In Mercer County, West Virginia, there is a program within the elementary and middle schools referred to
The West Virginia District Court had to determine whether or not the BITS program was a violation of the Establishment Clause. Furthermore, there was the question of responsibility and whether Principal Peery was entitled to qualified immunity. To decide the first part, the Court utilized the Lemon Test on the Bible in the School program. In this case, there is no secular purpose present, it is advancing religions that adhere to the Christian Bible, and it is creating entanglement between the County and religion. For all three prongs of the test, the BITS program failed and therefore should not be permitted within Mercer County public schools. In the case of Edwards v. Aguillard, the Supreme Court was faced with determining whether teaching creationism in Louisiana schools was a violation of the Establishment Clause. In this case, the Court used the Lemon Test and found that it failed all three components. The teaching of creationism has a direct link to religious beliefs and therefore it cannot be referred to as secular. The West Virginia District Court concluded that the Bible in Schools program was a violation of the Establishment Clause and therefore enforced the suspension of all BITS classes in Mercer County.
This, however, was not the only problem brought forth by the Plaintiffs. In their argument, they placed the responsibility of these programs on Deborah Akers and, more specifically, Rebecca Peery. The West Virginia District Court denied the motion to dismiss filed by Peery but concluded that it is not possible to determine whether Peery is entitled to qualified immunity, but I disagree with this. When looking into cases involving qualified immunity, the Court must see if there was a constitutional violation and if the right violated was established. The implementation of a program, such as the Bible in the School, that advances a particular religion is a clear violation of the Establishment Clause. It was the responsibility of Peery to develop school policies and manage how the students were instructed daily. She was aware of the religious content that accompanied the BITS program and still proceeded to approve of the program and its teachings. In Reynolds v.
Overall, I agree with the Court’s decision that the BITS program violated the Establishment Clause, but I do not believe that there has been enough done beyond the suspension of the program. Individuals, such as Rebecca Peery and Deborah Akers, should be held responsible for the part they played in the implementation of the program. The current state of the case is focused on this directly. Peery motioned for the case to be dismissed, but this was denied by the district court. Now, it must be determined whether Peery is entitled to qualified immunity, to which I would say no. Those involved in this case knew the religious implications of the Bible in the Schools program and this should not go unresolved
4 comments:
One thing that is interesting about this case is that the BITS program is voluntary. If Deal's daughter was allowed to not participate in the program and if it was privately funded, I would think it might be ok to allow it in elementary and middle schools. Was it an after school program? Or did it happen in the middle of the day? These factors all play into the role of whether the program should be allowed. That being said, I think the fact that the program was being implemented and supported in a public school should make it unconstitutional. Given the age of the children, this program could be considered very coercive and thus violate the Establishment Clause. Overall, I agree with the conclusion you came to in this case.
I agree with the author here that it is in violation of the establishment clause. However, what makes me question the ruling of this case is the concept stated by my classmate above that the BITS program was considered voluntary. Furthermore, although children have felt bullied and excluded from not being able to participate in these programs, it is not as if they are excluded from this program. However contrary to this, it is still in violation of the establishment clause due to the failure to pass the lemon test. Since it is based around the Bible, it is considered an establishment of religion and excludes religions that don't use or support the Bible. Under the lemon test, I therefore stand by the author of this blog post that this case is in fact in violation of the establishment clause.
I agree with the author in this case in that this is a prime example of the excessive entanglement between church and state that is made sure to be avoided. This is an advancement of a religious ideology in a setting that must remain separate. The exclusionary practice that the program encouraged should result in accountability for the leaders who executed it. A question I have is why did they bring the program in the first place? What is the religious demographic of families who attend and are these plaintiffs the only one who had an issue?
Post a Comment