Palmer v. Board of Educ. of City of Chicago
Decision Date | 14 August 1979 |
Docket Number | No. 79-1242,79-1242 |
Citation | 603 F.2d 1271 |
Parties | 21 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 1075, 22 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 30,693 Joethelia PALMER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the CITY OF CHICAGO, a body politic and corporate, et al., Defendants-Appellees. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Wayne B. Giampietro, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff-appellant.
Patrick D. Halligan, Asst. Atty., Law Dept., Bd. of Ed., Chicago, Ill., for defendants-appellees.
Before PELL, SPRECHER, and WOOD, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff states the issue to be whether or not a public school teacher in her classes has the right to refuse to participate in the Pledge of Allegiance, the singing of patriotic songs, and the celebration of certain national holidays when to do so is claimed to violate her religious principles. The issue is more correctly stated to be whether or not a public school teacher is free to disregard the prescribed curriculum concerning patriotic matters when to conform to the curriculum she claims would conflict with her religious principles. Plaintiff also claims her ultimate discharge denied her due process of law.
Plaintiff, a member of the Jehovah's Witnesses religion, was a probationary kindergarten teacher in the Chicago public schools. After her appointment, but prior to the commencement of classes, plaintiff informed her principal that because of her religion she would be unable to teach any subjects having to do with love of country, the flag or other patriotic matters in the prescribed curriculum. Extraordinary efforts were made to accommodate plaintiff's religious beliefs at her particular school and elsewhere in the system, but it could not reasonably be accomplished. 1
The trial court allowed defendants' motion for summary judgment. As there is no substantive factual dispute, additional recitation of the factual details is not required. Plaintiff argues that the offended curriculum is so broad and vague as to be incomprehensible.
In Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97, 107, 89 S.Ct. 266, 21 L.Ed.2d 228 (1968), the Court held invalid as offending the First Amendment an Arkansas statute prohibiting the teaching of a particular doctrine of evolution considered contrary to the religious views of most citizens. The Court recognized, however, that the states possess an undoubted right so long as not restrictive of constitutional guarantees to prescribe the curriculum for their public schools. Plaintiff would have us fashion for her an exception to that general curriculum rule. The issue is narrow.
Our decision in Clark v. Holmes, 474 F.2d 928 (7th Cir. 1972), Cert. denied, 411 U.S. 972, 93 S.Ct. 2148, 36 L.Ed.2d 695 (1973), is of some guidance. In that case the complaint about a university teacher was that he ignored the prescribed course content and engaged in unauthorized student counseling. We held that the First Amendment was not a teacher license for uncontrolled expression at variance with established curricular content. The individual teacher was found to have no constitutional prerogative to override the judgment of superiors as to the proper content for the course to be taught. In Ahern v. Board of Education, 456 F.2d 399 (8th Cir. 1972), the court upheld a teacher dismissal for insubordination on the basis that the Constitution bestowed no right on the teacher to disregard the valid dictates of her superiors by teaching politics in a course on economics. In Adams v. Campbell County School District, 511 F.2d 1242 (10th Cir. 1975), the court stated that the Board and the principal had a right to insist that a more orthodox teaching approach be used by a teacher who was found to have no unlimited authority as to the structure and content of courses.
Plaintiff relies on a cross-section of First Amendment cases, but they are of little assistance with the specific issue in this case. Plaintiff argues that the defendants are trying to determine and limit the extent of her religious freedoms. The facts do not justify that legal perspective. The issue in this case is not analogous to a case:
(g) where the wearing of armbands by students in a Vietnam protest could not be prohibited where it did not interfere with school activities or impinge upon the rights of others, Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503, 89 S.Ct. 733, 21 L.Ed.2d 731 (1969).
Plaintiff also cites Russo v. Central School District No. 1, 469 F.2d 623 (2d Cir. 1972), Cert. denied, 411 U.S. 932, 93 S.Ct. 1899, 36 L.Ed.2d 391 (1973), as squarely considering the present issue, but it does not. The court held that a high...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Alberti v. Univ. of Puerto Rico
...that each non-tenured professor be made a sovereign unto himself.” (Citations omitted) (Emphasis ours), Id.; Palmer v. Board of Education, 603 F.2d 1271 (7th Cir.1979) (First Amendment rights of probationary teacher were not infringed by discharging her for refusing to teach patriotic subje......
-
Board of Educ. of Jefferson County School Dist. R-1 v. Wilder
...the benefit of our young citizens and society. It cannot be left to individual teachers to teach what they please. Palmer v. Board of Educ., 603 F.2d 1271, 1274 (7th Cir.1979); accord Boring, 136 F.3d at 370 ("[T]he school, not the teacher, has the right to fix the curriculum."). Provided t......
-
Zykan v. Warsaw Community School Corp.
...in "the choice (of) and adherence to a suitable curriculum for the benefit of our young citizens * * *." Palmer v. Board of Education, 603 F.2d 1271, 1274 (7th Cir. 1979), certiorari denied, 444 U.S. 1026, 100 S.Ct. 689, 62 L.Ed.2d The need for intellectual and moral guidance from a body ca......
-
New Life Baptist Church Academy v. Town of East Longmeadow
...interest in ensuring that all its citizens are being adequately educated.' ") (quoting trial court); Palmer v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago, 603 F.2d 1271, 1274 (7th Cir.1979) ("There is a compelling state interest in the choice and adherence to a suitable curriculum for the be......
-
High School Academic Freedom: the Evolution of a Fish Out of Water
...793 F.2d 419 (1st Cir. 1986). 13. See Russo v. Central Sch. Dist. No 1, 469 F.2d 623 (2d Cir. 1972). 14. See Palmer v. Board of Educ., 603 F.2d 1271 (7th Cir. 1979). 15. See East Hartford Educ. Ass'n v. Board of Educ., 562 F.2d 838, 844 (2d Cir. 1977)(en banc). The claim of academic freedom......
-
Academic Freedom in K-12 Education
...No. 122, 917 F.2d 1004, 1007 (7th Cir. 1990). 31. See, e.g., Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97, 107 (1968). 32. Palmer v. Board of Educ., 603 F.2d 1271, 1274 (7th Cir. 1979). 33. See Newton v. Slye, 116 F. Supp. 2d 677, 686 (W.D. Va. 2000). 34. See Ahern v. Board of Educ., 456 F.2d 399, 403......