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 in Religion in the the Schools Schools Comunicación y Gerencia Public School Law Public School Law William Allan Kritsonis, PhD William Allan Kritsonis, PhD Prairie View A & M University Prairie View A & M University
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
8/14/2019 Religion, Public School Law, Dr. W.A. Kritsonis
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.
8/14/2019 Religion, Public School Law, Dr. W.A. Kritsonis
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.
8/14/2019 Religion, Public School Law, Dr. W.A. Kritsonis
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.
8/14/2019 Religion, Public School Law, Dr. W.A. Kritsonis
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.
8/14/2019 Religion, Public School Law, Dr. W.A. Kritsonis
(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
8/14/2019 Religion, Public School Law, Dr. W.A. Kritsonis
(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”.
8/14/2019 Religion, Public School Law, Dr. W.A. Kritsonis
• 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
8/14/2019 Religion, Public School Law, Dr. W.A. Kritsonis
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)
8/14/2019 Religion, Public School Law, Dr. W.A. Kritsonis
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.