Wednesday, March 4, 2015
Plaintiffs in Swainsboro Primary School in Emanuel County, Georgia, have filed suit against the district, alleging that daily prayers are held in the classrooms. They add that teachers pressured their children to participate and even punished them for not doing so. "[O]ne child was proselytized and the other felt so uncomfortable at school that [the] parents began home schooling the child." The parents parents complained, but allege the matters only worsened afterward. These are rather incredible claims, but if even a portion of them are true, they clearly represent First Amendment violations. School officials have not responded to requests for comment.
See here for more on the Swainsboro story, as well as other school prayer disputes currently under review.
Thursday, February 12, 2015
New Jersey State Court Finds That Pledge of Allegiance Statute Does Not Violate the State Constitution
A New Jersey Superior Court found this month that a state statute requiring schoolchildren to recite the pledge of allegiance (and its "under God" phrase) did not violate the state constitution's equal protection and establishment clauses. Given that the Massachusetts Supreme Court decided a similar case last May (Jane Doe v. Acton-Boxborough Regional School District), the more recent ruling adds to the cases finding that the pledge of allegiance ceremonies in schools are constitutionally permissible. In the February 2015 case, American Humanist Ass’n v. Matawan-Aberdeen Reg. Sch. Dist., the lead plaintiffs were parents of schoolchildren who challenged New Jersey's pledge statute that required schools to include a salute to the U.S. flag and recitation of the pledge of allegiance each day. The plaintiffs, along with the American Humanist Association, alleged that children who do not participate are nevertheless having the pledge's religious language imposed on them and could suffer exclusion if they choose not to participate. The state court found that the statute did not implicate children's religious freedom because participation in the pledge is voluntary. The court also found that expunging the words "under God" from the pledge was unnecessary because the purpose of public schools is to foster ideas without requiring students to adhere to them. The court rejected the equal protection claim, finding no proof that the plaintiffs' children were discriminated against because of their beliefs. Read American Humanist Ass’n v. Matawan-Aberdeen Reg. Sch. Dist., No. 1317-14 (N.J. Super. Ct. Feb. 4, 2015) here.
Wednesday, February 4, 2015
In 2012, Indiana House Speaker Brian Bosma shelved a Senate bill "that would have allowed public schools to teach creationism alongside evolution in science classes." Specifically, public schools would have been permitted to teach creationism as long as they taught it alongside "origin-of-life theories from multiple religions: Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and Scientology." The bill passed the Indiana Senate, but Representative Bosma squashed the bill upon its arrival in the House, recognizing the bill as a "lawsuit waiting to happen."
Now, the Senate is pushing the issue again in Senate Bill 562. Similar to its predecessor, this proposal would protect teachers from disciplinary action for exploring alternative theories to evolution in class. This new bill, however, cleverly frames this issue as freeing teachers to help
students to understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and weaknesses of existing conclusions and theories being presented in a course being taught by the teacher.
The bill then adds limiting language, stating:
This section protects only the teaching of scientific information, and may not be construed to promote: (1) any religious or nonreligious doctrine; (2) discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs or nonbeliefs; or (3) discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion.
Thursday, January 29, 2015
Last spring, Middlebury Community Schools in Indiana terminated Kevin Pack, a probationary teacher. It cited immorality, insubordination, incompetence, neglect of duty, and other just cause as the basis. Pack fired back, arguing that he was terminated because he is an atheist and had objected to the principal's comments and actions in regard to religion. For instance, Pack indicates that the principal had sent an email to the entire staff, saying “May God grant you [safe] travel,” and “Please get on your knees and pray for good weather days during finals.” At one point, Pack lodged a formal religious harassment complaint against the principal.
The district later withdrew the charge of incompetence, but remained steadfast in allegations regarding Pack's poor teaching, his intermittent failure to discharge certain duties, and his inappropriate language and choice of material in the classroom. I, of course, have no basis for knowing who is correct here, but the case does raise important questions of mixed motives. First, assuming that Pack is a poor teacher, would Pack's shortcomings have generated his termination had he never expressed his religious objections? In other words, has the district dismissed other teachers with similar performance? Second, was the manner in which he expressed his religious objections, rather than the objections themselves, the basis for his termination? It is possible that he has very poor interpersonal skills and did not work well with other or follow the rules.
His employment situation aside, did the principal's behavior ever rise to the level of an Establishment Clause violation? Pack has not raised this last point, but has filed an employment discrimination suit against the district.
Monday, January 12, 2015
South Carolina legislators have put forth two bills to require gun safety and Second Amendment curriculum in schools. Putting aside the fact that South Carolina's school system was declared constitutionally inadequate this winter, these bills are hard to appreciate. First, while it is important for state legislatures' to lead on education issues, rather than devolving all discretion to local school districts, anytime any one toys with the curriculum for political purposes it creates educational and legal problems. See here, here, here, and here. As I teach educational law each year, I often remind my students that we see so many religion and speech cases in education because adults cannot seem to help themselves from using education as their playground.
Second, one of the sponsors of the bill said he was prompted to write it after learning of a local student who was suspended and arrested over a story he wrote for class about shooting a dinosaur. This, says the legislature, was a travesty under both the First and Second Amendments. He is probably correct about the former. (See here for my earlier post on the suspension.) If there was any reason to believe that weapons curriculum might mitigate the use of zero tolerance policies against students, the bill might be innovative. But the more obvious solution would seem to be to address zero tolerance policies themselves or train teachers on students' First Amendment rights.
Thursday, December 18, 2014
Taylor Bell, a high school student in Mississippi, had heard that some of the male coaches at his school had been sexually harassing female students. Taylor said he did not bring the issue to the administration because it had been warned before and done nothing. Taylor decided to take matters into his own hands. He wrote a rap song about the issue--which I will not reproduce here due to its length--performed it, and posted it to youtube. The song named coaches, recounted allegations, and made a number of provocative allusions. In a monologue preceding the actual rap, he explained his motivations:
A lot of people been asking me lately you know what was my
reasoning behind creating P.S. Koaches. It's . . . something that's
been going on . . . for a long time  that I just felt like I needed to
address. I'm an artist . . . I speak real life experience. . . . The way
I look at it, one day, I'm going to have a child. If something like
this was going on with my child . . . it'd be 4:30. . . . That's just
how it is . . .
He later added that he wanted people, including school officials, to "more clearly understand exactly what [he] was saying" in the song. The next day disciplinary proceedings commenced against him at school. He was suspended and sent to alternative school. According to the district, "Taylor Bell did threaten, harass and intimidate school employees in violation of School Board policy and Mississippi State Law."
Tuesday, December 9, 2014
Last week, the Department of Public Instruction "highly recommend[ed]" that social studies teachers use the curriculum it is paying The Bill of Rights Institute, a purportedly conservative group, to develop. The Institute receives grants from the Koch brothers, who are extremely politically active and conservative, and their foundations. It is also worth noting that the state contract to develop materials was sole-sourced to the Institute. The state's explanation was that the Institute was the only one qualified to develop a founding principles curriculum. Harry Watson, a history professor at UNC-Chapel Hill, said "I think the Koch brothers have demonstrated they have a strong and active partisan interest in politics,” he said. “I don’t think the public school curriculum should be written from a partisan perspective.”
The Institute may very well produce a balanced curriculum. In that event, the sole sourcing of the materials may be the only question, but if the final curriculum is intentionally skewed, it will implicate the same legal issues I discussed last week in regard to Texas's recent textbook selections. North Carolina teachers, however, still question why the Department of Public Instruction is dictating specific curriculum in social studies because it does not in other areas. Moreover, local teachers indicate that they are already using the founding documents and discussing their principles in class. Thus, the Institute's curriculum will either be redundant of their current teaching practices or, they fear, impose a narrow perspective of the founding principles.
Friday, December 5, 2014
Given the size of its student population, the Texas Board of Education's decisions about which books to approve and purchase have an enormous effect on the overall market. The Board's deliberations seem to get more and more political each year. Last year, I posted on the Board's ongoing saga to select biology books that included creationism, and I referenced its 2010 decision to adopt history and economics books with a decidedly conservative slant. Late last month, they were at it again.
According to local reports, the state has approved new history textbooks with even more revisionist history in them. The Texas Freedom Network indicates, for instance, that "the new textbooks also include passages that suggest Moses influenced the writing of the Constitution and that the roots of democracy can be found in the Old Testament. Scholars from across the country have said such claims are inaccurate and mislead students about the historical record."
The Supreme Court has recognized that the state and its schools have the right to promote and inculcate values and good citizenship, but in Island Tree School District Board of Education v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853 (1982) and West Virginia v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943), the Court emphasized the authority has its limits. The state cannot forcefully indoctrinate students or intentionally subvert access to information. Deciding which side of the line educators' actions falls on can be difficult, but in Loewen v. Turnipseed, 488 F. Supp. 1138 (N.D. Miss. 1980), the district court confronted a situation analogous to the ongoing saga in Texas.
In Loewen, the state had refused to include Mississippi: Conflict and Change--which told the less than laudatory history of discrimination in Mississippi--on the state's list of approved history books, but had included another book that, according to plaintiffs, was a "symbol of resistance to integration in Mississippi schools." The court did not strike the latter book, but did find the exclusion of the first was unconstitutional based on the aforementioned cases. Key in Loewen were procedural anomalies and problematic comments on the record by the state in regard to Mississippi: Conflict and Change.
Monday, December 1, 2014
Over the past year, there has been a tremendous amount of discussion on this blog (e.g., here, here, here, and here) and elsewhere about how schools prosecute and prevent rape, as well as deal with its aftermath. The law applies to all schools that receive federal funds, but the conversation has focused almost exclusively on colleges and universities. Last week, students in Oklahoma revealed how the problem can play out in public high schools.
Three students in Norman Public Schools accused a male classmate of sexually assaulting them. The school acted swiftly to remove the male student from school. The students' complaints, however, are in regard to the environment that developed afterward. They say that the alleged assailant's friends have now begun bullying them and it has not stopped. As a result, they withdrew from Norman High School. Now hundreds of other students have come to the girls defense, stagging a walkout protest last week. Whether there was a hostile environment and the school failed to adequately respond remains to be seen, but these students, like those concerned with curriculum issues in Colorado, have certainly found a way to shine a spotlight on the issue.
Thursday, November 13, 2014
In Montgomery County, Maryland, Muslim community leaders requested that the school district close school on the holy day of Eid al-Adha. Their rationale was that school is closed on major Christian and Jewish holidays and that it would be equitable to close on the Muslim holiday as well. While Muslim students' absences on religious holidays are excused, they still miss important classroom time and their families wanted to avoid this. Thus, community leaders argued the only fair thing to do would be to close on Eid al-Adha as well.
Wednesday, November 5, 2014
Two new articles of note are available on westlaw now. They are about two entirely different trends, but suggest a huge irony when read together.
Janet R. Decker, Facebook Phobia! The Misguided Proliferation of Restrictive Social Networking Policies For School Employees, 9 NW J. L. & Soc. Pol'y 163 (2014). The abstract states:
Employers have dismissed and disciplined teachers and other school employees for posting controversial material and engaging in inappropriate employee-student relationships over social networking. In response, schools have enacted policies that greatly restrict educators' social networking. This Article examines whether restrictive social networking policies are necessary. After analyzing the relevant state legislation, statewide guidance, district policies, and case law, this article argues that restrictive policies are unwarranted and misguided. School districts have prevailed in the vast majority of the cases because they already have the legal authority to discipline employees under existing law. This Article also recommends how policymakers and school leaders could respond to school employees' social networking more effectively.
Brandi LaBanc, Kerry Melear, and Brian Hemphill's new article, The Debate over Campus-Based Gun Control Legislation, 40 J.C. & U.L. 397 (2014), begins with an overview of mass and public shootings that have led to the increase in gun control legislation. Because the Second Amendment is often implicated by these debates, the authors provide an outline of the amendment and related Supreme Court decisions. The authors then focus on "state firearm laws that resonate within higher education, including state laws permitting concealed weapons on campus and other gun-related legislation." Specifically, in 2013 four states passed gun control laws affecting higher institutions (Alaska, Arkansas, Texas, and New York), and all four laws are briefly discussed. The evaluates the arguments for both allowing and prohibiting firearms on college campuses. Finally, the authors conclude with a best practices discussion.
Tuesday, October 28, 2014
Raul R. Calvoz, Bradley W. Davis, and Mark A. Gooden's new article, Constitutional Implications of School Punishment for Cyber Bullying, 2014 Cardozo L. Rev. de novo 104, is available. It addresses the constitutional and legal challenges that may stand in the way of administrators and legislators' attempts to combat cyber bullying. First, since the acts most frequently associated with cyber bullying involve written words, a student's First Amendment right to free speech is implicated. Second, due to the mobile nature of technology, a student's actions outside of school grounds, even if they have an incidental impact on school grounds, raise the question of whether schools have jurisdiction to discipline the students.
The authors frame their analysis within the context of the substantial disruption test from Tinker v. Des Moines. In Tinker, the Supreme Court held that school administrators may regulate student speech if the regulation aims at preventing a foreseeable: (1) material or substantial disruption in the school environment; or (2) invasion of the rights of others. The authors reason that school administrators may, without violating students' constitutional rights, regulate and prohibit any bullying (including cyber bulling) which falls into either of those two categories. However, the jurisdictional question complicates matters.
Tuesday, September 30, 2014
A new student comment by Talon Hurst, Give Me Your Password: The Intrusive Social Media Policies in Our Schools, 22 CommLaw Conspectus 196 (2014), discusses social media policies "that allow school officials to request or demand students to consent to their social media accounts being accessed or monitored[.]" The author argues that these policies violate students' First and Fourth Amendment rights, and calls for judicial review of their constitutionality. Hurst emphasizes that these kinds of social media policies are not only a concern in primary and secondary schools, but also growing in prevalence at a number of colleges and universities, especially in regards to student athletes. Who knew colleges and universities were so interested in their students?
Hurst points to school officials at the University of North Carolina, who "force their student-athletes to consent to the monitoring of their social network accounts by signing a social media policy[,]" which states that "'[e]ach team must identify at least one coach or administrator who is responsible for having access to and regularly monitoring the content of team members' social networking sites and posting.'"
Friday, September 26, 2014
High school students protesting proposed changes to the history curriculum in Denver area schools have gained national attention in recent days. The pertinent portion of the proposal before the school board states:
Materials should promote citizenship, patriotism, essentials and benefits of the free enterprise system, respect for authority and respect for individual rights. Materials should not encourage or condone civil disorder, social strife or disregard of the law. Instructional materials should present positive aspects of the United States and its heritage. Content pertaining to political and social movements in history should present balanced and factual treatment of the positions.
The number of students protesting swelled to seven hundred to one thousand on Wednesday. As an educator, I am heartened to see students taking such a serious interest in their education, particularly history, and making use of the First Amendment rights. As a law professor, I am not sure their position has legal grounding. Rather, their claim, if they have one, is of policy. I agree with their substantive position--that the school should not censor the truth or bend the historical narrative--but I am not sure the proposed policy crosses the line of permissible conduct.
Monday, September 22, 2014
Shortly after the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Edwardsville, Illinois Superintendent Ed Hightower told his teachers to not bring up or discuss the situation in Ferguson and, if students brought it up, to change the subject. His rationale, “this situation in Ferguson-Florissant has become a situation whereby there are so many facts that are unknown.” The initial impetus was apparently complaints by parents about teachers sharing their opinions on Ferguson. That motivation would have obviously raised First Amendment red flags. In a subsequent statement, he tried to fit his directive closer to the law, stating:
We felt it was important to take the time to calm a potential situation at the high school and to prepare administrators and teachers to approach this critical issue in an objective, fact-based manner. Everyone has an opinion — the sharing of which can be polarizing. Far too many facts remain unknown, and without these facts, none of us is in the best position to moderate between opposing views.
Friday, September 19, 2014
Those who seek to include more religion in school often perceive the ACLU as waging war on religion. A recent story out of Louisiana demonstrates that perception is wrong. The ACLU distinguishes between official school acts that endorse religion or subtly coerce non-believers into religious activity and those school acts that interfere with students's free exercise of religion.
At the beginning of the school year, South Plaquemines High School in Louisiana suspended a Rastafarian boy school and forbade him from returning until he cut his dreadlocks. They cited him with violating the school's dress code, which prohibits hair below the collar. The next week he returned to school with his hair pinned up, but told him he was still in violation of the dress code.
Rastafarians' religious beliefs, although some charge it is just a way of life, forbid them from cutting their hair, and the ACLU of Lousisiana has stepped in to support the boy for this reason. “The wearing of dreadlocks for (the student) is akin to the wearing of a religious icon by another student,” the ACLU said in a letter. “We would object if the school were to tell a Christian student they could not wear a cross or if it were to permit the wearing of religious icons of one faith and prohibited those of another faith. In discriminating against (the student’s) religious beliefs, the school is expressing a preference for certain religions, which is unacceptable.” The ACLU charges that the district's actions violate the First Amendment and Louisiana’s Preservation of Religious Freedom Act.
Tuesday, September 9, 2014
Today, the Judiciary Committee in the U.S. House of Representatives is holding a hearing on the need for a constitutional amendment to protect parental rights. Of concern to proponents are state incursions on the ability of parents to direct the education and medical decisions of their children. Such an amendment will go nowhere fast, but the testimony and discussion should be of interest to scholars and advocates. The committee will hear testimony from Michael Farris, Chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Association; Professor Catherine Ross, George Washington University Law School; and Wendy Wright, Vice President of the Center for Family and Human Rights Institute. Details on the hearing and links to their written testimony can be found here.
Tuesday, September 2, 2014
New Hampshire Supreme Court Reinstates Tuition Tax Credit Program But Avoids Law’s Constitutionality
A unanimous New Hampshire Supreme Court rejected a challenge last week to the state’s tuition tax credit law but side-stepped the issue of its constitutionality. The state supreme court dismissed Duncan v. State of New Hampshire on standing grounds, holding that a recent amendment to the law allowing taxpayer standing was insufficient to confer standing under the state constitution. While New Hampshire’s constitution does not have a corresponding provision to the federal constitution’s Article III standing clause, the court interpreted a provision authorizing the supreme court to rule upon “upon important questions of law and upon solemn occasions” to prohibit issuing advisory opinions to private persons. The N.H. Supreme Court’s ruling reinstates a law allowing businesses to receive an 85 percent tax credit when they donate to private scholarship organizations for students who attend private school, homeschool or an out-of-district public school. A lower court ruled last year that the tax credit program unconstitutionally sent public tax dollars to private religious schools. Right now, the tax credit program is so small that it may be difficult to demonstrate harm in a future legal challenge, Bill Duncan, state Board of Education member and lead plaintiff, told NPR. The state’s first scholarship program raised $250,000 dollars for scholarships in 2013, but $50,000 this year, albeit in the shadow of the lower-court ruling. The state program would allow up to to $5.1 million in tax credits to be claimed this year. Read Duncan v. State of New Hampshire here.
Thursday, August 14, 2014
In October 2012, a controversy arose at Kountze High School in Kountze, Texas, over the constitutionality of permitting, and then banning, the high school's cheerleaders from displaying religious messages on the banners that the football team runs through at games. Initially, the Freedom From Religion Foundation challenged the banners as school sponsored speech. The school district agreed and prohibited the banners. The cheerleaders then sued, claiming that the school was infringing on their constitutional rights by limiting their speech. A state trial court agreed. After an intermediate court declared the case moot, it is now on petition to the state supreme court.
The case is particularly fascinating for three reasons. First, it implicates the fine line between religious endorsement and religious accommodation that often consumes so much time in education law classes. Second, it raises unique and difficult circumstances for assessing school sponsored speech. Thinking of my own experiences two decades ago, it seemed cheerleaders were on their own in artistically expressing themselves through banners. I recall them sitting on the gym room floor acting freely. It is hard to imagine that a school could permissibly engage in content based or religious based limitation of that expression.
Tuesday, July 29, 2014
The Supreme Court in Engel v. Vitale in 1962 held that prayer led by or encouraged by school officials in public schools is unconstitutional. Nonetheless, the practice continues in a number of public schools today. Recently, for example, a parent complained that a teacher had led prayer at a school banquet in Vigo County, Wisconsin. It took a year and lawsuit by a local foundation to get the district to agree to eliminate teacher led prayer.
Many school districts have appeared eager, for some time, to reintroduce official prayer in some aspect of their schools. The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Town of Greece v. Galloway may have further galvanized them. In Town of Greece, the Court ruled in favor of allowing sectarian prayers at public town meetings. Now, school districts like Pickens County, South Carolina are taking the Supreme Court’s decision a step further, reading it as a green-light to reinstate sectarian prayer in school board meetings as well.