A group of Fundamentalist parents are upset with required readings in classes at a public school in Tennessee. Specifically, they believe that certain required readings promote secular humanism and undermine the religious beliefs of their children. They complain that Harry Potter books required in the seventh-grade favorably portray witchcraft. They complain that a senior-high physics book suggests that the Big Bang provides a credible explanation of the origin of the universe. Finally, they complain that biographies required in a tenth-grade history class promote feminism and the notion that women should find work outside the home. The Fundamentalist parents wonder whether the required readings violate either the Establishment Clause or the Free Exercise Clause. They would either like to have a court order the curriculum be changed or that their students be exempted from objectionable required reading and instruction.
Clause. They would either like to have a court order the curriculum be changed or that their students be exempted from objectionable required reading and instruction.
a) Define prior restraint. Define time place and manner restraints.
b) What do you tell the parents of the children? Is their request denied? On what case(s) is this denial (or support) based?
Advice to the Parents
As their legal advisor, I would have to tell the parents that their request to have a court order the curriculum be changed or to have their children exempted from the required readings will likely be denied. While their concerns are rooted in the First Amendment, the courts have consistently held that the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause do not give parents a veto power over a public school's curriculum.
The denial of their request would be based on the following legal principles and cases:
The Establishment Clause and Public School Curricula: The Establishment Clause prohibits the government from establishing a religion. The Supreme Court has interpreted this to mean that public schools cannot advance or inhibit any particular religion. In cases involving school curricula, the courts have been reluctant to find that a curriculum promoting a non-religious, secular worldview violates the Establishment Clause. The Lemon test from Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), though now less strictly applied, established that a government action must have a secular purpose, a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion, and must not foster excessive government entanglement with religion. The curriculum in question (Harry Potter, Big Bang theory, biographies of women) has a clear secular, educational purpose. The books are not promoting a religion; they are teaching literature, science, and history. The fact that the content may conflict with a religious belief does not make it a violation of the Establishment Clause.
The Free Exercise Clause and Exemptions: The Free Exercise Clause protects an individual's right to practice their religion freely. However, this right is not absolute. The courts have held that parents cannot force a public school to tailor its curriculum to accommodate their religious beliefs, especially when the curriculum is secular in nature and applies to all students. The Supreme Court's ruling in Mozert v. Hawkins County Board of Education (1987) is the most directly relevant case. In Mozert, a group of Fundamentalist parents in Tennessee challenged a public school's reading curriculum, arguing that it exposed their children to concepts (such as feminism and "one-world" religion) that were contrary to their religious beliefs. The parents demanded the right to have their children opt-out of the reading classes. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that while the parents had a sincere religious belief, the school's curriculum did not infringe on their Free Exercise rights. The court found that mere exposure to ideas that are contrary to one's religious beliefs does not violate the Free Exercise Clause. The students were not being forced to believe the content, only to read and learn about it. The court concluded that a school board's educational discretion is broad and that a religious opt-out would be unworkable and create an unconstitutional "religious gerrymander."
Sample Answer
Definitions
Prior restraint: This is a form of censorship that prevents a person or group from publishing or broadcasting material. It is a government action that prohibits speech or expression before it can take place. The Supreme Court has held that prior restraints are a heavy-handed measure that are presumptively unconstitutional, with a very high burden on the government to justify. A classic example is a government's attempt to stop a newspaper from publishing a classified document.
Time, place, and manner restraints: These are content-neutral restrictions on the time, place, and manner of speech. They are not aimed at suppressing the message itself but at regulating the logistics of speech to maintain public order and safety. For such a restriction to be constitutional, it must:
Be content-neutral.
Be narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest.
Leave open ample alternative channels for communication.