Marisol Arroyo-Castro, a teacher from New Britain, Connecticut, was placed on leave by the Consolidated School District of New Britain in mid-December of 2024 after refusing to remove a crucifix displayed near her desk. The school’s vice president claimed he had received complaints from two individuals and asked Arroyo-Castro to move the crucifix under her desk, out of public view. She complied for a day. She was approached again and asked to move it, but refused. The next day, Arroyo-Castro was asked not to come back to the classroom.
Arroyo-Castro has been a teacher for 32 years and has had the crucifix up for the last 10 years. She was suspended without pay for two days before being placed on paid administrative leave. According to her legal team, Arroyo-Castro was instructed to remove the crucifix or be charged with insubordination. Her legal team also sent a letter to the school district, “Ms. Castro’s treatment is a clear violation of her constitutional right to freely exercise her faith under the United States Constitution and the Connecticut Constitution," the letter reads. "But the District’s actions also violate several other of Ms. Castro’s constitutional and statutory rights, under both state and federal law.”(Fox News) The school asserts that the display of religion in this way violates the rights of students and parents in the district by incorporating Arroyo-Castro’s personal beliefs into neutral ground–a school.
In March of 2025, after months of paid administrative leave, she was sent to work in an administrative office–not the school classroom. Arroyo-Castro felt that the tasks assigned to her in this position were demeaning. She also seemed to compare the display of her crucifix to other staff’s items, “They have pictures of their family, and to me, Jesus is my father,” she said. “Pictures of their dogs. The Patriots sign. The Yankees sign. They even have Christmas trees.” (NY Post) In November of 2025, a federal judge ruled against Arroyo-Castro and upheld the school district’s punishment. The judge based his decision on Arroyo-Castro’s behavior, “...acted pursuant to her official duties when she posted items on the classroom wall that students would see during instructional time. The classroom wall decorations are thus speech pursuant to Ms. Castro’s official duties and subject to the District’s control.”(WFSB)
A separate, independent investigation done in September found that in addition to displaying her crucifix, Castro also made religious comments to students like, “I hope papa God helps you with your lies,” or “Go find God.” (WFSB)
Arroyo-Castro’s legal team believes that the action taken against her by the New Britain school district is a clear contradiction to the precedent set by a similar case ruled on by the Supreme Court in 2022: Kennedy v. Bremerton School District. Joseph A. Kennedy of the Bremerton School District sued his school district after being asked not to pray with students during and after football games. Kennedy, a football coach, adopted the practice of praying in the middle of the field after games, and eventually, students began to join him. The school board, nervous that Kennedy’s actions would be seen as violating the separation of church and state, attempted to negotiate with Kennedy to pray privately. Kennedy continued to pray after the game publicly and was put on paid leave by the district superintendent. He did not return to the school. The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 vote, found that the school’s actions violated Kennedy’s First Amendment rights of Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses.
At the center of this case is the controversial question of whether or not a teacher’s actions in their classroom are protected speech or subject to the school’s control. Since public schools are supposed to remain neutral in all matters concerning religion, the crucifix displayed in a classroom could be perceived as an endorsement of a particular religion. In my opinion, I believe that Arroyo-Castro’s behavior demonstrated a clear violation of school policy in addition to potentially infringing on the rights of her students. Arroyo-Castro was asked first to remove the cross from public view, NOT remove it from her classroom. She purposefully disregarded the request from her supervisor and was suspended. In addition, since the walls of a public school are owned by the school, not Arroyo-Castro, religious objects cannot be displayed in the classroom to the students. Arroyo-Castro was made aware of the Establishment Clause and informed that it does, in fact, extend to teachers as they are employees of the school, and the display of her crucifix on the walls, owned by the Consolidated School District of New Britain, could be perceived as the endorsement of a religion by the district, therefore violating the Establishment Clause. I believe that Arroyo-Castro's actions were in violation of the Establishment Clause, and therefore, the action taken was appropriate.
References:
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2021/21-418
https://ecf.ctd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2025cv0153-88
1 comment:
Ms. Arroyo-Castro’s religious display was unconstitutional, and other staff’s displays were not, because Arroyo-Castro holistically abused her public authority against impressionable children. In another Blog Post, Madison S. discussed teachers’ “authority” over students. Arroyo-Castro was asked to remove her displayed crucifix from “public view” but argued that other staff displayed religious decorations. However, Arroyo-Castro’s authority went beyond constitutionally permissible because she made religious comments that disparaged students, holistically violating “official duties” from the Establishment Clause.
Post a Comment