Roberts v. Madigan
| Decision Date | 05 January 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 88-F-1908.,88-F-1908. |
| Citation | 702 F. Supp. 1505 |
| Parties | Kenneth ROBERTS; Marc Nelson and Zay Nelson, parents and next friends of Kelly Nelson and Amy Nelson; Debra Jean White, parent and next friend of Kelly White, Plaintiffs, v. Kathleen MADIGAN, in her official capacity as principal of Berkeley Gardens Elementary School, and Adams County School District No. 50, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Colorado |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Roger Westlund, Thornton, Colo., Cimron Campbell, Jordan Lorence, Washington, D.C., for Kenneth Roberts.
Martin Semple, Franklin A. Nachman, Denver, Colo., for Kathleen Madigan and School Dist. No. 50.
Plaintiff Kenneth Roberts, a fifth grade teacher, is joined by parents of several children in his school in seeking injunctive and declaratory relief against officials of School District No. 50. Plaintiffs challenge defendants' removal of a Bible from the Berkeley Gardens Elementary School library and their removal of two religiously oriented books in Roberts' classroom library. Plaintiffs seek further relief from defendants' directive that Roberts keep his Bible out of sight, and refrain from silently reading it, during classroom hours.
Jurisdiction is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343, and the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. The hearing on the preliminary injunction was merged with the trial to the court pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 65(a)(2).
Plaintiffs assert that defendants have abridged their First Amendment rights of Free Speech, Academic Freedom, and Access to Information. Plaintiffs further allege that defendants have violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.1
The parties in this litigation are as follows:
Plaintiff Kenneth Roberts, a fifth grade teacher at Berkeley Gardens Elementary School in Adams County School District No. 50, Westminster, Colorado.
Plaintiffs Marc and Zay Nelson, the parents of Plaintiffs Kelly and Amy Nelson, neither of whom is in Roberts' class. Kelly Nelson was a student in Roberts' class during the 1987-88 school term.
Plaintiff Debra Jean White, the parent of Plaintiff Kelly White, who is not in Roberts' class.
Defendant Kathleen Madigan, in her official capacity as principal of Berkeley Gardens Elementary School.
Defendant Adams County School District No. 50. ("the District").
By this Order, we hold that Roberts' request for injunctive relief is denied. We direct that the Bible be returned to the school library at Berkeley Gardens Elementary School, Adams County, Colorado. We further hold that parents whose children are not presently in Roberts' class have no standing to challenge the defendants' actions as to Roberts.
Accordingly, the court enters the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Events giving rise to this litigation transpired during the school term from September of 1987 to June of 1988.
Roberts' testimony at trial revealed the following facts. During a parent/teacher open house in September of 1987, Madigan received a complaint from a parent regarding the presence of two books, The Bible in Pictures (Plaintiffs' Exhibit 5), and The Life of Jesus (Plaintiffs' Exhibit 6), in Roberts' classroom library. These books are not part of the District's approved curriculum for fifth grade students.2
Madigan quickly perused the books and directed Roberts to remove them from the classroom library. She also ordered that he take down a poster which was prominently displayed in the classroom. (Plaintiffs' Exhibit 7(a)).3 Roberts complied with this directive immediately and without argument.
Madigan asked no questions regarding the books' use before ordering their removal. Her explanation to Roberts at the time was that "separation of church and state" required that the books be removed. Madigan then noticed the Bible which Roberts kept on his desk and requested that he keep it out of sight during classroom hours.4
Madigan had spoken to Roberts about the Bible on his desk on previous occasions. During a routine visit to Roberts' classroom, Madigan observed that Roberts was silently reading the Bible during a class session. Feeling that Roberts should have been actively teaching the class instead of silently reading, she directed him to keep the Bible in his desk between the hours of 8:00 and 3:30. Roberts claims that his reading was part of the lesson plan which he submitted to Madigan and which she approved. (Plaintiffs' Exhibit O). However, the lesson plan does not specifically provide that Roberts is to read during this period, nor that Madigan in any way approved his doing so.
Madigan saw Roberts reading the Bible in front of the students a second time and again directed him to keep the Bible out of sight during school hours. It was at this time that Madigan received the parents' complaint at the open house.
Roberts later questioned Madigan whether he should be required to "hide" the Bible, comparing his use of the Bible and the religious materials in his classroom to the pledge of allegiance, which contains the phrase "one nation under God". Madigan conferred with school officials after this discussion, and they affirmed her decision. Roberts asked for written guidelines as to what types of material he could keep in his classroom. Madigan denied this request, stating that common sense and her previous remarks were sufficient.
Roberts made a written request for the guidelines. (Plaintiffs' Exhibit 10). He subsequently met with other officials in the District, but to no avail. In response to the written request, Madigan again conferred with higher officials and legal counsel for the District. As a result of that meeting the following directive was issued to Roberts:
The law is clear that religion may not be taught in a public school. To avoid the appearance of teaching religion, I have given you this directive. Failure to comply with this directive will be considered insubordination and could result in disciplinary action. (Plaintiffs' Exhibit 12).
Roberts' classroom library contains approximately 237 books of varying content, including A Tale of Two Cities, Tom Sawyer, and The Prince and the Pauper. (Plaintiffs' Exhibit 1). The books are made available to students for a daily fifteen-minute independent reading period. Students are free to choose the books which they read during this time and may bring books from home or other libraries.
Roberts reads his own books during the independent reading time, in order to "set an example to the students of an adult reading". (Complaint, paragraph 11). Frequently, the book he reads in front of the students is the Bible, which is left on his desk throughout the school day. Roberts testified that he never reads aloud from the Bible, nor proselytizes about his faith to the students. There are no allegations of personal hostility on the part of defendants toward plaintiffs' religious views.
The parties dispute whether Madigan removed the Bible from the Berkeley Gardens school library. Defendants do not seriously contest the replacement of the Bible in the school library; however, the Bible has yet to be replaced.
Specifically, the court confronts the following issues in this litigation: (1) Whether Roberts' actions constitute a violation of the Establishment Clause; (2) Whether the District's actions constitute a violation of Roberts' right to free speech and academic freedom; and (3) Whether the student plaintiffs and their parents have standing to challenge the District's actions toward Roberts.
At controversy in this case is the complex relationship between religion, public education, and the First Amendment.5 When we speak of government in the context of this case, we include public education within its meaning. The term "secular" is used by its common definition.6
The First Amendment sets forth fundamental principles governing the reaches of government and religion, stating that "Congress shall make no law respecting an Establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...." (Emphasis added). There are thus two distinct provisions restricting and controlling government authority over religion: the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. The Fourteenth Amendment, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, extends these limits on governmental power to state and local governments, including school districts, their officials, and employees.7
Constitutional debates over the role of religion in public education often involve a complex interplay between the Free Exercise and the Establishment Clauses.8 Each clause serves a different purpose: the goal of the Free Exercise Clause is to keep religious faith voluntary — free from government coercion — while the goal of the Establishment Clause is to prevent excessive government involvement in religion.
The Free Exercise Clause prevents government from impairing the liberty of individuals to exercise their religious faith. The clause governs conflicts between religious faith and government actions that through coercion make it more difficult to hold the beliefs and engage in the practices of such faith. Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 92 S.Ct. 1526, 32 L.Ed.2d 15 (1972). It provides absolute protection for freedom to hold religious beliefs but only qualified protection for freedom to engage in religious activities.
To resolve disputes over government interferences with religious faith, courts weigh the strength of a person's interest in exercising the beliefs and practices in question, against the government's interest in a policy which limits the exercise of faith, and the degree of burden imposed by the limitation. Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 92 S.Ct. 1526, 32 L.Ed.2d 15 (1972). If a governmental policy interferes with the person's freedom to exercise his faith, the government agency must show that its interest in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Roberts v. Madigan
...not only that the school district acted properly but that the Establishment Clause required such action. See Roberts v. Madigan, 702 F.Supp. 1505, 1514-17 (D.Colo.1989). Accordingly, the court went on to conclude that the district did not violate the principle of government neutrality towar......
-
Us v. Wilgus, 00-4015
...Township v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 222-23 (1963) (discussing the "apparent distinction" between the two clauses); Roberts v. Madigan, 702 F.Supp. 1505, 1511 (D. Colo. 1989) ("Each clause serves a different purpose: the goal of the Free Exercise Clause is to keep religious faith voluntary--f......
-
General Media Communications, Inc. v. Perry
...v. Local 40, Int'l Ass'n of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, 76 F.3d 76, 80 (2d Cir.1996) (citing Roberts v. Madigan, 702 F.Supp. 1505, 1514 (D.Colo.1989), aff'd, 921 F.2d 1047 (10th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 505 U.S. 1218, 112 S.Ct. 3025, 120 L.Ed.2d 896 (1992)). Provided tha......
-
Williams v. Vidmar
...acceptable, and teaching religion, which is not." Roberts v. Madigan, 921 F.2d 1047, 1055 (10th Cir.1990) (quoting Roberts v. Madigan, 702 F.Supp. 1505, 1517 (D.Colo.1989)) (teacher could be prohibited from reading Bible during silent reading period, and from stocking two books on Christian......
-
BATTLEGROUNDS FOR BANNED BOOKS: THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND PUBLIC SCHOOL LIBRARIES.
...EDUC. & L.J. 103, 112-13. (70) Id. at 113. (71) Id. at 114. (72) See id. at 106. (73) See id. at 138 (citing Roberts v. Madigan, 702 F. Supp. 1505, 1513-14 (D. Colo. 1989)). (74) Friedman & Johnson, supra note 8. (75) 457 U.S. 853 (1982). (76) Shane Morris, Note, The First Amendment......