Religion, Public School Law, Dr. W.A. Kritsonis

8/14/2019 Religion, Public School Law, Dr. W.A. Kritsonis

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/religion-public-school-law-dr-wa-kritsonis 1/33

Religion inReligion inthethe

SchoolsSchools

Comunicación y Gerencia

Public School LawPublic School Law

William Allan Kritsonis, PhDWilliam Allan Kritsonis, PhD

Prairie View A & M UniversityPrairie View A & M University



•Religion in the public school system

becomes more and morecontroversial due to diversity in

today’s family backgrounds and

beliefs.•Contemporary issues make it even

more difficult to draw the line

between what is legal and what is

not.



Legal Framework

• Since our US Constitution and Bill of Rights

were written by our forefathers of this country, it

was apparent that they took the relationship

between government and religion seriously.• The First Amendment to the US Constitution

began with “Congress shall make no law

respecting an establishment of religion, or

prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”



Provisions through the Fourteenth

Amendment: two components• Establishment clause: states that

“Congress shall make no law respecting

an establishment of religion”• Free exercise clause: states that “or

prohibits the free exercise thereof”.

• These provisions are also know as the“Jeffersonian Principle of separation of

church and state”.



Landmark cases:

• Everson v. Board of Education (1947)- first major case involving the establishment clause and education.

• McCollum v. Board of Education (1948)• Zorach v. Clauson (1952)

Judges in these cases did not agree and

sometimes switched sides. Much criticismis targeted towards Supreme Courtdecisions and continues today.



1787 Northwest Ordinance, 1st

federal act to aid in education• States that “religion, morality, and

knowledge being essential to good

government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of

education shall forever be encouraged”.

• This federal act aided Justices to developand set up guidelines to resolve

complicated church-state issues.



These guidelines were known as

the “Lemon guidelines” 1st guideline: the purpose of a challenged law or

practice must be secular (not sectarian)

2nd guideline: the primary effect of the law or practice must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion

3rd guideline: the law or practice must not involveexcessive entanglement between state and

church (aids private schools)**For a law to be constitutional, it had to passall three guidelines; a law must be neutralregarding religion; neither promoting or retarding it.



Landmark cases involving Lemon

guidelines:• Agular v. Felton (1985)

• Lee v. Weisman, (1992)

• Board of Education of Kryas Joel Village School

District v. Grument (1994)

• Rosenberger v. University of Virginia (1995)

• Agostini v. Felton (1997)



Free Exercise of Religion

• Under the free exercise clause, it assuresthat people shall be free to exercise their religious beliefs without government

restraint or persecution.• This applies to states and their political

subdivisions, including public school

districts, under the Fourteenth Amendment.• Yet, there are limits to what courts will

allow under the free exercise clause.



Examples of where religion has its

limitations by:• Beliefs accompanied by actions-

ex. In Reynolds v. United States (1878) Based

on their belief, Mormons believe to have a right to polygamy, Congress has a right to prohibit its

practice.

• Sacrifices

• Heresy (United States v. Ballard, 1944)



Provisions that

protect religion:• Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights ActTitle VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act• Chapter 21 of the Texas Labor CodeChapter 21 of the Texas Labor Code• § 106.001 of Title 5 of the Civil Practices and106.001 of Title 5 of the Civil Practices and

Remedies CodeRemedies Code• Texas Education CodeTexas Education Code § 25.90125.901• Texas Religion Freedom Act, Texas Legislature 1999Texas Religion Freedom Act, Texas Legislature 1999• The 1993 U.S. Supreme ruling-The 1993 U.S. Supreme ruling- Lamb’s Chapel v.Lamb’s Chapel v.

Center Moriches Union Free School District Center Moriches Union Free School District (prohibits(prohibitsschool officials from denying religious groups theschool officials from denying religious groups thesame access to school facilities afforded to other same access to school facilities afforded to other community organizations.community organizations.



Other cases involving the free

exercise clause:• Milford Central School of Milford, New

York v. U.S. Supreme Court (2001)

• Campbell v. St. Tammany Parish SchoolBoard (2003)

• Roe v. Klein ISD (1982)

• Torcaso v. Watkins (1961)



ContemporarContemporary Issuesy Issues



The Pledge of

Allegiance• The Texas Education Code, TEC § 25.082, requiresstudents to recite the pledge of allegiance to both theU.S. and Texas flag in all public school systems.

• In 1954, Congress added “under God” following “onenation”.• This addition has created public debate.(ex. Goetz v.

Ansell, 1973; Elk Grove Unified Scool District v,Newdow, 2004).

• TEC § 1.004, permits public schools and institutionsof higher education to post the national motto “In God We Trust”.

* Today, this motto has not been declared unconstitutional.



School Prayer • School-sponsored or Employee led prayer-arguments have

been advanced that prohibiting state-mandated prayer programs in public schools inhibits the religious freedom of those who wish to say such prayers.

Landmark cases:• Engel v. Vitale (1962), School District of Abington v.

Schempp (1963), Meltzer v. Board of Public Instruction andKaren B. v. Treen (1981), Doe v. Duncanville ISD, (1995)

• Yet, the law is clear that neither the public school nor itsemployees may sponsor prayer at school or at extracurricular activities and athletic events.



School Prayer

(con’t)• Trying to bring prayer back into school,“silent meditationsilent meditation” ” was ruled in 1997 by theUS Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

in the Bown v. Gwinett County School Bown v. Gwinett County School case..

• Silent meditation authorizes public schoolsto set aside time for meditation or prayer,

protecting every student’s right to engage involuntary prayer.

h l



School Prayer

(con’t)• Invocations, benedictions, religious speeches atgraduation and baccalaureate ceremonies

– The US Department of Education has issued religiouspractices guidelines that provide that “where studentsor other private graduation speakers are selected onthe basis of genuinely neutral, evenhanded criteriaand retain control over the content of their expression..that expression is not attributable to the

school and therefore may not be restricted because of its religious content”.



Landmark cases:

• Marsh v. Chambers (1983)

• Jones v. Clear Lake ISD (1994)

• Harris v. Joint School District (1994)

• Ingebretsen v. Jackson Public School District (1996)• Doe v Santa FE ISD (1999)

Summary: Both the federal courts and the TEC recognizethat students can engage in personal prayer at school andat school-sponsored extracurricular and athletic events

separate and apart from school involvement.

hi



Teaching

Creation-Science• The US Supreme Court found absence of

a secular purpose and a neutral effect in

teaching evolution in the public school

system in the Epperson v. Arkansas case(1968).

• Would it be the same if a teacher taught

the biblical perspective of creation in apublic school?

C th t i t t t thi



Cases that points out to this

theoretical question:• In Edwards v. Aguillard (1987),the courts

settled and entitled that there were to be a

balance in the teaching of both creation and

evolution through the Creation-Science and

Evolution-Science Act ; prohibiting anyonefrom discriminating the Evolution-Science

under the basis of religion.

• It is important to note that a school district isnot confined to teaching only evolution.



• Yet, in the case Peloza v. Capistrano Unified

School District, the lower courts ruled in favor

of the districts to confine a teacher’s teaching

to evolution and cease attempting to influence

students toward personal religious beliefs.

• In Webster v. New Lenox, a social studiesteacher tried to also teach creation as a

means to balance views, but was ruled by the

Seventh Circuit that the teacher did not have aFirst Amendment right to teach creation-

science.



Secular Humanism

and Pagan Religion• “To require the teaching of every theory of

human origin, as alternative suggested by

plaintiffs, would be an unwarranted intrusion into

the authority of public school systems to control the academic curriculum”, decision note on

Wright v. Houston ISD (1972).

• Other similar cases: Smith v. Board of School

Commissioners of Mobile County (1987), Brownv. Woodland Joint Unified ISD



Religion in Classrooms,Choir Programs, and

Holiday Observances• Legally, teaching about religion requires a curriculumthat does not favor or denigrate any particular religionor religion in general and teachers who remainneutral.(Hall v. Board of School Commissioners,

1981)• Teaching religion is acceptable ultimately if it is used

for the purposes of comparing theories, for its historiccontent, and for “ the relationship to the advancementof civilization” and if it promotes religious tolerance.

• Other cases: Zorach v. Clauson (1952), Herdahl v.Pontotoc County School District (1996)



Six guidelines for teaching about

religion in the public school system:1. The school’s approach to religion must be academic, not

devotional.

2. The school may strive for student awareness of religion butshould not press for student acceptance of any one religion.

3. The school may sponsor study about religion but may notsponsor the practice of religion.

4. The school may expose students to a diversity of religiousviews but may not impose any particular view.

5. The school may educate about all religions but may notpromote or denigrate any religion.

6. The school may inform the student about various beliefs butshould not seek to confine him or her to any particular belief.

(*developed by seventeen religious and educational organizations)



Clergy in the School • TEC § 37.102 allows the district to

establish rules to protect the welfare of

students.

• TEC § 37.105 allows the district to require

identification of all persons and to refuse

entry to persons without legitimate

business.

• Schools cannot give the appearance of

endorsing religion (Oxford v. Beaumont

ISD, 2002)

Di t ib ti f R li i



Distribution of ReligiousLiterature

• It is impermissible that school personnel or outside organizations to distribute Bibles and

other religious material to public school students

on school grounds.• Yet, it is permissible to provide a place in a public

school where adherents of any faith may deposit

religious literature for voluntary student pickup.

• In 1992,in the case Clark v. Dallas ISD, a federal

judge ruled that a student may distribute religious

material being that this is within the ambit of the

First Amendment free speech clause.



Wearing Religious

Symbols• Under Title VII of the 1964 Civil RightsAct, the school district must accommodatereasonable a teacher’s wearing of

religious symbols and attire unless itwould be undue hardship to do so. (U.S. v.Board of Education for the School Districtof Philadelphia)

• Students also have limited personalgrooming rights under federal and statelaw. (Alabama and Coushatta Tribes of

Texas v. Big Sandy ISD)

Student Religious



Student ReligiousGroups and the Equal

Access Act • In the case Widmar v. Vicent (1981), the US Supreme Court upheld the right to student

groups to hold religious services in buildings

on a public university campus.• In 1984, Congress passed the Equal Access

Act which gives non-curriculum-related

student groups access to public secondary

schools during non-instructional time to

engage in religious, political, philosophical,

or other types of expression.

li i



Religious

Exemptions• West Virginia State Board of Education v.Barnette (1943)- most celebrated caseCourt ruled that the school board count not compel

Jehovah’s Witnesses to salute the flag.

This case asserted that the government may never compel a person to profess a belief.

TEC §26.010 gives parents the right to requestexemptions from school activities to which theyobject on religious or moral grounds.

other cases: Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972), Davisv.Page (1974), Mozert v. Hawkins County Board of Education (1987).

e g ous



e g ousExemptions (con’t)Congress enacted legislation in 1993 with the

Religious Freedom Restoration Act to protectreligious rights. This act:

– Provided that government shall not substantially

burden a person’s exercise of religion. – This act did not last long; this act was declared

unconstitutional (City of Boerne V. Flores (1997)

– Later in 1999, the Texas legislature entitle a similar

measure called the Texas Religion Freedom Act

(TRFA)- it gives both employees and students new

support for religiously motivated behavior.



. Other provisions that grant exemptions for religious

reasons from school related requirements are:

– TEC §26.010 which gives parents the right to request anexemption from classroom moral beliefs, provided the parent

presents a written request and the purpose is not to avoid a

test or prevent a child from taking a subject for an entire

semester. (in 1999, legislature eliminated the written

request)

– TEC §25.087 requires school districts to excuse a student

from school for religious observances.

– TEC §38.001 grants an exemption from immunizations

requirements for students entering elementary or secondary

schools upon presenting an affidavit stating that the student

“declines immunization for reasons of conscience, including

religious beliefs”.

A i t t



Assistance to

Sectarian Schools• Efforts have been made to have all students attend

public school (Pierce v. Society of Sisters,1995)

• Despite the rise of public schools, efforts have also

been made to find ways to aid private schools directly,or by providing tuition vouchers or tax credit for

students who enroll in these private schools.

• Only 11 percent of the total US school enrollment

attends private schools.

• 30 percent of the private schools are religiously

affiliated to the Roman Catholic religion.



Conclusion•

We cannot ignore the fact that there is a “thinline” in the relationship between education andreligion.

• It is also clear that the US Constitution doesmandate that the public school system remain

neutral regarding religion, yet at the same time,both the US and Texas constitutions providestrong support for individual freedom of religiousbelief and exercise.

• Endorsing or accommodating religion make it

difficult for all levels where decision making isinvolved.

Personal thought:

“It is not religion, but a relationship that

determines that connection in our spiritual life

Religion, Public School Law, Dr. W.A. Kritsonis

Documents

Transcript of Religion, Public School Law, Dr. W.A. Kritsonis