Abstract
A small community in southwest Michigan has been witness to a significant cultural divide within its school system. An influential church has permeated school leadership and in many cases has overstepped the proverbial “wall separating church and state.” A fairly high-profile case saw the Sixth Circuit Court enjoin the district to remove a portrait of Jesus. Community members were divided on this issue, which led to mistrust between the two factions. The culture that was established caused a certain sectarian group to intensify their mission of disseminating their church doctrine throughout the community with the school as a vehicle for that message. The secular constituents were highly suspicious that their First Amendment rights were being infringed upon by the activities of secularists inside and outside the school. A contingent of school employees fostered the church’s mission with several members ignoring the wall of separation. The high school principal energized the debate when he elected to use the halftime of a sporting event to recognize the resigning athletic director by quoting scripture. Many were aghast that he would be so bold as to speak in such a manner, whereas others were euphoric that religion was infused in the public school. This case provides a practical examination of First Amendment practices in the public school and the opportunity to assess decision making through various organizational and ethical lenses.
Introduction to the Separation of Church and State in Public Arenas
The United States was founded on the principle that multiple perspectives are inclusive in our democratic processes. Discussion of various viewpoints is imperative at the highest level of government down through to the miniscule boards of supervision. Diverse concepts should be open for discussion on all subject matters. Yet, because humans are imperfect, and rarely agree on all points of a discussion, conflict arises. The more passionately a person values an idea, the more he or she is willing to defend it and is unyielding to divergent perceptions. Religious influence, or its negation, causes some of the most arduous debates in public schools. Problems are sure to ensue when a specific set of circumstances does not meet desires or expectations, or if the issue conflicts with a group’s values (Alexander, 2013).
The politics that are a creation of these organs lead people to have strong tenets they often want to impart on other groups or individuals as a moral imperative. The amalgamation of church and state doctrines establishes the opportunity for multiple conflicts as identified by the Founding Fathers’ intention to keep them separate in the Constitution by the inclusion of the Free Exercise Clause and Establishment Clause in the First Amendment. The framers recognized the importance of not allowing any governmental attempts to establish one religion over another, and in contrast, would not be able to chill the rights of individuals wishing to express their beliefs in a public school setting. While Thomas Jefferson’s proverbial “wall” separating church and state purports an unambiguous and stationary barrier, litigious contests continue to permeate the public school landscape. Proponents of the “wall” are fearful of those whose self-proclaimed mission it is to “save the souls of the lost” and view the school setting as an opportune stage to espouse such tenets. Likewise, affording individuals the right to freely enunciate his or her religious beliefs in a public setting is fundamental to American Constitutional entitlements. Small communities allow for amplification of opines by influential non-secular institutions, especially when attempts are made to intermingle in the public schools.
A Jesus Picture Hangs on the Wall
A small community in southwest Michigan provided a stage for perceived and real religious encroachments into the public school. This rural farming community has several small churches established in its sphere of influence but none quite as prominent as the nondenominational Christian Church. Simply, two groups have been established in the community as a result of this dynamic: those who attend the church and those who do not. Individuals who attend this church have a strong commitment to the philosophy that it is their role as Christians to save those that have wandered from the dogma espoused in their church doctrine. The public school is an undeclared stage for that mission.
Often in small communities, individuals who step forward to serve are viewed as general leaders and serve the community in multiple capacities. Several elders (leaders of the church) in the Christian Church were elected members of the public board of education in addition to their non-secular obligations. To mitigate the frustration some may have with this concept, a New York state contest deemed it acceptable for a public board to include religious representatives where they perform an essentially secular role (New York State Sch. Bds. Ass’n v. Sobol, 1992). Periodically, these board members assessed school-related business through the lens of their church tenets. The misapplication of the philosophy held by these individuals would initiate conflict between the members of the church and those on “the outside.” The seminal situation, which initiated the schismatic culture of the community, occurred in 1993.
The high school was constructed in the shape of a square with a courtyard in the middle. The hallways look like a traditional high school with multiple classroom doors and hundreds of lockers lining the walls. Near the main entrance where most students pass throughout the day is the office and gymnasium, and because this is a highly traversed area, internal and external publics frequent this location. Soundly affixed to the wall in this highly conspicuous location was a single piece of ecclesiastical artwork: Warner Sallman’s famous portrait, Head of Christ. The portrait adorned the wall at this location for 30 years, yet its presence sent the community spiraling into an abyss of conflict between non-secular and secular advocates when one student claimed a violation. The grievant pronounced that the display of the portrait was a violation of the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment, which defined the notion that a state organ (the school) was providing an influence of religion into what should characteristically be a neutral environment. The Board of Education, heavily influenced by the leaders of the church, did not concede to the request of the grievant and refused to remove the artwork. The grievant in the conflict quickly became the plaintiff (Washegesic v. Bloomingdale Pub. Schs., 1994).
Courts have concluded somewhat ambiguous reviews of cases dealing with religious displays in public forums. However, in public schools, there is more clarity regarding religious displays as defined by the Lemon, Endorsement, or Coercion test perspective. Figure 1 defines these three tests the Supreme Court has established to determine whether a governmental action or policy has violates the Establishment Clause.
The three tests to determine whether the Establishment Clause has been violated. (Thomas, Cambron-McCabe, & McCarthy, 2009, p. 27)
“Religious displays are destined to remain controversial. Courts seem likely to strike down the permanent display of the Ten Commandments and other sectarian documents in public schools” (Thomas, Cambron-McCabe, & McCarthy, 2009, p. 39). In support of this statement, the Supreme Court determined that a Kentucky statute requiring every public school classroom to post the Ten Commandments had a preeminent purpose, which was clearly religious and violated the Establishment Clause (Stone v. Graham, 1980). Barring non-secular items that are temporary and comparative in nature, it is reasonable to conclude that administrators should discard a verbal or written message that endorses a religious tenet or may be defined as proselytization. Based upon various courts’ review of this issue, a reasonable individual would conclude the picture hanging in the hallway of the high school was a violation of the Establishment Clause in spite of many believing the litigation was de minimis (including one of the Sixth Circuit Court Judges). In September 1994, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals delivered a 3-0 vote enjoining the high school to remove the picture from the wall, and the court used as its primary cause the violations of all three prongs of the Lemon test. Removal of this iconographic picture, which became a strong cultural symbol, was viewed by some as a direct attack on their non-sectarian beliefs and their church.
A Community Divides and Begins to Mistrust One Another
The Head of Christ became a strong bifurcated symbol. The sectarian community saw the picture as values and morals that were being unjustifiably withheld from children, and for those espousing non-sectarian tenets, they viewed it as an intrusion into their First Amendment protections. In any case, those outside the community viewed the icon as representative of conflict. The members that had dual roles in the church and school encouraged and welcomed the employment of individuals, who represented their framework of public education. These individuals wanted to ensure the heart of the organization maintained congruent values, beliefs, and ideologies so a single dominant culture could persevere (Bush, 2003). West-Burnham (1997) describes further that when leaders espouse a moral responsibility, the foundation of those tenets can be from a particular religious affiliation. However, a one-size-fits-all model does not work (Dimmock & Walker, 2002). Religious culture often encompasses energumens, who contend they have a divine mission to fulfill. The enthusiasm with which these leaders approached the public schools was viewed by others as confrontational and unresponsive to divergent viewpoints.
When an influential organization like a local church, entrenched in its beliefs and vision, is denied their mission, consternation does not abate quickly. Policymakers for the school associated with the church were quite accommodating when their own members sought employment with the district even though this was not overtly articulated. Multiple associations began to occur at the administrator-level assisting in the sectarian mission. The pastor of the church had two sons employed in the school: One son became the athletic director, and the other the dean of students in the high school; the high school counselor was notorious for meeting with students who attended the Christian Fellowship Organization designed for the youth of the community, which he facilitated, but most importantly, it was associated with the Christian Church; the director of operations was an influential member of the church and served on a number of church committees, and his son became the assistant pastor at the same locale. Various state supreme courts have posited that an individual associated with religious orders may be employed by a public school as long as there is no proof of religious instruction (Hysong v. School Dist. of Gallitzin Borough, 1894; Zellers v. Huff, 1951). An influential structure was established for the church’s mission in a de facto manner to provide religious influence in the public schools. Accusations about these individuals using the school to promote their church doctrine maintained in frequency as the community moved away from the “Jesus Picture” decision. Wounds regarding this contest continued to permeate throughout the community maintaining an abstruse divide.
Many parents and community members became quite suspicious of these individuals’ motives within the school. Regular complaints would arise, seeding the speculation of those that believed the church members did neither honor the First Amendment separation of church and state nor respected the decision handed down by the Sixth Circuit Court. Allegations of favoritism by the counselor, Bible references by the dean of students in detention, distribution of Bibles by a school official after graduation, and covert influence by school officials or student sycophants happened with enough regularity that the perception of various publics was that something nefarious was occurring. These events, whether real or perceived, caused well-intentioned programs to be questioned. For example, the district complied with state law and Supreme Court precedent in allowing students with parent permission to receive religious instruction off school premises ( Public Act 451 of 1976 ; Zorach v. Clausen, 1952). Parents became concerned with this practice, especially when enough students were absent that teachers began adjusting their lessons, which significantly reduced instructional progress. Honorable intentions and value-building exercises were heavily scrutinized and negatively perceived because of certain cultural mores and intentional neglect of the demarcation of First Amendment obligations on the part of a few.
The High School Principal Finds Religion
The athletic director recognized his calling and began substituting for a neighboring church pastor’s absence just about every weekend. He had competent oratory and content skills, and it was obvious he had found a career/life-mission. In time, a fledgling church needed a quality pastor, and he was appointed to that position. As his resignation date approached with the school, a decision was made by the high school principal to have a resignation acknowledgment at the halftime of a basketball game. A large card signed by district employees, a gift certificate, and a plaque were handed to the 6-year veteran of this position. Benevolent comments were made about the departing athletic director by the high school principal, but unbeknownst to attendees that evening, few were prepared for what was to follow. After an elegant précis of his tenure as athletic director and his mirific passion for mankind, his future career as a local pastor was announced. The high school principal concluded by asking the presumptuously secular crowd in attendance to pay respect by bowing their heads as he read several verses from the Book of Matthew, which he had specifically identified for this occasion. In a trice, the reading concluded. For many individuals, they were left to ponder whether what they were a part of was appropriate or legal. For supporters, they were hyperbolic about the inclusion of the message in his comments. For others, it returned them to an iconographic picture, which divided a small community.
School leadership should consistently seek employees to be individuals of high moral character. This should emanate from the top of the organization throughout all constituencies to provide students with the most positive role models possible. Yet, public organizations must be cautious about limiting multiple viewpoints or espousing only one correct moral imperative. The U.S. Constitution adds some clarity to the requirement of secular and non-secular practices; however, in other cases, courts have, arguably, caused greater confusion of the issue. A key component to recall for these organizations is that they represent children of all backgrounds. Recognizing the various cultures and backgrounds of these students must be celebrated, rejoiced, and used to teach tolerance. Every public school should comprehend this role and establish policies and procedures to combat social injustice. Understanding students’ diverse backgrounds and welcoming them into the school is something no religion should contend.
Teaching Notes
A small community in southwest Michigan has been witness to a significant cultural divide within its school system. An influential church permeated school leadership and in many cases has overstepped the proverbial “wall separating church and state.” A high-profile case saw the Sixth Circuit Court enjoin the district to remove a portrait of Jesus. Community members were divided on this issue, which led to a lot of mistrust between the two factions. The culture established caused a certain sectarian group to intensify their mission of disseminating their church doctrine throughout the community with the school as a vehicle for that message. The secular constituents were highly suspicious that their First Amendment rights were being infringed upon. A contingent of school employees fostered this church’s mission with several of them ignoring the wall of separation. The high school principal energized the debate when he elected to use the halftime of a sporting event to recognize the resigning athletic director by quoting scripture. Many were aghast that he would be so bold as to speak in such a manner, whereas others were euphoric that religion had come to the public school. This case provides a practical examination of Free Exercise and Establishment Clause practices in the public school and the opportunity to assess decision making through various organizational and ethical lenses.
Legal Analysis
Practicing administrators need to have a legal comprehension of the “wall of separation” between church and state issues and must be savvy enough to know when the school is encroaching on free exercise rights or is promoting a certain religion. The Constitution addresses this demarcation in the First Amendment, yet leaves room for debate.
Fora for Public Speech
An important topic within this scenario is the religious speech the principal used to honor the athletic director at a school-sponsored event, specifically employing biblical scripture. The First Amendment guarantees religious freedom to all citizens. School employees have the right to free exercise of religion, including religious speech, at times when employees are allowed to meet for other forms of expression. Yet, they should exercise caution to ensure these events are conducted in private where students cannot observe nor participate in them. School employees are, therefore, required to temper religious commentary to permissible times and places when acting in an official capacity in the presence of students.
The constitutionality of the principal’s actions during the regular school day would not be allowable because he or she is proselytizing to a captive audience. However, because the religious speech is during a non-curricular period, and the school has established a limited public forum, it is pertinent to analyze whether the principal must maintain the same boundary of speech. Using the halftime of a basketball game, as a vehicle to deliver biblical scripture is inappropriate, as the event was on government property at a government-sponsored school-related activity (Santa Fe Independent Sch. District v. Doe, 2000) with the principal acting in an official capacity. Restrictions abound in public schools as administrators are required to navigate a tenuous line between advocating a certain religion or denying free expression of the same. Understanding the various fora for speech will assist administrators with compliance of the spirit of the First Amendment. Imber and Van Geel (2010) define the various fora for speech in the following.
Open (traditional) public forum
This forum is a place such as a park or public street that has typically been open to the public for purposes of assembly, demonstration, and speeches. Speeches may only be regulated if necessary to achieve a compelling state interest.
Limited public forum
This forum is created when the government has voluntarily opened a place for speech activities but has limited the expressive activities to certain kinds of speakers or certain subjects. The government may enforce reasonable viewpoint-neutral regulations of the content of the speech.
Designated public forum
This forum is a place that has not traditionally been open to the public but that the government by policy or practice has opened to the general public. An auditorium during nonschool hours may qualify for a designated public forum if it is available for meetings by nonschool groups.
Nonpublic forum
This forum is a place by designation or tradition that is never opened up for expressive activity.
To address the legal conundrum in this case study, the instructor should couch the discussion in various legal cases involving First Amendment violations. Figure 2 is a compendium of selected decisions dealing with Establishment and Free Exercise Clause violations. The instructor is encouraged to provide an additional case analysis on this topic.
Brief case history of the religious separation.
Questions to Consider
Based upon the history the district has had related to First Amendment contentions, public perception, and legal precedent, should the high school principal have made these remarks?
For either a positive or negative response to question number one, what legal precedent are you relying upon to make this judgment?
What would your response be as a spectator to the principal’s presentation? Would you feel “violated” in any manner?
Assuming you met with the principal the next day as his or her supervisor, what might you say and why?
As the high school principal’s superior, what action, if any, might you consider in response to his presentation? What position would you assume if the principal declared, “God’s law is more important than man-made law!”
What might be alternatives to publicly acknowledge an individual and solemnize the occasion, yet not run afoul of the First Amendment? Justify your responses using legal precedent.
Does the halftime of a basketball game at a public high school provide for a limited public forum? If a limited forum is established, does the principal have free speech rights?
Assuming the demographics of the community began changing, including a significant religion other than Christianity, how do you perceive that segment of the community would have reacted to the principal’s quotation of the Bible?
Because there is such a splenetic divide in this community, what might be some actions administrators should employ to ameliorate the cultural environment?
Policy and Organizational Analysis
As an educational leader, it is your primary responsibility to first advance a school or district academically. To accomplish that objective, it is crucial the majority of constituents are willing to follow you. Certainly, divisions such as the one articulated in the aforementioned case cause a retraction of potential progress. As Alexander (2013) establishes,
Leaders must voice ideas, convey dreams, create workable ideals, establish goals, solve problems, offer alternatives, and get others to agree. By definition, you are not much of a leader if no one is following. (p. 2)
Developing appropriate policy to guide individuals is important in all organizations. Even when problems are well defined, perfect solutions to resolve them may not exist. Alexander (2013) declares that policy problems are not static and may change over time. Policy problems by nature are public, consequential, complex, and dominated by uncertainty and affected by disagreement about the path to pursue (Heck, 2004).
The case outlined earlier presents a unique dilemma for a superintendent or central office administrator. Because the administrator will be at the forefront of establishing policy, he or she will eventually be required to provide input on the issue. Obviously, the position selected will probably anger the opposing viewpoint, which could include several board members in this case.
Understanding organizational and policy theory is critical to minimizing errors of judgment. Relying solely on your own personal experience in interpreting facts and making decisions is too narrow because it discards the knowledge and experience of others. Managers in schools must engage in both internal and external publics in leading their institutions. The need for leadership must be firmly rooted in personal and professional values. Greenfield and Ribbins (1993) add that leadership begins with the character of leaders, expressed in terms of personal values, self-awareness, and emotional and moral capability. Yet values and morals can run contradictory to the educational mission of the school.
Questions to Consider
As a school leader, how do you reconcile the potential imbalance between your religious beliefs and the dictates of American jurisprudence?
Educational leaders are tasked with ensuring the rights of all constituents are protected. How might you go about protecting the rights of individuals that are in the minority viewpoint on an issue?
In terms of policy perspective, discuss the community’s systemic concerns as viewed through the rational, structural, and cultural lens.
Again, using the rational, structural, and cultural lens describe how a district administrator might establish policy to correct the religious fissure that has developed in the school as a result of the community?
Using various organizational perspectives such as political, cultural, and collegial, describe what decisions the superintendent might make to remediate immediate and underlying problems facing the district. What ramifications might those decisions have for the school community?
Is there a potential from the case described that an educational leader could be faced with the danger of “managerialism,” which is defined by Bush (2003) as a stress on procedures at the expense of educational purpose and values?
How might you provide leadership where individual and organizational objectives are incompatible?
Explain whether you believe the religious divide in the community might prevent you from completing your primary responsibility to improve student achievement. Justify your response through the use of organizational theory.
Ethical and Moral Leadership
Ethics is at the heart of leadership (Ciulla, 2008). Educational leaders are faced with dilemmas every day, which requires them to make complex decisions that are in the best interest of students, staff, and the community. The community expects leaders to act justly, promote good, and demonstrate moral and professional accountability (Owens & Kaplan, 2012). Educators have a moral responsibility to be proactive about creating and sustaining an ethical environment in which to conduct education. As leaders are confronted with these daily issues, he or she must rise above any immediate self-interest to promote the common good.
Ethics, a set of moral principles, can be delineated as norms, values, beliefs, habits, and attitudes society chooses to endorse. Jeremy Bentham (1789), a noted English scholar and social reformist defined ethics as the, “ . . . art of directing men’s actions to the production of the greatest possible quantity of happiness, on the part of those whose interest is in view” (p. 310). Thomas Friedman (2008) modernizes the conception by indicating that “Laws regulate behavior from the outside in. Ethics regulate behavior from the inside out” (p. 192). Ethics are not edicts imposed by the state but rather they are voluntary.
Owens and Kaplan (2012) further the notion of ethics by articulating that it is what we ought to do given a certain situation. Acting ethically requires leaders to choose the right behavior, whereas being moral is the ability to practice that right behavior. Selecting the right decision can be challenging because often leaders must determine what is right versus right or wrong versus wrong. In some cases, determining right from wrong can be arduous.
School administrators face a wide array of ethical and moral decisions every day. When making these decisions, it is important to determine whether he or she must rely on personal values, professional ethics, or community desires. Determining what is best for the organization or the individuals can mean the difference between success and failure. Leaders are expected to make decisions that fulfill the organization’s mission that brings stability: “Management must consider the impact every business policy and action upon society to determine whether it is likely to promote the public well-being, advance the society’s basic belief, and add to its stability, strength and harmony” (Drucker, 1968, p. 461). The leader bears the responsibility for articulating the vision and mission of the organization and must communicate the beliefs and values that shape the culture and behavioral norms. These norms are the foundation for strategies, policies, and procedures produced by the district: “Within an ethical perspective, organizational leaders are truly effective only when they are motivated by a concern for others as well as for the organization—despite the risk of personal cost” (Owens & Kaplan, 2012, p. 253).
Leaders are obviously human beings with a set of values and beliefs. Inevitably, this core mission will occasionally be employed as a lens for decision making. Yet, it is worth noting, the leader must be extremely cautious as to how that particular model effects the overall direction of the organization. In schools, the moral imperative for leaders is to provide the best learning opportunities for the entire student population.
Questions to Consider
What posture might you take if the principal’s non-secular beliefs are anathema to legal procedures as required by his or her job? Reflect upon various ethical perspectives to support your answer.
The president of the board of education wishes to speak with you. He hears about a fellow board member’s daughter who wishes to present a “diversity scholarship” to a fellow classmate at graduation to fulfill the requirements of establishing a community project. The president comes from the very dogmatic tenets of the Christian faith and accuses the event as a rouse to use homosexuality to mock his faith. He ends the discussion by emphatically stating to you, “When do my rights get protected?” How would you respond to him?
Utilitarianism as an ethical system posits that ethical choices should be made based on their consequences to maximize the benefits to as many people as possible. What are some possible choices of action the superintendent might make in light of the principal’s presentation draped with the past issues in this community? What might be some of the outcomes?
The categorical imperative states to always do the right thing. Treat people fairly, be transparent and give them the choice. If the superintendent endorses this theory, what decisions might he make and what might be some of the ramifications for those decisions?
The justice as fairness system guarantees individuals freedom and liberty. Social and economic differences are justified if they create equal opportunity and provide maximum benefit to the least advantaged. If the superintendent abides by this system, what decisions might he or she make and what might be the outcomes?
The communitarian system states leaders must assume all responsibility and seek the common good over individual accomplishment. What decisions might the superintendent make and what would the outcomes be if he or she espoused this theory?
The altruistic system promotes loving your neighbor and demonstrating concern for others over self-interest. Leaders need to recognize and be able to articulate their constituents’ needs. If the superintendent were to apply this system, what decisions would he or she make and what would be the outcome?
The ethical pluralism model states that no one perspective is better over another; it depends upon the situation. If this is true, what perspective would you recommend the superintendent use for this particular situation and what might be the outcomes?
In adopting the transformational leadership model, whereby the leader sees a moral imperative for change, how might the superintendent use his power to change the school community’s core attitudes and beliefs? What might be the outcome of this model?
Transactional leaders exchange basic needs for the followers’ labor and obedience. Transactional leadership can be a quid pro quo with constituents. If the superintendent abided by this theory, what consequences might occur as a result of it?
Servant leaders believe that their constituents’ interest come before their own. They are characterized as empathetic, healers of conflict, effective listeners and developers of organizational members’ skills. What decisions might a superintendent make if he or she employed this theory and what might some of the outcomes be?
Authentic leaders have a firm understanding of their beliefs and values. They tend to have a strong moral compass and recognize their ethical responsibility to the organization. Using this theory, what decisions might the superintendent employ and what might some of the results of those decisions be?
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Author Biography
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
