Based on the religious scenario given in class, the principal is a mid-year hire in a high school situated in what appears to be a predominantly Christian, conservative community. Several facts have come to light regarding equal access and religious activities and actions occurring in the school. First the principal observed the English teacher, Mr. Wrighteous, prominently displaying the Bible on his desk. The teacher also incorporated and promoted religious teachings in a class lesson. He offered a Bible as a reward for good work. This same teacher leads a weekly Bible study and prayer group at school. Another issue has been brought to the principal’s attention, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has inquired about other religious …show more content…
Finally, a student asked permission to form a Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) club at school. The school has a history of allowing clubs to start mid-year. Each of these issues will be addressed as follows. First the principal needs to discuss with Mr. Wrighteous the activities in the classroom regarding promoting religious beliefs. The teacher needs to be reminded that by incorporating religion in his lessons, displaying the Bible prominently on his desk, and giving Bibles to students, he is in violation of the law and a lawsuit can be filed against him. The first amendment prohibits the advancement of religion in public schools through the Establishment Clause. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” (U.S. Const. amend. I). Although students may express their beliefs about religion in homework and other assignments, the teacher may not teach or promote religion. Repeatedly the courts ruled in favor of those who spoke out against incorporating religion in schools. In 1971, the case of Lemon vs. Kurtzman developed a three pronged test to determine if a violation has occurred, 1. There must be a secular purpose, 2. There must not be the advancement nor the …show more content…
The Equal Access Act of 1984 agreed that public secondary schools may allow non-curricular clubs to meet during non-instructional time during the school day. The courts stipulated that the meeting is voluntary and student led, school employees do not sponsor nor participate in the gathering but are in attendance only in a supervisory role. In light of the current situation, Mr. Wrighteous will be advised to have the students lead the morning prayer group. If this is not feasible, then he will need to find another school employee to act as the supervisor for the club. The Equal Access Act also supports allowing the LGBT group to form. The student will need to submit the appropriate paperwork to the Board of Education for approval. In White County High School P.R.I.D.E. vs. White County School District the court ruled in favor of the students to form the LGBT club despite the Board of Education’s refusal of the
Constitution's First Amendment requirement that the District neither establish religion in the schools nor prohibit students’ free exercise of religion according to pertinent interpretation and application of those constitutional provisions by the courts. Any religious characters need to conform to policy 8800” (Markesan District School, 2013). “Decisions of the United States Supreme Court have made it clear that it is not the province of a public school to advance or inhibit religious beliefs or practices” (Markesan District School, 2015). Under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution, this remains the “inviolate province of the individual and the church of his/her choice. The rights of any minority, no matter how small, must be protected. District staff members shall not use prayer, religious readings, or religious symbols as a devotional exercise or in an act of worship or celebration” (20 U.S.C. 4071 et seq.) (Markesan District School, 2015). Having examined the Markesan District School First Amendment related to this topic the next step is to conclude my research on this topic.
Religion is one of the most controversial issues in society today. The concern of allowing prayer in schools is an on-going debate and has resulted in numerous lawsuits. Religious school clubs, after school activities, curriculums, and moments of silence during school are just a few of the court cases that judges have administered. People in favor of prayer in schools believe that their children can only learn certain values through religious practice. On the other hand, an individual against religious practice in schools views this issue as an infringement on his or her children’s rights as Americans.
One case that caught my eye was the O.T. v. Frenchtown Elementary School District Board of Education, where a student performed in an afterschool talent show and wanted to sing the song “Awesome God.” The school violated her rights due to her performance not bearing the imprimatur of the school and her viewpoint being discriminated (O.T. v. Frenchtown Elementary School District Board of Education).
Issues involving public schools and religion have been topics involving intense debate. It is difficult for the government to elucidate the appropriate boundaries of religion in the public schools. It is true that teaching about religion is permitted in the public education systems, but the real question is where the margin should be set between teaching religion and simply teaching about religion. It is almost impossible to teach about the history of the United States without teaching that religious beliefs associated with the history, artwork, and literature. More than the public is lead to believe, The Constitution permits religious activities in and around public school buildings. It is unfortunate that the
Historically, legal issues regarding the grading of assignments containing religious material have come to similar decisions. In Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969), a group of students decided to express their views about Vietnam by wearing black armbands to school. Although the district attempted to punish them for this, the Supreme Court ruled that the students were expressing a form of “symbolic speech” and were protected by the First Amendment, as long as it did not disrupt normal school functions. Similarly, expressing views of religion in school is protected if it does not disturb the educational process. According to Haynes and Oliver (2007), students have the right to express religious beliefs “in homework, artwork, and other written and oral assignments free from discrimination based on the religious content of their submissions” (p. 65). An educator must
gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender students; part-time and full-time students; students with and without disabilities; and students of different races and national origins," it says. The guidance goes on to say that schools are obligated to "respond appropriately" to complaints of
The right to freedom of expression of ones religion is at stake in this case. Mrs. Williams has a right to express her religion freely. However, based upon the Establishment Clause which prohibits any law “respecting the establishment of religion”, she does not have the right to force others to conform to her way of thinking. At the same time, students and community members have a right to express their religion, too. They also have a right not to have another person’s religion forced on them. So there is only one individual right at stake here, but it is not possible to respect this right of behalf of all the claimants. While the majority of the community, the school board, and some students will feel that it is Mrs. Williams’ right to keep the bulletin board posted, some community members, students, and ACLU feel it is their right not to keep it posted.
By applying the Coercion Test, the court will find that the school board did coerce their impressionable students to attend biased board meetings and to partake in Christian prayer. “The constitution guarantees that government may not coerce anyone to support or participate in religion or its exercise, or otherwise act in a way which establishes a religion or religious faith.” Lee, 505 U.S at 585. The Coercion Test protects school-aged children from
The case of Wallace v. Jaffree calls into question the constitutionality of an Alabama statute that authorized teachers to lead a one-minute period of silence for “meditation or voluntary” prayer in all public schools. Ishmael Jaffree, the parent of three students in the Mobile County Public School system filed a complaint that two of his three children had been “subjected to various acts of religious indoctrination,” as a result of Alabama statute 16-1-20.1 and asked for an injunction prohibiting Mobile County schools from “maintaining or allowing the maintenance of regular religious prayer services.” The purpose of Jaffree’s complaint was to prohibit the devotional services occurring in his children’s school and the consequent mockery of his children that occurred when they refused to recite the prayers to “Almighty God” (Stevens, 40). This type of law in Alabama public schools was not the first of its kind. Prior to statute 6-11-20.1, Alabama passed law 16-1-20 authorizing one minute of silence in public schools for meditation. After the authorization of statute 16-1-20.1 came 16-1-20.2, which allowed teachers to lead “willing students” in a prayer (Stevens, 40).
In cases having to do with constitutionality, the issue of the separation of church and state arises with marked frequency. This battle, which has raged since the nation?s founding, touches the very heart of the United States public, and pits two of the country's most important influences of public opinion against one another. Although some material containing religious content has found its way into many of the nation's public schools, its inclusion stems from its contextual and historical importance, which is heavily supported by material evidence and documentation. It often results from a teacher?s own decision, rather than from a decision handed down from above by a higher power. The proposal of the Dover Area School District to
One of the most highly debated aspects of American life and liberty is religion. America’s foundation is based upon the idea that religion should be a freedom and a choice of the person involved, not a requirement by the government. Yet religion is one of the very things to United States was founded on. In the last half of the 20th century, the differing opinions Americans held on religious conviction became an ongoing debate on where and when is the right time to observe one’s faith. Most notably this debate extended to the public schools. One of the most prominent cases was that of Engel v. Vitale. The court case of Engel v. Vitale became known as the School Prayer decision and was the first of its kind in the American judicial
Many people today have their own personal beliefs. In a school setting, there have been many controversial situations that have been brought to court to help resolve individual rights. As National Coalition Against Censorship (2017) stated, the First Amendment guarantees of religious liberty include the freedom to believe or not to believe, to observe one’s faith openly without government interference, Freedom of speech encompasses religious as well as secular speech, but the Establishment Clause is where Thomas Jefferson described it as “a wall of separation between church and state”, because it has important implications for religious speech and observance in public schools” (Retrieved from http://ncac.org/resource/the-first-amendment-in-schools-resource-guide-religious-expression-in-the-public-schools). For this paper, legal issues regarding grading of assignment, appropriate of displaying student’s work, application of First Amendment to scenario, and conclusion will be discussed.
According to Essex (2006), one of the requirements placed on schools is that they remain viewpoint neutral. This means that if the literature was suppressed because it was religious in nature, the suppression violated her First Amendment rights, even in the school setting. In all court cases, the real message has been that schools are responsible for making sure parents and students are aware that the schools are merely sending messages indiscriminately from religious and non-secular sources and that they are not in support of any of them (Essex, 2006). Really the essence of the article is that sound policies must be in place, well documented, and consistently followed for a school to be able to regulate what a student says or distributes and there must be no endorsement of any particular ideas from any group or student.
Religion in Schools has proven to be a very controversial matter as of lately. Even though teaching about religion is allowed in public schools, there are still many questions that are being asked in order to provide a basis of what is appropriate for school, and what is inappropriate. The first amendment to the United States Constitution says that 'congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof' which implies that you have the choice of exercising your own religion, no matter what it may be. However, this poses an interesting argument within the public schools of America because we have such a diverse population with
Many schools around the country have started to make Bible study classes which has caused much worry among Atheist and Separation of Church and State groups. They believe that any sort of teachings of the Bible would be impossible without forcing the ideas of the Bible on the students taking them class. This would then be imposing religion through a government funded institution which would violate their right protected under the First Amendment. When Kentucky was considering a bill that would allow public high schools to have a Bible study course as an elective, it got the attention of many of these groups, and the national legal director for American Atheists, Edwin Kagin , claimed “This is a sub-rosa attempt to bring religion in the classroom” (Krigman 5). While none of these classes have yet to be challenged, these groups are keeping a careful watch to make sure they don't get out of hand.