Choose one modern scenario to analyze. All of the following scenarios have reached the Court of Appeals.
Scenario A—A teacher at Highland High School requires all of their students to bring in food from a Spanish country as a part of their Spanish class project. The due date for this project fell during the Islamic holy month of Ramadan. During Ramadan, Muslims must abstain from all food or drink from dawn to sunset. A Muslim student was not able to participate in the project and received no credit, lowering the student's class average by a full letter grade. The parent argued that this was a violation of the student's rights. The teacher argued that at the beginning of the school year, the teacher sent out a syllabus that included the requirements for the project and its due date for the parent to sign. The parent of the student did sign the syllabus and it was kept as a record in the teacher's files. The school sided with the teacher, that the parent was informed about the project and that it is school policy for students to complete work on time.
Scenario B—During a live online U.S. Government class, the teacher had students complete an activity discussing the characteristics of political parties. Two students, J.B. and W.S., got into a debate about the topic, and J.B. took a screenshot of W.S.'s opinion and created a post about them on their private social media page. The post included W.S.'s name and several emojis, like the skull emoji, which was interpreted as threatening. The caption of the post also ridiculed W.S.'s opinion on political parties. The post got a ton of likes, and friends of J.B. posted awful responses about W.S.'s opinion. W.S. showed the post to their online teacher and principal. W.S. stated that they were now afraid to attend any more live online classes, which is a requirement of the online program. J.B. was suspended from accessing any of their online courses for 5 days and removed from the U.S. Government course. The parents of the suspended student believed their child had the right to post on their private social media page without consequence. The online school argued it was considered bullying, which they have a zero-tolerance policy towards.
Scenario C—During lunch in the school parking lot, a teacher filmed a student vaping in their car. The teacher showed the video to the principal. The principal removed the student from class and searched them for the vaping product, which they found. The principal suspended the student for 10 days for violating the school's rule on no tobacco or vaping product usage on school grounds. The parents of the student argue that the student's rights were violated and they were illegally searched based on a video by the teacher that the student did not consent to. The parents also argue that the student was in their car, which is private property, and that their 18-year-old student had legally purchased the products. The school argued that it was on school grounds and a vape product was discovered which is a clear violation of the school's policy.
Respond in complete paragraphs to each of the following prompts:
Identify which case from the lesson could be a precedent for your chosen scenario and explain why. (Note: there could be more than one case related to your chosen scenario.)
Explain which side you would rule for. Remember that personal opinion is not a valid justification for a Court opinion. Answer these questions in your explanation:
Explain how the school's policy or employee's action is aligned with or is in violation of, the Constitution.
How does the related case influence your ruling?
Does your ruling reflect loose or strict interpretation of the Constitution? Explain your response.
Some of your fellow justices do not agree with your ruling. Discuss what reasoning they might use in their dissent.
In Scenario A, the case of West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943) could serve as a precedent. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that students have the right to refuse to salute or pledge allegiance to the flag, even if it goes against school policy. Similarly, in Scenario A, the Muslim student's right to abstain from bringing in food during Ramadan could be seen as an exercise of their religious freedom.
Considering this scenario, I would rule in favor of the student and their parent. While it is true that the teacher provided the syllabus, it is also important to consider the religious accommodation required during the Islamic holy month of Ramadan. By requiring all students to bring in food from a Spanish country, the teacher failed to reasonably accommodate the religious practices of the Muslim student. This action aligns with the First Amendment's Establishment Clause, which prohibits the government, including public schools, from endorsing or favoring any particular religion.
The related case of Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969) would support my ruling. In Tinker, the Supreme Court held that students do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." Just as the students in Tinker had the right to express their political beliefs by wearing armbands, the Muslim student in Scenario A has the right to practice their religion without interference or discrimination. A strict interpretation of the Constitution would prioritize protecting the student's religious freedom and ensuring equal treatment for all.
In a dissenting opinion, some justices might argue that the school acted within its rights by enforcing the project requirements as stated in the syllabus. They may contend that the parent's signature on the syllabus indicates their agreement with the project guidelines. Additionally, they might argue that the teacher's intention was educational, aiming to expose students to cultural diversity through the Spanish project. From this perspective, the dissenting justices could claim that the student's lower grade was a consequence of their inability to comply with the project, rather than a violation of their rights. They might also argue that strict religious accommodations could disrupt the educational process and create a slippery slope where exceptions are made for individual beliefs.