Constitutional Law topic: First Amendment Religion
Megan J. Forness
EOL 469
Religious-based Objections to Programs and Materials and Applicability to the Settle Case and Writing Assignments
Introduction
Our country is littered with a long history of conflict. Ironically, much of this conflict is born of and is facilitated by the very freedom we enjoy. Some components which attract foreigners to our country include the many opportunities and freedoms we sometimes thoughtlessly enjoy. Religious freedom is one such component. This paper will explore my personal thoughts and experiences, constitutional references to religion and applicable cases and decisions regarding religious-based issues in the school setting.
Early one morning during my sixth grade class, the new student, Chad, refused to stand and recite the pledge of allegiance with the rest of the class. Everyone including my teacher was confused by this action, and he proceeded by questioning Chad. I remember phrases from my teacher such as, "...if you live in America" and "...you're an American citizen" as he confronted Chad in the hallway. At the naïve age of eleven I could only assume that Chad wanted attention and was trying to be insubordinate. It was only until later I heard Chad explain that his Jehovah Witness religion prohibited him from joining our recitation of the pledge of allegiance. After this incident, Chad was permitted to sit at his desk while the rest of the class recited the pledge each morning. In Minersville v. Gobitis, 310 U.S. 586 (1940), the Supreme Court ruled that a public school may require students to salute the flag and pledge allegiance even if it violates their religious scruples. This case was officially overruled three years later in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette. Chad was well within his rights to refuse to recite the pledge, since this incident happened in 1982. Little did I know at the time that this incident was preceded by several other incidents of conflict between religion and school.
Settle v. Dicksen County School Board
In a 1995 case involving a ninth-grade student and her English teacher, a violation of the student's free speech rights was at issue. Brittney Settle, by next friend Jerry Settle, sued her English teacher Dana Ramsey, claiming that Ms. Ramsey's refusal to accept her research paper topic on the life of Jesus Christ violated her right to free speech under the First Amendment. After hearing evidence, the district court granted summary judgement and dismissed the case. On appeal, the district court's judgement was affirmed.
Although this case may seem to include issues that address the Establishment Clause or the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, the case brought against Ms. Ramsey has been challenged as a free speech violation. Without all the facts of the case, it could appear that Brittney's right to free speech was indeed violated. Some important details in the case will provide a more complete description of the events at issue.
Ms. Ramsey assigned a research paper to her ninth-grade students and allowed her students to select, contingent upon her approval, their own topic. She required that the papers be "interesting, researchable and decent." Brittney originally signed up to write a paper about "drama" and later decided to change her topic to "The Life of Jesus Christ" without consulting Ms. Ramsey first. Ms. Ramsey then informed Brittney that she would have to select another topic. After an intervention with Brittney, her father and the school's principal, Ms. Ramsey said that she would accept a paper on religion as long as it was not focused solely on Christianity or the Life of Christ. Brittney's family decided to take the issue before the school board and then to file a law suit after Brittney submitted and Ms. Ramsey rejected an new outline entitled, "A Scientific and Historical Approach to Jesus Christ" and gave Brittney a zero for the assignment.
During the hearing, Ms. Ramsey stated six reasons for refusing Brittney's research paper topic as presented. Below are the reasons she provided, paraphrased:
1) Ms. Ramsey claims that Brittney failed to follow protocol by not obtaining prior approval before changing her topic from "drama."
2) Ms. Ramsey claimed it would have been difficult to grade a research paper on a topic concerning Jesus Christ and that any criticisms could be misconstrued by Brittney as being critical of her religious views.
3) Ms. Ramsey did not believe that dealing with religious beliefs is something that is to be done in school.
4) Ms. Ramsey believed that Brittney's knowledge of Jesus Christ would inhibit her from doing extensive research on the topic, thus losing the effect of the assignment.
5) Ms. Ramsey believed that "the law says we are not to deal with religious issues in the classroom."
6) Ms. Ramsey required students to use four sources, and most if not all of the sources containing information about Jesus Christ derive form one source, the Bible.
The case relied on Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1980) and was dismissed on a motion for summary judgement. Brittney then appealed on two grounds involving the First Amendment ad the Fourteenth Amendment.
In discussion pursuant to the appeal in reference to Epperson v. Arkansas, it was noted that, "Courts do not and cannot intervene in the resolution of conflicts which arise in the daily operation of school systems and which do not directly and sharply implicate basic constitutional values." In a nutshell, teachers must maintain a reasonable degree of pedagogical control over assignments made in their classrooms, even if the teacher fails to foresee any inadequacies the instructions may contain. In the Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1980) case, the Supreme Court stated that, "educators do not offend the First Amendment y exercising editorial control over the style and context of student speech in school-sponsored activities so long as their actions are reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns." The plaintiff's lawyer claimed that Ms. Ramsey's actions did indeed limit Brittney's free speech because of Ms. Ramsey's hostility towards Brittney's religion. There was no basis found for this claim, and the judgement of the district court was affirmed.
The concurring opinion by Circuit Judge Alice M. Batchelder presents analysis of this case in a completely different light. She states that the case does not involve the issue of Brittney's First Amendment rights but that of the power possessed by Ms. Ramsey to determine what topic is appropriate to satisfy an assignment for her class. The restriction imposed by Ms. Ramsey was not that of restricting free speech but that of restricting a topic choice. Perhaps Ms. Ramsey was a bit unclear in describing the requirements for selecting a research paper topic, yet this is not of substantial quality to merit a violation of Brittney's free expression. Judge Batchelder so eloquently sums up her thoughts by stating, "The bottom line is that when a teacher makes an assignment, even if she does it poorly, the student has no constitutional right to do something other than that assignment and receive credit for it. It is not necessary to try to cram this situation into the framework of constitutional precedent, because there is no constitutional question."
Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District
Lamb's Chapel, an evangelical church, was denied after-hours use of school facilities in order to show a series of six videos related to family values. Section 414 of the New York Education Law adopted rules for ten permitted uses of schools for after-hour activities. The Board of Center Moriches Union Free School District chose to allow that the school be used for social, civic, or recreational use (rule 10) and by political organizations, if in compliance with section 414 (rule 8). Lamb's Chapel requested and was denied twice the use of this facility for the purpose of showing these films. They argue that to deny their request violates rule 10 and that exhibiting these films would not under any other pretext be denied, that the request was denied solely because the presentation would have been presented from a religious perspective. The school claimed a fear of violating the Establishment Clause, but the court held that permitting such an act would not violate this clause. The First Amendment forbids the government to regulate speech in a manner such as to favor one viewpoint over another. In denying Lamb Chapel's request, the school would clearly hinder the church's viewpoint. Ironically, the school was concerned that it would wrongly advance Lamb Chapel's views, and in turn was found to wrongly inhibit their rights.
Analysis of Settle and Lamb's Chapel
Both cases mentioned above contain issues involving how religious beliefs are viewed by entities with power to control their presence. They emphasize the infamous "catch 22" in which schools can become all to easily entangled when confronted with religious issues. Several cases dealing with prayer and Bible reading in schools have been litigated. There are many issues to be considered in dealing with these cases. In particular, the age of the students involved is of great importance. It is believed that, because younger children are more impressionable they are "easier targets" and should be more closely guarded against any advocators of religion. On the other hand, older students are thought to have a more mature and analytical ability to judge what is happening around them and are not as easily swayed. Occasionally, as in Settle, older students may feel the need to stand up for their beliefs and question an authority figure as to religious issues in a writing assignment.
Teachers are charged with the mission to be equipped to handle such delicate issues as they arise in classroom situations. As in the Settle case, I am still not convinced that the teacher's arguments for not accepting Brittney's topic choice are not based solely on religious objections. I wonder if Ms. Ramsey would have allowed a research paper on "The Life of Abraham Lincoln."
Teachers must be cognizant of the impending "catch 22" that exists in dealing with assignments which could invoke religious issues in the classroom. There is a fine line between denying a student's religious freedom while maintaining a neutral viewpoint when confronting these situations. To analyze an historic event such as a battle or the life of a great composer requires the same analytical and critical thinking skills as does researching the life and trials of Jesus Christ. How self-righteous of us to believe that to research a religious topic is any less educational than a traditional curriculum-guided topic. Are we not violating a student's freedom to choose if we allow his peers to freely choose from nonreligious topics while prohibiting their selection of religious topics? Teachers are then charged with the duty to create writing assignments that are specific as to their content and to arm themselves with knowledge of legal cases such as Settle to help avoid litigation. Effective communication and developed relationships between the teacher and students' parents will also ease any potential conflicts.
Lamb's Chapel was also confronted with a "catch 22" situation when it attempted to use the school for what they considered an educational and much needed service to the community. The school was so intent on not advocating a religion that it wrongly violated the right of this group to use the facility. A group who is diametrically opposed to Lamb's Chapel would have the same privilege to use the school for its own purposes, as long as they follow the guidelines outlined in the provisions of section 414 of the New York Education Law.
The bottom line in both of these cases is that people will probably dispute religious issues until the end of time. Our government has tried to establish in our Constitution the framework for dealing with such issues in a neutral manner. The best we can do is try to adhere to this viewpoint of neutrality as much as possible. I find this wholly ironic, however, because in most religions, followers are encouraged to "spread the word" about their beliefs, and this is the absolute antithesis of our governmental proclamation of neutrality towards religion.
Reflections
Daily, teachers and other school officials face difficult issues regarding students' rights as they pertain to religious issues. It is a difficult task to balance noninterference with an individual's religious freedom without advocating or appearing to advocate a particular religion. In terms of all assignments and writing assignments in particular, educators need to be crystal clear in their requirements before the task is assigned. Teachers need not be afraid to exercise their pedagogical expertise and duty to guide students in their academic pursuits. Being aware of how the Amendments have been interpreted in specific cases should help guide administrators and teachers in future decisions.
The world is constantly changing, and rules and laws that govern them are changing too. The laws will not please all of the people all of the time, as we do not live in a Utopian society. What we can rely on is that constant revision and change in case law is almost inevitable. As our society progresses (or retrogresses, depending on your view), shifts in decision-making and law should be expected.
When reflecting on the severity of a teacher's charge to balance the clash of religion and society, ponder the story of a wife and a mother of five who, because of her unwavering religious convictions as a Jehovah's Witness denied a blood transfusion which would have saved her life.
References
Alexander, K. and Alexander, M. (1998). American Public School Law. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing
http://w3.trib.com/FACT/1st.religion.html FREEDOM OF RELIGION:An overall view of religious liberty as defined by U.S. Supreme Court cases
http://www.law.cornell.edu:80/constitution/constitution.overview.html The Constitution of the United States of America
Written 11/3/99 Revised 11/13/99