The teacher's action, like the actions of the students in Tinker, was religiously motivated. The court concluded that the teacher's conduct was a permissible form of symbolic speech. First, the expression passed the two-part Tinker test because it did not materially and substantially jeopardize the maintenance of order and discipline in the school, and it did not invade the rights of others. Second, the expression did not interfere with the teacher's obligations to teach. Even if school authorities disagree with a teacher's philosophies, the teacher's constitutional right to free speech is protected.
State action exists when the state sponsors or mandates religion.
For example, state action would exist where the school requires daily Bible readings by all teachers. Although a teacher is an employee of the public school, this does not mean that all expression by the teacher has been sponsored or mandated by the school. The school's interest must be balanced against the teacher's individual right to academic freedom and free expression in both public and private speech. The court found these activities to be an Establishment Clause violation. The doctrine of academic freedom also negates the argument that a public school teacher is always an agent of the state for the purposes of implicating Establishment Clause concerns.