Significant facts
In 2009, Oregon State Legislature passed the Oregon Workplace Religious Freedom Act (OWRFA). The allows employees to observe their religious practices while at work. Employers are required to grant employees the right to wear religious clothes, grow beards, and take specific days off for religious purposes. The bill specifically states that public schools are excluded from the act. As a result, Sikhs have been barred from teaching in Oregon due to the fact they wear religious clothing, including turbans.
Normally religious organizations would commend OWRFA for its religious leeway. However, the religious freedom that Oregon is trying to expand on is now facing a potentially discriminatory situation. Oregon has already in acted a law that restricts teachers from wearing any religious paraphernalia when fulfilling any of their duties as a teacher in a public school; this law was challenged and upheld by the Oregon Supreme Court.
The uniqueness of the position a public school teacher holds lead to a statement by the spokesman for the Oregon State Department of Education, “In this case, the concern that a public school teacher would be imparting religious values to their students outweighs that teacher’s right to free expression.” Be that as it may, Portland attorney, Hari Ham Singh Khalsa disputing this statement stated, “It’s hard for me to imagine that just because somebody is wearing something that is required by their religion that this is in any way suggestive to students of an endorsement of the religion.” Understanding this presents a complex situation between the separation of church and state and whether the Establishment Clause has been violated.
Issue
Is it a violation of the Establishment Clause ...
... middle of paper ...
... Act is neutral and generally applicable for the fact that it is not singling out any one specific religion, nor is Oregon showing any hostilities towards religion or religious beliefs. The general welfare of the children is the main concern within a public school system, and the Act places minimal burdens upon the teachers. With the Act excluding teachers in the public school system, Oregon is maintaining the separation between church and state. Children do not have the capabilities to make educated decisions for themselves, which is what this Act is protecting. Adults have a greater understanding of different religions and religious beliefs and are capable of better toleration and respecting others beliefs.
Works Cited
Epstein, Lee, and Thomas Walker. Institutional Powers and Constraints. 8. Thousand Oaks: CQ Press, 2013. Print.
The United States Constitution
Baldridge, J.V., Curtis, D.V., Ecker, G.P., & Riley, G.L. (1977). Alternative models of governance in higher education. In G.L. Riley and J.V. Baldridge. Governing academic organization. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan Publishing.
The Court held that failing to accommodate a potential employee or an employee was enough to bring up a disparate treatment claim. It held that in order to make a claim based on disparate impact the plaintiff needs only to prove that the need for accommodation was the motive behind the employer’s refusal to hire them, not whether the employer knew about this need. Therefore, the Court determined that rather than imposing a knowledge standard, like the 10th Circuit Court did, motive was enough to violate Title VII since Abercrombie knew or suspected that Elauf wore the headscarf for religious reasons and did not want to accommodate her. “An employer may not make an applicant’s religious practice, confirmed or otherwise, a factor in employment decisions” (EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch, Inc., 2015). Finally, the Court held because of the description that Title VII gives for religion, it places religion as a protected class and therefore asks that it be given favored treatment over other
In a modern civilization, all three—religion, democracy and international good faith—complement and support each other” (Franklin D. Roosevelt: State of the Union message). This statement supported the idea that religion is associated with a well-functioning government. However, in the case of Everson v. Board of Education it was stated that, “The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach” (Hugo Black).
Mrs. Moreno and the other plaintiffs in this case believes religious education should be the responsibility of parents and religious communities, and not the public schools to which she sends her children (ACLU, 2007). Additionally, Mrs. Moreno and the other plaintiffs’ feels the use of their tax dollars to promote and endorse religion in the public school system is unconstitutional (ACLU, 2007).
Jahn, Karon L. “School Dress Codes v. The First Amendment: Ganging up on Student Attire.”
First Amendment Rights of Public School Students How the judicial branch rules in cases relating to the 1st and how they relate that to all the rights of public school students. This includes anything from flag burning to not saluting the flag to practicing religion in school. The main point of this paper is to focus on the fact that schools have a greater ability to restrict speech than government. Research Question Does government or school districts have the ability to restrict free speech? This is a very important question because this gives great power to one over the other.
Issues involving the apparel enforcements, including sexism, repressed self- identity, and punishment issues will be discussed within this paper. Literature Review The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the creation of laws offensive to religious groups and ensures their ability to freely practice, grants the freedom of speech, comply the freedom of the press, and allows the right to assemble peacefully. Adopted on December 15, 1791, it has served the United States of America for over one hundred years. Freedom of expression is a controversial topic when applied to the school dress code.
The other purpose of this act was to “Provide result of a general or neutral law. ”(RFRA Summary, Map of the RFRA)The only exception to this rule is, If the government can demonstrate the following three things, that there is a compelling state interest, that a particular law, rule, decision or action actually furthers that compelling state interest, if there is a compelling state interest and this action furthers it, then the government must use the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest. Notice that the burden is on the government; the government cannot simply state that it has a compelling interest, but it must also demonstrate each of the three requirements above. This section also states that this Act provides a cause of action or a defense for any person whose religious exercise has been burdened, and provides for legal fees.
We, all, have the opportunity to voice our opinion on subjects that matter to us. The First Amendment grants us freedom of speech and expression. However, this was not provided to all students in 1968. During this time, there were three students in Des Moines, Iowa, who wore black armbands to school. These armbands were a symbol of protest against the United States involvement in the Vietnam War. After the Des Moines School District heard about this plan, they instituted a policy banning the wearing of armbands, leading to the suspension of students. A lawsuit has been filed against the Des Moines School District, stating how this principal goes against the students’ First Amendment rights. Thus, in the Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District case, Justice Abe Fortes determined the policy to ban armbands is against the students’ First Amendment rights. Yet, Justice Hugo Black dissented with this decision, determining the principal is permissible under the First Amendment.
The legislation aspires to prohibit public-sector employees from wearing “objects such as headgear, clothing, jewelry or other religious affiliation”. These objects include items such as kippahs, turbans, hijabs, and large crucifixes. This ban would be intended to apply to all civil servants, including individuals such as teachers, doctors, nurses and police offiercers (Jake Flanagin, The Atlantic). At a hearing for Bill 60, Michelle Blanc, who is a transgender woman, spoke in support of the Bill, appealing to Quebecers' pro-LGBT feelings. “When I see a veil, the mental image I have is all of the gays who were hung high and low in the public square... in certain Arab countries”, Blanc had stated. Although same-sex relationships and the importance of being accepting of all religions have been two of the most controversial and highly debated topics, it is definitely not the right step to attack the Muslim religion and specific Arab countries in an attempt to defend Bill 60. Much like it is innapropriate to accuse the LGBT community of being anti-religion, it is equally innapropriate to accuse an entire religion for the horrible act of the hanging of gays in certain Arab countries. Not all gays are
This plainly states that public school teachers, principals, and boards are required to be religiously neutral. They may not promote a particular religion as being superior to any other, and may not promote religion in general as superior to a secular approach to life. They also may not promote secularism in general as superior to a religious approach to life, be antagonistic to religion in general or a particular religious belief, be antagonistic to secularism, and they must neither advance nor inhibit religion (Religion in Public).
Meyer , J. W. , and Rowan , B. “ Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth
Throughout the twentieth century, the United States Supreme Court has protected students’ rights to practice their religious beliefs, so long as they are not “disruptive, discriminatory, or coercive to peers who may not share those same beliefs” (Education Weekly, 2003, para. 3). In 1943, the Supreme Court ruling in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette stated that students could not be “forced to salute the flag or say the pledge of allegiance if it violates the individual’s conscience” (First Amendment Cyber Tribune, 2002). The 1963 decision in Engel v. Vitale made school prayer unconstitutional, and similarly found school prayer at graduation ceremonies in its 1992 Lee v. Weisman decision (First Amendment Cyber Tribune, 2002). Student-led prayer at public school football games was found unconstitutional in 2000 with the Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe (First Amendment C...
Staver, Mathew D. "Allowing Religious Expression in School Protects Students' Rights." Students' Rights. Ed. Jamuna Carroll. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2005. Opposing Viewpoints. Rpt. from "New Federal Guidelines a Real Blessing for Public Schools." Liberator Mar. 2003: 1-4. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 19 Nov. 2013.
The United States has continued to be a country where religion plays a major role in the lives of American citizens. Depending on the type of school students attend, organized prayer is mandatory, allowed, or banned. In the United States, organized prayer in public schools is prohibited because it goes against the Constitution’s separation of church and state (Jinkins 123). The United States promises religious freedom, but is yet to define the degree and limitation of that liberty. However, American citizens have been debating for many years, whether organized prayer should be an option or obligation in public schools. Some people believe that organized prayer or religious classes would be a benefit to young people and should be allowed in American public schools. Others: however, see this as an affront to the First Amendment and believe that religion does not belong in the classroom, and should never be permitted under any circumstances.