Pro Islamic claims in Maryland School disregarded by supreme court

In 2014, a student from the a public high school in Charles County, Maryland sued the La Plata High School on the grounds that her first amendment rights were violated.  This came about from the student’s world history class and the instruction on the Islamic faith.  The class had an assignment to write the Islamic conversion prayer, and because the prayer consists of a profession of faith towards the religion, the student felt that her own religious beliefs in Christianity would be infringed upon.  As well as failing the class, the school required the student to watch a “Pro-Islam” presentation, and the student also felt that this presentation was very much favoring the Islamic faith and advocating against her own Christian faith.  With this, the student and her family saw an advocation of Islam being projected by the school as well as an anti-christian view.  Despite these claims, the supreme court rejected the case and decided that the lower courts had made the correct decision in ruling in favor of the schools.

The school system was deemed to be in the right, on the grounds of the first amendment’s establishment clause.  The court interpreted the instruction of Islam to be appropriate on behalf of the school’s responsibilities.  The school and its administration are in charge of controlling the methods and speech used for their instruction, and given the facts of the case, the supreme court approved of the decisions of the lower appeal courts.  In Stone v. Graham, the court provides useful interpretation on how the establishment clause should be used in these situations.  There is assumed to be an educational motivation in the inclusion of the religion in the curriculum.  Similarly, in Engel v. Vitale, the court decided that the government must remain neutral in matters such as non-mandatory prayers, deciding that even if a prayer Is not required to be recited, it still is not a neutral stance taken by the group.  This should be contrasted to the case in question, as the assignment to write out a prayer is purely educational, and is not under the same question as that of Engel v. Vitale.  The courts determination was correct in deciding that the school was in the right.  To have the courts deciding on issues such as these is a problem for the first amendment, as the supreme courts should not be micro-managing each and every aspect of religious material in educational settings.  Justice Rehnquist, in Wallace v. Jeffrey, states: “As its history abundantly shows, however, nothing in the Establishment Clause requires government to be strictly neutral between religion and irreligion, nor does that Clause prohibit Congress or the States from pursuing legitimate secular ends through nondiscriminatory sectarian means” (292).  This rings true for this case, being that the school is simply showing how religion can be used in a sectarian way.  While Islam, especially with its political significance, might be contrary to a particular student’s religious beliefs, that does not rule it out for being an acceptable subject to be taught by the educational systems provided by the government.

This case is also very relevant to the case of Lemon v. Kurtzman, where the Lemon test was created in its resultant decision.  The Lemon test provides a threefold question for the determination of a case’s validity in line with the establishment clause and the first amendment.  With regard to this test, the decision for this case might seem like excessive entanglement, though religious studies serves a clear sectarian purpose.  Additionally, there is a clear state interest in education, and there is not enough reason to posit that there is any favoring or aid to the religion on behalf of the state and its school.

I feel that the Supreme Court was correct in its decision to comply with the lower court’s decision.  There is sectarian purpose behind teaching various religions, especially considering the context of this case, as the student was a part of a world history class.  If there ever was a class or similar situation where a state school was showing establishment by directly supporting the observance of a religion or the beliefs behind the religion, I believe it would be much more clear than a case such as this.  The neutrality of the state and this particular religion were upheld by the school’s instruction, and this seems to show fairly clearly how religion should be implemented in public schooling.  There should not be a complete separation of all religion from educational settings, as there is a state interest in its instruction.  That said, the courts should remain consistent in these such decisions to ensure that they remain in this true neutral position.  To continue in this notion, as was decided in this instance, is to ensure that the government upholds its state interest and neither advances nor detracts from religious institutions.