs are met.
ARTIFACT #6 KAREN WHITE V. BOARD OF EDUCATION 5

References

Clever v Cherry Hill Tp. Bd. of Educ., 838 F. Supp. 929 (D. N.J. 1993).

Florey v Sioux Falls School District 49-5, 619 F.2d 1311 (8th Cir. 1980).

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943).

Wisconsin v Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972).

Underwood, J., & Webb, L. (2006). Teacher's Rights. In School Law for Teachers (p. 211, 222).
Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education.