First Amendment Implications of Religious Expression in Schools
Introduction
Recently, teachers gave students the assignment of composing an essay and drawing a picture of the person they chose as their hero. Before marking and displaying the project, it should be taken into account that one student chose Jesus as his hero and submitted a drawing of the Last Supper. Understanding how the First Amendment functions in the classroom will be possible by looking at the First Amendment legal difficulties that appear when a student submits a religiously themed work.
Understanding the First Amendment
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution safeguards religion as a vital component of daily life. According to the Amendment, the government cannot impose a particular religion or restrict the right to free speech or the free exercise of one’s faith (Held, 2019). These clauses may conflict when people bring religious symbols or discourse into the open. The Establishment Clause has violated the use of religious symbols in public schools because it can be assumed that the institution is endorsing them. In the given illustration, a student’s essay and artwork featuring Jesus pose two legal concerns.
Free Exercise vs. Establishment Clause
The government cannot restrict the free exercise of religion due to the First Amendment. However, the Establishment Clause forbids the long-term display of religious symbols. According to current regulations, temporary exhibits incorporated into a secular curriculum may be acceptable (Bullard, 2019). Additionally, such a display may be considered a distribution of student materials, which the school may limit depending on their subject matter, point of view, or the strength of their instructional message. Whether the art can be displayed in a classroom, the work must be examined, and these questions must be addressed. An additional disclaimer stating that the school does not support the artwork’s message should be included if it is decided that displaying it is acceptable.
Balancing Perspectives in the Classroom
In such a circumstance, the first thought that would cross a teacher’s mind is if it is suitable to express ideas from the essay. It might not match the religious beliefs and perspectives of the other pupils, which could result in a disagreement in class. According to the Supreme Court, “Educators’ acts do not violate the law so long as they are reasonably tied to genuine pedagogical concerns,” First Amendment by exerting editorial control over the tone and content of student expression.” (Savage, 2020). Therefore, if it becomes necessary to moderate various extremes that may cause significant inconsistencies between pupils, a teacher can change some expressions before showing them.
Supreme Court Precedents on Religious Expression
The U.S. Supreme Court considers open displays of religious symbols on school grounds unlawful. In Santa Fe Independent School District v, the Court found that praying over the school’s public address (P.A.) system was illegal since doing so gave the audience the impression that the institution approved the message (Bernstein & Armstrong, 2021). Additionally, Lee v. Weisman was cited as a precedent in the same case to show that such communications are given to captive audiences (Held, 2019). Finally, the Court determined in Engel v. Vitale that school-led religious conduct is unlawful independent of its subject matter or ties to a specific religion. These decisions demonstrate how it is unconstitutional for students to use school facilities to spread religious messages.
Implications for Teachers and Students
Given the critical U.S. Supreme Court ruling, the third issue could be framed as follows: Displaying the previous work can be interpreted by the pupils’ tutor as a religious prescription. The Supreme Court declared in Engel v. Vitale (1962) that no official may behave in a manner that contravenes the First Amendment (Papandrea, 2022). The precedent is relevant in this instance because the core of the provision implies that every U.S. citizen will receive equal protection. The teacher, therefore, must consider the preferences and interests of each of my students. The teacher will rate the work following the established grading standards without concentrating on or bringing up a religious component. Additionally, the teacher will present the composition and image after making the required modifications and emphasizing these standards.
Grading Religious Content in Academic Work
Similar concerns about the seeming support of the student’s essay’s substance arise when graded. While it is unlawful to teach religion in schools, it is legal to teach about religion. Due to the First Amendment’s free exercise and free speech sections, students can express their religious convictions in their coursework or artwork. However, the evaluation of this work should only “be judged by normal academic standards regarding content and relevance, and against other valid pedagogical concerns” (Bernstein & Armstrong, 2021). Ultimately, this indicates that while marking the essay in question is an option, the instructor must be cautious not to factor in religious issues.
The American Constitution’s First Amendment is seriously violated when pupils present religious material or express religious opinions in their assignments. The school cannot support or disparage such expressions, even though the free exercise and speech sections authorize them.
Conclusion
Therefore, a religious essay can be judged according to general academic norms and not be affected by its spiritual content. If religious art is presented in a neutral setting, relates to the current curriculum, and has an express disclaimer that states that the school does not support the message, it may be temporarily displayed in a classroom as part of an assignment.
References
Bernstein, J. L., & Armstrong, C. W. (2021). Using think-aloud to understand how students balance free speech and inclusion. First Amendment Studies, 55(1), 22–43. Web.
Bullard, J. (2019). Determining acceptable evidence. Creating Curriculum in Early Childhood, 63–101. Web.
Held, V. (2019). Access, enablement, and the First Amendment. Philosophical Dimensions of the Constitution, 158–179. Web.
Papandrea, M.-R. (2022). Mahanoy v. B.L. & first amendment “leeway”. The Supreme Court Review, 53–97. Web.
Savage, D. (2020). Seven hate speeches, hate crimes, and the First Amendment. A Year in the Life of the Supreme Court, 177–204. Web.