ARTIFACT #6 1

Matt Clough

Artifact #6

12/7/19

EDU 210
ARTIFACT #6 2

Karen white is a kindergarten teacher and recently informed the parents of her students

that she could no longer allow certain activities and projects in the classroom that were religious

in nature because of her affiliation with Jehovah’s Witnesses. This included decoration of the

classroom for holidays, gift exchanges during the christmas season, singing “Happy Birthday”,

or reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. When parents called Bill Ward, the school principal, they

demanded she be dismissed for not meeting the needs of her students. There are 2 sides to this

argument.

First, Karen White should not be dismissed. In Underwood and Webb’s book, ​School

Law for teachers: Concepts and Applications​, they talk about ​Engel v. Vitale 1962​ and how

students cannot be forced to recite a state composed prayer at school ​(Underwood & Webb,

2006)​. In our case, Karen is refusing to sing “Happy Birthday” or recite the Pledge of

Allegiance, which is an expression of our country. She isn’t violating anything by ​not​ reciting it,

and she isn’t forcing her students from reciting it or forcing them to do it. From the wording of

the scenario, they appear to have that choice if the students so choose.

But there’s more to it than that. Karen also refuses to lead certain projects that are

religious in nature. There is a test for this. In ​Lemon v. Kurtzman 1971​, the Supreme Court

created the Lemon test to ask 2 questions; whether the actual purpose of the action is to endorse

or disapprove religion, whether the actual effect conveys a message of governmental

endorsement or disapproval ​("Lemon v. Kurtzman")​. Karen could argue that her stopping

religious based activities actually protects the school from this test, since forcing it on students
ARTIFACT #6 3

would fail this test. According to this case and the Lemon test, government schools cannot

endorse religion.

There is hope for the students however… Let's look back at the Lemon test, the first rule

states that the action cannot endorse or disapprove religion. Karen just so happens to have

become affiliated with Jehovah’s Witnesses and even claimed that she would not lead these

projects because of her affiliation with them. The parents could argue that Karen is disapproving

the religion of her children because of her affiliation with Jehovah’s Witnesses. In ​Palmer v.

Board of Education of City of Chicago,​ a teacher refused to teach a part of the curriculum

because it interfered with his religion. The court decided that there is no constitutional right that

the teacher can submit their students to their views. In our case, Karen could be doing just that.

Additionally, schools cannot violate the students freedom of religion and expression.

This is something that was covered in ​Tinker vs. Desmoines 1968​ where the court decided that

students do not lose their freedom of speech, religion, and expression when they enter a school

("Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District")​. By Karen not allowing her

students to express their religion through projects, the parents could argue she violated their

students first amendment rights. Also, if she doesn’t allow students to recite the Pledge of

Allegiance, this would also violate the students first amendment rights.

In all, I found that this scenario was fairly one sided with a few assumptions. I feel the

courts would rule that Karen would not be dismissed. BUT only under the assumption that she is

not forcing her views, being affiliated with Jehovas Witnesses, onto her students. The scenario

never states whether or not she lets the students sing “Happy Birthday” or the Pledge of

Allegiance. If the projects and activities are religious, schools can’t endorse religion anyway.
ARTIFACT #6 4

With that being said, I do believe that there is a fair chance that the courts could rule in favor of

dismissing her. They would have to prove only that she is forcing her religious views onto her

students.
ARTIFACT #6 5

REFERENCES

Engel v. Vitale 1962: ​Underwood, J., & Webb, L. D. (2006). S​ chool law for teachers: concepts

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

Lemon v. Kurtzman 1971: ​Lemon v. Kurtzman. (n.d.). Retrieved December 7, 19AD, from

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1970/89.

​ almer v. Board of Ed. of City of

Palmer v. Board of Education of City of Chicago 1979: P

Chicago, 466 F. Supp. 600 (N.D. Ill. 1979). (n.d.). Retrieved December 7, 19AD, from

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

Tinker vs. Desmoines 1968: ​Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District.

(n.d.). Retrieved December 7, 19AD, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/1968/21.