Classroom Crucifix Controversy: Balancing Religious Expression and the First Amendment

Marisol Arroyo-Castro vs. Connecticut District Court    

In a case that raises important questions about religious expression in public schools, a 7th grade Middle School teacher in Connecticut, Marisol Arroyo-Castro, was recently suspended for displaying a crucifix on her desk. This case, which has not yet reached the Supreme Court, brings to the forefront the delicate balance between the First Amendment's guarantee of free exercise of religion and the prohibition against government establishment of religion.

 Marisol has been a Consolidated School District of New Britain employee for more than 20 years, and has hung the same crucifix near her desk for a decade (see image below). She had placed the religious symbol in her classroom as a personal expression of faith, and she would “reflect on the crucifix when things were going well in class and particularly when they weren’t”. She included that “having it there was just natural to me”. Marisol had been told by the district to remove the display after receiving a complaint, and when she failed to do so, the district decided to suspend her, citing concerns over the separation of church and state and the potential for violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Marisol, in turn, filed a lawsuit against the district, alleging religious discrimination. The lawsuit accuses leaders of the district of using the First Amendment’s establishment clause as an “excuse to abridge the free speech and religious free exercise rights” of teacher Marisol Arroyo-Castro. Her legal team contends that the display of the crucifix is an expression of her personal beliefs, and not an attempt to impose religion on her students. The district, however, defends its decision by stating that the display could be seen as endorsing a particular religion in a public school setting, which may run in conflict with constitutional principles. Clearly, it is a complex scenario.

Constitutional Issues: Free Exercise vs. Establishment

This case presents two significant problems with regards to interpreting the constitution and the first amendment: the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause.

Free Exercise of Religion: Under the First Amendment, individuals are guaranteed the right to freely exercise their religion. This includes the ability to express one's religious beliefs in personal and public spaces. Marisol’s argument is rooted in this right. She claims that displaying a crucifix in her classroom is an act of personal religious expression that should not be prevented by the district. By suspending her for this display, she argues that the district is infringing upon her ability to practice and express her religion freely.

On the other hand…

Establishment Clause: The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits government entities, including public schools, from endorsing or establishing a religion. The school district’s argument is based on the notion that displaying a crucifix could be interpreted as an endorsement of Christianity, which could make students or staff from other religious backgrounds feel excluded or uncomfortable. Public schools, as state institutions, are expected to maintain a neutral stance on religion to avoid the appearance of endorsing one faith over another.

Analysis: Balancing Religious Expression and the Separation of Church and State

While Marisol's suspension is concerned with regards to religious freedom, it is also connected to the important issue of religious establishment. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in several cases that public schools should not engage in religious promotion. In Engel v. Vitale (1962), the Court ruled that prayer in public schools violated the Establishment Clause, and in Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe (2000), the Court found that student-led prayers at football games could not be allowed due to concerns about government-endorsed religious activity. The government has previously established that in the public sphere, religious action has been regulated in order to prevent the establishment of religion. 

However, there are also legal precedents that recognize individual expression in public spaces. A recent, highly relevant case is Kennedy v. Bremerton School District (2022), in which the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a public high school football coach who was fired for praying on the field after games. The Court stated that the coach’s prayer was a personal act of religious expression protected under the Free Exercise Clause and did not constitute government endorsement of religion. Additionally, in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969), the Court ruled (in essence) that students and teachers do not lose their First Amendment rights when they enter public schools. 

In this case, Marisol could (and should) argue that her crucifix is within the realm of personal religious expression, and should therefore be protected by the Free Exercise Clause of the first amendment.

The challenge, though, is in determining whether the crucifix being displayed within a public school classroom is to be seen as an individual act of religious expression or as an endorsement of Christianity by the school district - raising the question of whether the government has a duty to regulate that religious symbols associated with its educational institutions. I personally do not think the school is endorsing Christianity.

Implications:

The outcome of this case has the potential to impact the future regulation of religious expression in not only public schools, but other public spaces as well.

If the court sides with Marisol, this would expand the rights of government employees to express religion publicly, potentially weakening past rulings that emphasize school neutrality on religion. It might also blur the line between personal expression and government endorsement, allowing more religious symbols and speech in public schools and other public spheres as well.

A ruling in favor of the school district, however, could reinforce the strict separation of church and state, making it clear religious expression must remain in the home. In doing so, it could reveal the unfair restriction of public employees with respect to their personal religious beliefs, leading to both 1) accusations of hostility toward religion rather than neutrality, and 2) inadvertently giving preference to secular individuals and their expression. This doesn't sound very fair to me. The Supreme Court’s recent shift toward expanding religious rights, as seen in Kennedy, leads me to believe that future rulings may favor free exercise over strict church-state separation.

Overall, There is an incredibly fine line between protecting individual rights and ensuring that the government does not appear to endorse or support a particular religion. And so if this case makes its way to the Supreme Court, hopefully this may provide some further information about how courts balance the competing interests of free religious expression and the constitutional requirement for separation of church and state.

To me, Marisol's suspension was an unjustified restriction of her First Amendment rights. While public schools must remain neutral, neutrality should not mean suppressing religious expression altogether. Kennedy v. Bremerton established that public employees retain their right to personal religious expression, and the same principle should apply here. If the courts rule against Marisol, it could set a dangerous precedent of non-tolerance, forcing public employees to hide their faith while allowing other secular ideas to flourish. True constitutional neutrality does not mean eliminating religious symbols - it means allowing all viewpoints to coexist without favoritism or suppression, secular ideas or otherwise.

For those reasons, I believe that Marisol’s lawsuit is justified, and that the court should rule in her favor. Doing so would cement the First Amendment’s protections for religious expression and ensure that personal faith is not treated as a liability in public schools.

Additional link for alternate interpretation of Kennedy v. Bremerton School District (2022)