Ware v. Valley Stream High School Dist.

• Citation: 150 A.D.2d 14,545 N.Y.S.2d 316
• Parties: , 56 Ed. Law Rep. 269 John WARE, et al., Appellants, v. VALLEY STREAM HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., Respondents.
• Decision Date: 05 September 1989
• Court: New York Supreme Court Appellate Division

Page 316

545 N.Y.S.2d 316

150 A.D.2d 14, 56 Ed. Law Rep. 269

John WARE, et al., Appellants, v. VALLEY STREAM HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., Respondents.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

Second Department.

Sept. 5, 1989.

Reisman, Peirez, Reisman & Calica, Garden City (Robert M. Calica and Myra P. Lapidus, of counsel), for appellants.

D'Amato & Lynch, New York City (Theodore Deliyannis and Lynne A. Bizzarro, of counsel), for respondent Valley Stream High School Dist.

Robert Abrams, Atty. Gen., Mineola (Lawrence S. Kahn and Elizabeth Bradford, of counsel), for respondents New York State Com'r of Educ. and the State of New York.

Before MOLLEN, P.J., and MANGANO, THOMPSON, BRACKEN and BROWN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The primary issue to be resolved on this appeal is whether certain regulations promulgated by the Commissioner of Education of the State of New York (hereinafter the Commissioner) requiring all primary and secondary school students to receive instruction with regard to Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (hereinafter AIDS), and alcohol and drug abuse, impermissibly violate, inter alia, the appellants' First Amendment right to freely exercise their religious beliefs (U.S. Const. 1st Amend.). Under the facts and circumstances of this case, we conclude that there are compelling and dominant State interests underlying the limited health education curriculum to which the appellants' children will be exposed, and, accordingly, hold in favor of the respondents.

I

The appellants John Ware, Robert Scott and Peter MacGregor are members of an "unincorporated church" (see, Religious Corporations Law § 2) known as the Plymouth Brethren (hereinafter the Brethren) and are among approximately 140 such adherents who reside in the Valley Stream and Rosedale areas of Nassau and Queens Counties. An additional 80 members of the Brethren, on whose behalf this action and proceeding have also been purportedly commenced, live in Rochester, New York. Children of members of the Brethren attend the public schools in these areas and receive a secular education.

The Brethren is a devoutly religious group which was founded in the 1820's by a group of Irish Christians who became disenchanted with the established churches of the period, which they determined no longer met their spiritual needs. From its inception, the Brethren's faith has been dedicated to strict adherence to Biblical teachings. Fundamental to its creed is the precept of spiritual separationism pursuant to which members of the Brethren seek to distance themselves from all things which they consider to be evil. Accordingly, members of the Brethren spend much of their time in group prayer and shun many modern technological innovations which they regard as evil (see, e.g., In re Marriage of Hadeen, 27 Wash.App. 566, 619 P.2d 374, 380).

The appellants now find themselves faced with a perceived evil in the form of certain regulations promulgated by the Commissioner which mandate that all school children shall receive instruction concerning, inter alia, the transmission and prevention of AIDS, and drug and alcohol abuse avoidance (see, 8 NYCRR 135.3). The appellants seek a total exemption from this curriculum on the grounds that it violates: (1) their right to engage in the free exercise of their religion as guaranteed by the First Amendment (U.S. Const., 1st Amend.), and (2) their implied fundamental constitutional right of privacy to raise their children in accordance with their religious tenets.

II

Education Law § 3204(3) provides that minors who are students, in public schools or elsewhere, are required to receive instruction, inter alia, in hygiene and physical training. Furthermore, Education Law § 803(1) provides that all elementary and secondary school students above the age of eight shall receive instruction in physical education which is designed to promote, inter alia, physical fitness and health. Pursuant to his statutory authority, and with the approval of the New York State Board of Regents (see, Education Law §§ 207, 803[1], the Commissioner promulgated regulations governing health education instruction pursuant to which schools must provide "instruction concerning the misuse of alcohol, tobacco and other drugs" (8 NYCRR 135.3[a]. Moreover, all primary and secondary school students are required to receive

"appropriate instruction concerning * * * AIDS * * *. Such instruction shall be designed to provide accurate information to pupils concerning the nature of the disease, methods of transmission, and methods of prevention [and] shall stress abstinence as the most appropriate and effective premarital protection against AIDS" (8 NYCRR 135.3[b][2], [c][2].

Recognizing the sensitive nature of this curriculum, these regulations further provide that parents may request, in writing, an exemption from AIDS-prevention lessons from the principal of the school which their child or children attend upon an assurance that they will provide suitable home instruction. Similarly, a pupil may be excused generally from the study of health and hygiene upon a verified petition by an authorized religious representative asserting that such study conflicts with the religion of the pupil's parents or guardian (see, Education Law § 3204[5]; 8 NYCRR 16.2).

III

Perceiving the compulsory health education described above to constitute an evil, the avoidance of which the Brethren's faith requires, the appellants wrote to the Superintendent of Schools of the Valley Stream High School District requesting that their children receive a total exemption from AIDS instruction. The Board of Education of the Valley Stream High School District denied the application, although it did grant a limited exemption excusing the appellants' children from five specific lessons concerning AIDS prevention. The five classes from which the appellants' children were excused dealt with the topics regarding abstinence from illegal intravenous drug use (grades 7 through 8 and 9 through 12), abstinence from sexual activity (grades 7 through 8 and 9 through 12) and the prevention of AIDS transmission to an unborn baby. The appellants' subsequent application to the Commissioner for a total exemption from the challenged curriculum was similarly denied on April 12, 1989. In doing so, the Commissioner stressed the compelling need to educate all students about the AIDS crisis. The limited exemption from the five AIDS prevention lessons was not disturbed and, thus, remains in effect.

During the pendency of the administrative proceedings, the appellants commenced the instant action and proceeding against the Valley Stream High School District, the Commissioner and the State of New York, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that compulsory "AIDS-related health instruction and other mandated health instruction concerning sexual conduct and drug use" violated both the appellants' constitutional rights to freely exercise their religion (see, U.S. Const., 1st Amend.), and their "implied fundamental constitutional right of privacy and freedom from governmental interference with their liberty to supervise and rear their children". Accordingly, the appellants sought to enjoin the mandated participation of their children in the challenged curriculum.

The respondents, thereafter, separately moved for summary judgment. In support thereof, the respondents argued, among other things, that the mere exposure of the appellants' children to information and materials which they consider to be inimical to their religion does not constitute a violation of the appellants' free exercise rights. Moreover, the respondents contended that the State had a compelling interest in educating its citizens to protect them from the dangers of AIDS and alcohol and drug abuse.

The Supreme Court agreed with the respondents' position and granted their motions for summary judgment. The court found that the appellants' rights had not been impermissibly infringed upon and, in any event, that compelling State interests would justify the compulsory participation by the appellants' children in the health education curriculum. The Supreme Court also upheld the Commissioner's determination dated April 12, 1989, which denied the appellants' application for a total exemption on the ground that it had a rational basis.

The appellants vigorously contest the Supreme Court's findings that the mere exposure to ideas which offend the appellants' religious sensibilities does not constitute an infringement on their constitutional right to freely exercise their religion or violate their privacy rights.

We reject the appellants' contentions, albeit for somewhat different reasons than those articulated by the Supreme Court.

IV

Generally, the mere exposure to information which conflicts with an individual's religious beliefs does not constitute a violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment (see, Mozert v. Hawkins County Bd. of Educ., 6th Cir., 827 F.2d 1058, cert. denied 484 U.S. 1066, 108 S.Ct. 1029, 98 L.Ed.2d 993; Davis v. Page, 385 F.Supp. 395), absent some compulsion to adopt an antithetical belief or to perform an act which conflicts with one's deeply-held religious convictions (see, Abington School Dist. v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 83 S.Ct. 1560, 10 L.Ed.2d 844; West Virginia State Board of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 63 S.Ct. 1178, 87 L.Ed. 1628). The instant case, however, presents a rather novel application of this principle inasmuch as the Brethren's religious doctrine dictates that its adherents are to remain "simple as to evil" for even the "details of evil are regarded as being subversive". Under circumstances such as those present in this case, compulsory education which exposes the appellants' children to the "details of evil" which their religion instructs them to avoid may place a limited burden upon the free exercise of their religion ( see, Dent, Religious Children, Secular Schools, 61 S Cal L Rev 863, 886-898 [1988];...