Coble v. Lake Norman Curriculum Controversy

             Last Monday, on November 16, 2020, it was reported that the case of Coble v. Lake Norman had made its way to the District Court of North Carolina. After the case had been dismissed without hardly any consideration, by a local judge, earlier on this year, the Coble’s decided to take the case up on appeal. As of yet, there has not been an official statement made public on the status of the case after reaching the District Court. For those unfamiliar, the case was brought to court concerning the curriculum of Lake Norman Charter School. John and Robin Coble filed suit against the school, claiming that the use of a certain book in the teaching plan violated, or rather offended their faith. The Coble’s, in this instance, found that there right to freely exercise their religion had been inhibited, through Lake Norman Charter’s promotion of literature that is hostile to Christianity. The book in question is titled “The Poet X,” by Elizabeth Acevedo, a Dominican writer, poet and former middle school teacher. To my knowledge, the book follows a young girl growing up in Harlem and having to reconcile her more free-spirited worldview with those of her religious family. Her mother is a devout catholic, and the main character, Xiomara, finds the laws of the church to be too overbearing. I presume this causes an escalation in tension between the two throughout the book, naturally leading to some choice words being directed toward each characters beliefs about religion. Other themes touched on in the book include: sexuality, power structures and abuse. All of these ideas, especially when coming from this perspective can understandably be seen as alarming to Christian parents. However, whether this issue concerns a violation of the constitution is altogether a separate matter.

The main point that requires attention in this instance has to do with the application of the free exercise clause of the First Amendment. It states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” In the United States of America, our people are granted the freedom to observe their religion without restriction based upon traditions, principles and ideals, but with possible restrictions on practiced activities, should the state demonstrate a compelling interest in stopping them. There have been notable cases in which religious establishments and instances of religious exercise have been awarded and denied exception to this rule. Those most relevant to the case at hand include: Stone v. Graham (1980), Lamb’s Chapel and John Steigerwald v. Center Moriches Union Free School District (1993), Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia (1995) and Good News Club v. Milford Central School (2001).

Stone v. Graham had to do with the use of the 10 commandants that the Christian tradition holds were passed down from God to Moses. These commandments where posted on a wall in every public school classroom in the state of Kentucky. The Supreme Court ruled that it would be inappropriate to allow such an action to occur in state funded institutions. They also stated that there was no convincing, secular purpose in displaying the commandments. An important question that I think is raised by this case, though not directly, has to do with what amounts to education versus indoctrination. What this has to do with Stone v. Graham is that some people saw the posting of the commandments as an endorsement of religion. As we’ll see later, often these types of endorsements are coupled with accusations of coercion into compliance with religious practices. However, if the original intent of the founders of the country was to keep the affairs of the church and those of the government separate, than in what capacity did they intend to do so? What I take this notion to mean is that there can be a relationship between the two entities, but that it wasn’t one of a structural or financial nature. What this means is that there can be a pairing of religious activities and those of government, as can be seen in the Rosenberger and Lamb’s Chapel cases. There can be accents of religion present in the aesthetics and practices of government. Even Madison and Jefferson made their appeals for state and religious separation, based on principles of freedom that were rooted in religion. To a degree, these two things are inseparable, and should that be the case, that it will always be a matter of contention over which religion the government most favors. What this has to do with the case of Mr. and Ms. Coble, is whether or not the assigned reading at Lake Norman is an objective piece of literature designed to further the schools learning goals; or if it was chosen because it was hostile to religion.

Though I would imagine this to be a tough case to prove, I still cannot say it would completely validate the concerns of the Cobles. I draw my reasoning for this idea from the opinion of Justice Scalia in his decision on Good News Club v. Milford Central School. In the beginning of his opinion, he explains that coercion is an unavoidable consequence of living in a society that no one is free from. This case involved the use of public space for religious activities, of which the court decided was acceptable because it was in an open, public forum that other groups also had access too. What Scalia’s decision essentially amounts to is that people do not have the right to not be coerced and not feel uncomfortable. In fact, given that people cannot avoid coercion and being made uncomfortable, it may actually benefit the students to not be coddled by the school system.

The potential pushback to this may be that the matter, all-together, doesn’t have to do with coercion or toughness, but, more simply, the favoring of one religion over another. A secular worldview could be considered religious in the sense that, just like religion, there is a set of foundational principles that guide a persons behavior and decision-making. As I stated previously, the state will always have the principles of one religion in mind. The reason being that, foundationaly speaking, there must always be some kind of antecedent reasoning behind the decisions of government. This idea may be more properly understood in the context of interpretation. Words have meaning. When something is interpreted, something else must be drawn upon to derive that meaning. In easy cases, it is just a matter of what someone else may have meant when they said something. However, in hard cases, like with ethics, the origin of your interpretation will lie in something else entirely, which I could only describe as religion. Though, when I say religion, I don’t necessarily mean it in the sense of what is ordinarily perceived as organized religion; but more having to do with any sort of code or set of guiding principles, whether personal or shared. Often, what you’ll see are people who can reach the same conclusions from different reasoning on similar issues, but this will not always be the case; and consistency will depend upon which system is more closely adhered to. If this is the case, than the issue that would then be brought to the court would have less to do with the Free Exercise Clause and more to do with the Establishment Clause. 

In all likelihood, the case will be ruled in favor of Lake Norman Charter School. I find it would be very hard to make the argument that the book is directly hostile to religion or that a secular religious effort is being made to combat Christianity.