Source: https://www.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp?n=18-1430&s=&d=125583
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 18:14:07+00:00

Document:
In this case, we consider whether two statements concerning Islamic beliefs, presented as part of a high school world history class, violated a student’s First Amendment rights under either the Establishment Clause or the Free Speech Clause. The student, Caleigh Wood, contends that school officials Evelyn Arnold and Shannon Morris (the defendants) used the statements about Islam to endorse that religion over Christianity, and compelled Wood against her will to profess a belief in Islam.
Upon our review, we conclude that the challenged coursework materials, viewed in the context in which they were presented, did not violate Wood’s First Amendment rights, because they did not impermissibly endorse any religion and did not compel Wood to profess any belief. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment awarding summary judgment in favor of the defendants.
During the 2014-2015 school year, Wood was an eleventh-grade student at La Plata High School, a public high school in Charles County, Maryland. Arnold was La Plata’s principal, and Morris was employed as one of the school’s vice-principals.
Revolution, and World Wars I and II. The topics were divided into separate units, with each unit generally being taught over a period of between ten and twenty days.
portion of a declaration known as the shahada (the shahada assignment).
Wood’s father objected to the use of the challenged materials. He asserted to the defendants that Islam should not be taught in the public school and demanded that his daughter be given alternative assignments. He directed his daughter to refuse to complete any assignment associated with Islam on the ground that she was not required to “do anything that violated [her] Christian beliefs.” Wood’s failure to complete the assignments that, in her view, “promot[ed] Islam,” resulted in Wood receiving a lower percentage grade for the course but did not affect her final letter grade.
Wood later sued the defendants,2 alleging that they violated the Establishment Clause by “impermissibly endors[ing] and advanc[ing] the Islamic religion.” Wood further alleged that the defendants violated the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment by requiring her to complete the shahada assignment, thereby “depriv[ing] [her] of her right to be free from government compelled speech.”3 The district court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Wood now appeals.
1 The underlined words reflect the parts of the statement that the students were required to complete.
2 At the time the complaint was filed, Wood was a minor. Therefore, the suit was initially brought on Wood’s behalf by her parents. The complaint later was amended to name Wood as a plaintiff once she reached the age of majority.
We review the district court’s award of summary judgment de novo. See Buxton v. Kurtinitis, 862 F.3d 423, 427 (4th Cir. 2017). Wood contends that the district court erred in awarding summary judgment to the defendants on both her Establishment Clause claim and her Free Speech Clause claim. We address each claim in turn.
We begin with Wood’s Establishment Clause claim. Wood contends that through the comparative faith statement, “Most Muslim’s [sic] faith is stronger than the average Christian,” the defendants endorsed a view of Islam over Christianity in violation of the Establishment Clause. Wood also argues that the assignment requiring students to write a portion of the shahada impermissibly advanced the Islamic religion and compelled Wood to “den[y] the very existence of her God.” According to Wood, the challenged materials lacked any secular purpose and had the “effect of promoting and endorsing Islam.” We disagree with Wood’s argument.
La Plata High School premises. Those claims were dismissed by the district court, and have not been pursued on appeal.
F.3d 355, 370 (4th Cir. 2003) (“[W]e have emphasized that the Lemon test guides our analysis of Establishment Clause challenges.”); Koenick v. Felton, 190 F.3d 259, 264 (4th Cir. 1999) (“[T]his Court must rely on Lemon in evaluating the constitutionality of [government action] under the Establishment Clause.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). Under this test, to withstand First Amendment scrutiny, “government conduct (1) must be driven in part by a secular purpose; (2) must have a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion; and (3) must not excessively entangle church and State.” Moss v. Spartanburg Cty. Sch. Dist. 7, 683 F.3d 599, 608 (4th Cir. 2012) (citing Lemon, 403 U.S. at 612-13). The government violates the Establishment Clause if the challenged action fails any one of the Lemon factors. Buxton, 862 F.3d at 432 (quoting Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578, 583 (1987)).
Before applying the Lemon test, we must determine the proper scope of our inquiry, namely, whether we should examine the challenged materials in isolation or in the broader context of the world history curriculum. Wood asserts that we must analyze each statement on its own, apart from the subject matter of the class. We disagree with Wood’s contention.
any activity would inevitably lead to [the activity’s] invalidation under the Establishment Clause.” Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 679-80 (1984). Thus, when determining the purpose or primary effect of challenged religious content, courts, including this Circuit, consistently have examined the entire context surrounding the challenged practice, rather than only reviewing the contested portion. See Lambeth v. Bd. of Comm’rs of Davidson Cty., 407 F.3d 266, 271 (4th Cir. 2005); see also Freedom from Religion Found., Inc. v. City of Warren, 707 F.3d 686, 692-93 (6th Cir. 2013); Croft v. Perry, 624 F.3d 157, 168 (5th Cir. 2010); Fleischfresser v. Dirs. of Sch. Dist. 200, 15 F.3d 680, 688-89 (7th Cir. 1994); Cammack v. Waihee, 932 F.2d 765, 787 (9th Cir. 1991); Smith v. Bd. of Sch. Comm’rs of Mobile Cty., 827 F.2d 684, 692 (11th Cir. 1987).
display “in its particular setting”). Thus, any attempt on our part to strip statements from their context invariably would lead to confusion and misinterpretation when applying the Lemon test.
Manifestly, if courts were to find an Establishment Clause violation every time that a student or parent thought that a single statement by a teacher either advanced or disapproved of a religion, instruction in our public schools “would be reduced to the lowest common denominator.” Brown v. Woodland Joint Unified Sch. Dist., 27 F.3d 1373, 1379 (9th Cir. 1994). Such a focus on isolated statements effectively would transform each student, parent, and by extension, the courts, into de facto “curriculum review committee[s],” monitoring every sentence for a constitutional violation. Id.
School authorities, not the courts, are charged with the responsibility of deciding what speech is appropriate in the classroom. See Hazelwood Sch. Dist. v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260, 267 (1988) (citing Bethel Sch. Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675, 683 (1986)). Although schools are not “immune from the sweep of the First Amendment,” academic freedom is itself a concern of that amendment. Healy v. James, 408 U.S. 169, 180-81 (1972); see also Regents of the Univ. of Mich. v. Ewing, 474 U.S. 214, 226 (1985); Keyishian v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of the State of N.Y., 385 U.S. 589, 603 (1967). Such academic freedom would not long survive in an environment in which courts micromanage school curricula and parse singular statements made by teachers. Because the challenged materials were presented as part of Wood’s world history curriculum, it is in that context that we examine them.
The first prong of the Lemon test asks whether the government’s conduct has an “adequate secular object.” McCreary County, 545 U.S. at 865. This directive requires an “inquiry into the subjective intentions of the government.” Mellen, 327 F.3d at 372 (emphasis added). This part of the Lemon test imposes a “fairly low hurdle,” requiring the government to show that it had a “plausible secular purpose” for its action. Glassman v. Arlington County, 628 F.3d 140, 146 (4th Cir. 2010). Notably, the government’s purpose need not be “exclusively secular.” Brown v. Gilmore, 258 F.3d 265, 276 (4th Cir. 2001) (citations omitted). Rather, it is only “[w]hen the government acts with the ostensible and predominant purpose of advancing religion” that it violates the Establishment Clause’s “touchstone” principle of religious neutrality. McCreary County, 545 U.S. at 860 (emphasis added). So long as the proffered secular purpose is “genuine, not a sham, and not merely secondary to a religious objective,” that purpose will satisfy Lemon’s first prong. Id. at 864; see Lambeth, 407 F.3d at 270 (“A legitimate secular purpose is . . . sufficient to pass muster under the first prong of the Lemon test, unless the alleged secular purpose is in fact pretextual.”).
of Middle Eastern empires including the basic concepts of the Islamic faith and how it along with politics, culture, economics, and geography contributed to the development of those empires.” Nothing in the record indicates that the comparative faith statement was made with a subjective purpose of advancing Islam over Christianity, or for any other predominately religious purpose. Nor does the record show that the proffered secular purpose of teaching about Muslim empires in the context of world history was pretextual. See Lambeth, 407 F.3d at 270. Thus, on its face, the comparative faith statement was introduced for a genuine secular purpose.
history, we conclude that both the comparative faith statement and the shahada assignment satisfy the first prong of Lemon.
To meet the second prong of Lemon, the challenged government action “must have a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion.” Moss, 683 F.3d at 608. This requirement sets an objective standard, which “measure[s] whether the principal effect of government action is to suggest government preference for a particular religious view or for religion in general.” Mellen, 327 F.3d at 374 (citation omitted). We have “refine[d]” this analysis by incorporating the Supreme Court’s “endorsement test,” which asks whether a reasonable, informed observer would conclude that government, by its action, has endorsed a particular religion or religion generally. See id.; see also County of Allegheny, 492 U.S. at 592-94 (adopting the endorsement test in the Establishment Clause context). Thus, in this Circuit, the primary effect prong asks whether, “irrespective of government’s actual purpose,” a reasonable, informed observer would understand that “the practice under review in fact conveys a message of endorsement or disapproval” of a religion. Mellen, 327 F.3d at 374 (citation omitted). We presume that a “reasonable observer in the endorsement inquiry” is “aware of the history and context of the . . . forum in which the religious speech takes place.” Good News Club v. Milford Cent. Sch., 533 U.S. 98, 119 (2001) (quoting Capitol Square Review & Advisory Bd. v. Pinette, 515 U.S. 753, 779-80 (1995) (O’Connor, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment)).
The use of both the comparative faith statement and the shahada assignment in Wood’s world history class involved no more than having the class read, discuss, and think about Islam. The comparative faith statement appeared on a slide under the heading “Peaceful Islam v. Radical Fundamental Islam.” The slide itself did not advocate any belief system but instead focused on the development of Islamic fundamentalism as a political force. And the shahada assignment appeared on the student worksheet under the heading “Beliefs and Practices: The Five Pillars.” Thus, the assignment asked the students to identify the tenets of Islam, but did not suggest that a student should adopt those beliefs as her own.
4 do not amount to an endorsement of religion. See id.; see also Parker v. Hurley, 514 F.3d 87, 106 (1st Cir. 2008) (“Public schools are not obliged to shield individual students from ideas which potentially are religiously offensive, particularly when the school imposes no requirement that the student agree with or affirm those ideas.”). A reasonable observer, aware of the world history curriculum being taught, would not view the challenged materials as communicating a message of endorsement.
4 Although scholars could debate endlessly the content of the comparative faith statement and its suitability for use in an educational context, the “primary effect” prong of the Lemon test “must be assessed objectively.” Mellen, 327 F.3d at 374. Thus, Wood’s argument that the comparative faith statement is a “subjective, biased statement” about Islam is outside the bounds of our consideration whether use of the statement was constitutional. For the same reason, Wood’s contention that she viewed the comparative faith statement as offensive, and that some school officials thought the statement was inappropriate, is unavailing. See Lee, 505 U.S. at 597 (“We do not hold that every state action implicating religion is invalid if one or a few citizens find it offensive.”); Brown, 27 F.3d at 1383 (“[A] child’s subjective perception that a state action disapproves of or is hostile toward his or her religion is not, by itself, sufficient to establish an Establishment Clause violation.”).
comparative faith statement, or a lone question about a religion’s core principle on a fill-in-the-blank assignment, as an endorsement or disapproval of religion. Therefore, we conclude that the primary effect of both the comparative faith statement and the shahada assignment was to teach comparative religion, not to endorse any religious belief. Accordingly, the use of the challenged materials satisfies Lemon’s second prong.
The final prong of the Lemon test asks whether the government’s action created “an excessive entanglement between government and religion,” Lambeth, 407 F.3d at 272-73 (internal quotation marks omitted), which “is a question of kind and degree,” Lynch, 465 U.S. at 684. Excessive entanglement “typically” involves “the government’s ‘invasive monitoring’ of certain activities in order to prevent religious speech,” or the funding of religious schools or instruction. Buxton, 862 F.3d at 433; Comm. for Pub. Ed. & Religious Liberty v. Nyquist, 413 U.S. 756, 770 (1973) (“Primary among those evils [targeted by the Establishment Clause] have been sponsorship, financial support, and active involvement of the sovereign in religious activity.” (citation omitted)). Excessive entanglement may also be shown when the government’s entanglement has “the effect of advancing or inhibiting religion.” See Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203, 232-33 (1997).
or advance religious speech. See, e.g., Bd. of Educ. of Westside Cmty. Sch. v. Mergens, 496 U.S. 226, 253 (1990). Under the world history curriculum, it appears that lessons on the Muslim world constituted, at most, five days of a year-long course. Thus, we conclude that neither the comparative faith statement nor the shahada assignment resulted in an excessive entanglement with religion. Because the challenged materials satisfy all three prongs of the Lemon test, we hold that the district court properly granted summary judgment to the defendants on Wood’s Establishment Clause claim.
We next consider Wood’s Free Speech Clause challenge. Wood argues that the defendants violated her free speech rights by requiring her to complete in writing two missing words of a portion of the shahada, namely, that “[t]here is no god but Allah and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah.” In her view, “the curriculum implemented and supervised by [d]efendants compelled [Wood] to confess by written word and deed her faith in Allah.” We disagree with Wood’s position.
5 In Wood’s amended complaint, she objects to other portions of the world history curriculum, such as the fact that that Wood was “instructed from the text of the Qur’an,” that Wood was “instructed . . . that [r]ighteous women are . . . obedient” to men, and that the course devoted only a single day to the study of Christianity while multiple days were spent studying Islam. Wood waived these arguments by failing to raise them in her opening brief. Grayson O Co. v. Agadir Int’l LLC, 856 F.3d 307, 316 (4th Cir. 2017) (“A party waives an argument by failing to present it in its opening brief.”).
F.3d 101, 107 (4th Cir. 2018) (citation omitted). In the public school setting, students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate,” but retain their First Amendment rights “applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment.” Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 506 (1969). However, the Supreme Court has emphasized that students’ First Amendment rights in public schools “are not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in other settings.” Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. at 266.
First Amendment jurisprudence recognizes that the educational process itself may sometimes require a state actor to force a student to speak when the student would rather refrain. A student may also be forced to speak or write on a particular topic even though the student might prefer a different topic. And while a public educational institution may not demand that a student profess beliefs or views with which the student does not agree, a school may in some circumstances require a student to state the arguments that could be made in support of such beliefs or views.
C.N. v. Ridgewood Bd. of Educ., 430 F.3d 159, 187 (3d Cir. 2005). We agree with the Third Circuit’s reasoning. Although a student’s right against compelled speech in a public school may be asserted under various circumstances, that right has limited application in a classroom setting in which a student is asked to study and discuss materials with which she disagrees.
In the present case, the record is clear that the shahada assignment did not require Wood to profess or accept the tenets of Islam. The students were not asked to recite the shahada, nor were they required to engage in any devotional practice related to Islam.
Cf. W. Va. Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 631-32 (1943) (distinguishing between compelling students to declare a belief through mandatory recital of the pledge of allegiance, and “merely . . . acquaint[ing students] with the flag salute so that they may be informed as to what it is or even what it means”). Instead, the shahada assignment required Wood to write only two words of the shahada as an academic exercise to demonstrate her understanding of the world history curriculum. On these facts, we conclude that Wood’s First Amendment right against compelled speech was not violated.
Outcome: For these reasons, we affirm the district court’s judgment.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.