Concerned Mother Sues Chatham School District

Libby Hilsenrath, the mother of a middle school child, has filed a lawsuit against the Chatham School District in Chatham, New Jersey, claiming that the School District’s ‘World Cultures and Geography’ Social Studies curriculum violated her son’s First Amendment constitutional rights specified by the Establishment Clause. The plaintiff argues that the 7^th grade Social Studies course, particularly the unit titled Middle East and North Africa (MENA) promoted Islamic ideas over Christianity and Judaism. The plaintiff, through this legal action, seeks to prove that her son’s United States constitutional rights were violated and to prevent the Defendants from any further acts or practices similar to those that allegedly violated the Establishment Clause. She also seeks from the State nominal damages and covered litigation costs.

The events leading to this legal action took place in Chatham Middle School during the 2016-2017 academic school year. All 7^th graders at Chatham Middle School are required to take World Cultures and Geography in order to pass on to the 8^th grade. In January of 2017, the MENA unit began to educate students about the history of these regions as well as the religion of Islam, which is predominantly practiced in the areas. Each student at Chatham Middle School has access to Google Classroom, where he or she must fulfill homework assignments posted on the webpage outside of school. Hilsenrath was reviewing her child’s Google Classroom and saw the Geography assignment instructing students to watch an “Intro to Islam Video”, which goes forth in claiming that “Allah is the one God” and quotes the Quran stating it “is a perfect Guide for humanity” and “an eloquent guide from Allah” and finally ends with the statement “May God help us find the true faith, Islam. Ameen.” This video could be interpreted as an example of religious propaganda. In additional the Defendants posted a cartoon video describing the 5 pillars of Islam in a kid-friendly connotation. The mother was concerned that the videos were an attempt to promote conversion to Islam over other religions and thus violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by favoring one particular religion.

By analyzing this case, I aim to answer the broad question as to whether or not one 5-minute online video promoting Islam and another describing Islam through cartoon in a Geography class defies one’s First Amendment right under the Establishment Clause. The Establishment Clause states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”, which defends the idea that one religion cannot be considered the religion of the Nation. It also rejects any favorability or demanded participation by the government, and its institutions, towards one religion or non-religion over another. I argue that the video shown to students was not an infringement on the rights of the students, as the Chatham School District was not coercing the students to pray or practice the religion in any specific form. One could argue that the context of the video as propaganda could be educational without being a forced religious ideal. Finally, these two videos are part of a unit or a sub-segment of the entire course curriculum that covers all religions throughout the year in equal time allocated lectures, and therefore does not favor one religion over another.

In the historically critical case Lemon v. Kurtzman, the Supreme Court ruling created the “Lemon test” in order to evaluate future cases and determine whether one’s rights under the Establishment Clause have been infringed upon. The test states that for an action to be considered within one’s rights under the Establishment Clause the “government's action must have a secular legislative purpose, the government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion; and the government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion.” Ruling against the Plaintiff would be Constitutional because showing a five minute video in the scheme of an entire year long course is secular, considering the other main religions of the world are taught in other units of the same course. The proportionality of this one video compared to an entire curriculum proves that a promotional video was not a ‘primary’ goal of the course. The effect of ruling against the Plaintiff will not promote Islam over any other religious or non-religious beliefs, and will thus not overstep any government power over religious freedom. I think it would be wise for the Defendants to make their entire course curriculum evidence since they have argued that an equal study of various religions takes place at this school.

 Because the school is teaching religion from an educational and historical standpoint, by not forcing anyone to join a particular religion or participate in a religion, the school is not favoring one religion over another and is thus not advancing or inhibiting religion. The fact that different religions may be studied through different videos either, explanatory or examples of propaganda that assist in the understanding of the cultural context of a particular religion, could be a persuasive argument for secular purpose, so long as the teachers are not forcing the students to believe what the religious promotional media are proclaiming. By ruling in favor of the Chatham School District the government is not entangling religious freedoms with its power, due to the lack of evidence that this School District is actively coercing prayer, conversion, religious exercise, and the like.

As a student who has taken World Geography and has studied various religions, I assert that it is possible to learn about how a religion is promoted without directly being encouraged to join a religion. By understanding the world, history, and the importance that religion has on particular groups of people, we gain a better understanding about our own culture and goals. Common fundamental educational curricula in our secondary school districts include the study and impact of propaganda in historical situations without condoning the behavior.  Most notably are the common study of NAZI Germany anti-Semitic propaganda used during WWII and the study of anti-Communism propaganda that proliferated during the McCarthy error.  Our school systems are not advocating anti-Semitism or communist principles but rather are informing students of world cultures and communication impact. As this case potentially goes to a jury trial, I would be surprised to see the Plaintiff win over the Defendants as the basis of the Establishment Clause and the Juris Prudence which exists surrounding such a topic would not qualify this situation as promoting a National religion.