Westside Community Schools Case Study

The reasoning behind that decision was that the provision allowing students to absent themselves from that activity did not make that law constitutional. The purpose of the First Amendment was to prevent government interference with religion (Facts and Case Summary - Engel v. Vitale, n.d.). Justice Douglas concurred with what the court had found. He took a broader view of the Establishment Clause, arguing that any type of public promotion of religion, including giving financial aid to religious schools, violates the establishment clause (Facts and Case Summary - Engel v. Vitale, n.d.). I would agree with this decision in some ways, but there are some that I do not agree with.

The famous Brown v. Board of Education demonstrates the presence of racial segregation in public schools. Prior to 1957, Central High School, in Little Rock, Arkansas, had never had African American students, despite a 1954 ruling from the Supreme Court stating that racial segregation in public schools in unconstitutional. In September of 1957, nine African American students This sparked angry backlash from a mob of 1000 white protestors. The Supreme Court ruled in the Brown v. Board of Education that Central High School must integrate. (History.com staff)

These decisions also made it so job discrimination in federally funded programs were not allowed. In 1954, the U.S. Supreme Court announced a resolution that changed the way students went to school. At the end of the Brown v. Board of Education case, the Supreme Court said that "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal" (Morrison 19). Chief Justice Earl Warren said, "We conclude that in the field of public education, the doctrine of separate but equal has no place" (Somervill

Brinkley depicts the opinion of Chief Justice Earl warren as he restated his words, “we conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine ‘separate but equal’ has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal”

Notаbly absent from the opinion, as it was in Plessy, is any citаtion to a Supreme Court cаse that considered whether the prаctice of segregating schools was a violation of the Fourteenth Аmendment. It was an open question for the Court. The Court аdmitted that the precedent to which it cited involved discriminаtion between whites and blacks rаther thаn other rаces. However, the Court found no аppreciable difference here—"the decision is within the discretion of the state in regulating its public schools, and does not conflict with the Fourteenth Аmendment."

Therefore, the issue pertaining to students with learning disabilities was thrown out in relation to this particular case. • The state Supreme Court, in addressing the ill fitting correlation drawn in Stamos’ citation of Bell v. Lone Oak Independent School District as an explanation of how students have a fundamental right to participate in extracurricular activities, stated that correlations between the fundamental right of marriage and this case could not be aligned. • The state Supreme Court also stated that due to the facts the rule did not infringe upon any fundamental rights nor did it create/burden a suspect class, that it did not violate the equal protection guarantees of the Texas Constitution. • Citing Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. at 577-78, 92 S. Ct. 2709

The Court case Engel v. Vitale originated in a New York school where students and their parents felt their rights were being violated when the school implemented a mandatory prayer. Five decades later, Engel continues to be reviled by a good number of televangelists and politicians who take every opportunity to rail against the “godless public schools.” Eliminating school-sponsored prayer, they argue, set America on the road to moral and spiritual

Gathercoal (2001) reminds school leaders that the Supreme Court has upheld schools may limit an individual’s right to an education if they violate one of four underlying responsibilities. Students right to an education can be limited if they willfully cause property loss or damage. They must follow rules which have a legitimate educational purpose. Students rights can also be limited if they pose a health and safety risk to themselves or others. Finally students may not cause a serious disruption to the educational process.

Although Lau v. Nichols had a positive impact on the education of non-English-speaking students, the Supreme Court stopped short of making revisions that would force school district to reexamine the school board’s illegal practices. The Supreme Court didn’t give the SFUSD a clear directive regarding provisions of specific programs that would satisfy Section 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This shortcoming keeps the debate alive as to whether or not appropriate programs for non-English-speaking students have been implemented correctly throughout the Unites States. Discussions are still prevalent in school districts, state legislatures, and

Prayer in public schools became an issue in 1960. A woman by the name of Madalyn Murray O’Hair sued the Baltimore, Maryland school system, because her son William J Murray was allegedly being forced to participate in prayer at the public school he attended. The American Atheist Organization, alongside Madalyn’s actions consequently led to the Supreme Court ruling in the 1960s. On June 17, 1963, the Supreme Court published its ruling on the case. The Supreme Court ruled that Bible reading and prayer in schools were unconstitutional.

Douglas and the other five of them supported Engel and the parents because they agreed that the First Amendment and the Establishment Clause were being violated; even if students were excused from performing the prayer. Most of the court also believed that“not every religion recognizes a God, so some are necessarily excluded even with this wording” (Skelton 1). In a national survey by the Nation’s School journal, it was found that “...50 percent of school administrators returning the questionnaire wanted the Engel decision reversed ; 48 percent of them supported it” (Dierenfield

SUMMARY In this landmark case Allan Bakke, a white applicant to the University of California, Davis Medical School, sued claiming his denial of admission on racial grounds was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The standing rule at the time was that race may be a factor in determining admission to educational institutions; however it cannot be the sole determining factor. FACTS OF THE CASE The University of California, Davis Medical School had been reserving 16 spots in each class out of 100 for disadvantaged minorities.

(2) Background Information As well as the lawsuit filed by Alton Lemon, this incident involved two other cases that fell under the same issue, Earley v. DiCenso and Robinson v. DisCenso. Both conflicts involved a state law passed, through the Non- public Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1968, by the state of Pennsylvania and Rhode Island. This act gave the government permission to fund religious based or parochial schools. Although the schools provided textbooks and instructional materials for secular subjects, a Pennsylvania instructor believed that this act violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” Lemon argued that that by providing this money

Third, the statute cannot foster “ an excessive government entanglement with religion”. The Lemon v. Kurtzman case along with the Earley et al.v. DiCenso both passed the first test. Both had the intention to enhance quality of education. This argument convinced the judge and the law was considered unconstitutional.

Board of Education decision did not abolish segregation in other public areas, such as restaurants, stores or even bathrooms, nor did it require desegregation of public schools by a specific time. It did, however, declare that the mandatory segregation that existed in the states unconstitutional. It was a big step towards complete desegregation of public schools (‘The Leadership Conference’ 1). It was unanimously decided by the United States Supreme Court that, “in the field of public education, the doctrine of "separate but equal" has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal” (History.com Staff 1).