John Woolard represents the voices of a group of parents whose children attend Blue Ridge Academy and Visions in Education, two charter schools in California, and the independent study programs the schools run. The main difference between charter schools and public schools is what they operate under. Charter schools operate under independent contracts, while public schools work under a school district. They are both funded by taxpayers and are tuition-free, and provide publicly funded material.
Woolard and the parents requested that the schools purchase “sectarian” materials for the programs. These programs are overseen by the school but run mostly by parents in homes. The schools rejected the request because of California law, which prohibits public schools, including charter schools, from teaching sectarian or religious material. One example was that Blue Ridge denied the parents' request to purchase Bob Jones University text, which teaches “‘God is great, and God is good; God created me and all things; the Bible is God’s Word, and it is true; and I learn in order to serve God and others”’(Factual Background). Woolard sued Tony Thurmond, the Superintendent of Public Instruction, and the school system, arguing that they violated the Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses in the First Amendment.
The parents argue multiple points as to why they should be allowed to include religious material in the program. Woolard argued, “that the charter schools’ independent study programs are really in substance homeschooling, not public education…”(Plaintiffs). They are essentially saying that because the independent study programs are not part of the school's curriculum, the parents should have a say in what is being taught. Because Woolard classified these programs as “private homeschooling”, they argued that the state was not allowed to deny them funding based on religious ideals since the Court cannot deny any “recipients of state grants for private homeschooling based on religious belief”(Court Discussion). They obviously believed that sectarian material should be allowed to be taught. The final argument they had was that forcing parents to use the state-approved material in the programs that didn’t align with their religious values violated the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clause. Woolard contended that they were being “categorically excluded” from public benefits because of their religious background.
There are relevant precedents that are important for deciding the outcome in this case, but the one case that I thought was most important is the following: Employment Division v Smith.
Employment Division v. Smith was a case focused on the Free Exercise Clause and the idea that laws can burden religion but not violate the Free Exercise Clause. Two Native Americans who were members of a Native American Church and employees of a drug rehabilitation organization ingested peyote as part of their religious ceremony. The organization had strict rules against using drugs, and they were fired for misconduct. When the two gentlemen filed for unemployment compensation, they were denied. They sued and argued that the organization had violated their Free Exercise rights. Ultimately, the court held that even with a burden on the men’s religion, the law was neutral and therefore the burden on the religion was not protected by the Free Exercise Clause.
The logic in Employment Division v Smith was the same logic that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals used when it made the decision on this case. They affirmed the decision. The Court held that even though these schools were charter schools, they were still part of the California free public school system. California is required by law to provide a strictly secular curriculum. They also held that the public school system’s education choices were government speech, which made Woolard and the parents' allegations against Free Exercise unreasonable. They use Supreme Court logic and past decisions, saying that the Free Exercise Clause does not prevent a “state from providing ‘a strictly secular education in its public schools”’(Court Discussion). The Court discusses how the independent study programs were directly intertwined with the school, and the plaintiffs' classification of them as private homeschool programs was unjustified. They are run by state-provided teachers, and each student must agree to a written contract with the school. The Court agrees that most of the independent study programs are taught by the students' parents. However, they are only allowed to do so if they are supervised by a state employee.
I agree with the decision that the Ninth Circuit Court came to. There is no justification for the parents claiming a violation of their Free Exercise rights because the law about strictly teaching secular material is neutral to all public and charter schools. They were asking for preferential treatment, not equal. California bans all religious teachings in all public schools, and because the charter schools are paid for by taxpayers, they are part of the public school system. The parents' classification of the study programs as private homeschooling is completely wrong because of the agreements that both the parents and students have, along with the direct relationship between the school and the programs. Another point that I have is that the Court never said that the parents were banned from teaching religion. In their own home and on their own time, they can teach their children all the religious beliefs that they have. They are just not allowed to use public funding to do so.
Ultimately, the Free Exercise Clause states that the government is not allowed to restrict religious beliefs and practices, and in my opinion, the state hasn't done that. I am confident that if the case makes its way to the Supreme Court, they will come to the same conclusion as the Ninth Circuit Decision
Resources: 24-4291.pdf
Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith | Oyez
No comments:
Post a Comment