Court Opinion

ID: 9701384
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 22:17:50.648031+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:22.789979
License: Public Domain

*818KRIVOSHA, C.J.,
concurring in part, and in part dissenting.
I find that I must in part concur with, and in part dissent from, the majority opinion in this case.
I concur in that portion of the majority opinion which holds that the State, having a high responsibility for the education of its citizens, has the power to impose “reasonable regulations” for the control and duration of basic education. I believe that principle applies even though the reasonable regulations may, in some manner, affect what an individual or group maintains is their religious belief. Neither the U.S. Const, art. I nor art. IX, nor the corresponding sections of our own state Constitution, grants individuals or groups carte blanche authority to reject all State control over their activity in the name of religion.
Early in our nation’s history, we were called upon to make such decisions. In 1878 the U.S. Supreme Court, in the case of Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 25 L. Ed. 244 (1878), was called upon to determine the validity of Utah’s prohibition against polygamy, a practice of the Mormon religion. In upholding the Utah law against a claim that the prohibition violated the Mormons’ freedom of religion, the U.S. Supreme Court reviewed the history of our Constitution, and in particular the first amendment. It concluded from that examination that while polygamy may have its basis in the Old Testament, it could, nevertheless, be outlawed in this country. In doing so, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a party’s religious belief could not be accepted as a justification for his committing an overt act made criminal by the law of the land. That view has prevailed throughout the history of our country and was recently repeated in the case of Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 92 S. Ct. 1526, 32 L. Ed. 2d 15, 27-28 (1971), wherein Chief Justice Burger noted: “It is true that activities of individuals, even when religiously based, are often subject to regulation by the States in the exercise of *819their undoubted power to promote the health, safety, and general welfare, or the Federal Government in the exercise of its delegated powers. See, e.g., Gillette v. United States, 401 U.S. 437 [91 S. Ct. 828, 28 L. Ed. 2d 168] (1971); Braunfeld v. Brown, 366 U.S. 599 [81 S. Ct. 1144, 6 L. Ed. 2d 563] (1961); Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 [64 S. Ct. 438, 88 L. Ed. 645] (1944); Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 [25 L. Ed. 244] (1879).” Id. at 220. It would seem clear, beyond debate, that if a group claimed a first amendment right to reestablish the ancient Temple requirements of twice-daily animal sacrifices, the State, under proper conditions, could prohibit such act. The right of one’s religious freedom does not totally eliminate the State’s right to regulate the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens in an appropriate case.
Appellants’ claim that the Bible prohibits them from permitting the State any supervisory right over the education of their children fails by reason of the very argument itself. Appellants contend their right to be exempt from all governmental supervision in regard to the education of their children stems from the biblical requirements concerning the education of children and, therefore, clearly falls within the protection granted by the first amendment. Appellants’ biblical argument, however, fails to consider all of the requirements relating to their position. In particular, their position fails to recognize the ancient Rabbinic principle first laid down by the Babylonian Jewish Scholar Samuel, and known as dina de-malkhuta dina, a halakhic rule that the law of the country is binding and in certain cases is to be preferred. Under this doctrine, one may not ignore the secular law of the country in which one lives.
As noted by a host of decisions from various jurisdictions, a State, having a high responsibility for the education of its citizens, may impose reasonable regulations for the control and duration of basic education. See Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, *820534, 45 S. Ct. 571, 69 L. Ed. 1070 (1925). For that reason I, therefore, have no difficulty in agreeing with the majority opinion insofar as it holds that the State may adopt reasonable regulations which require a teaching institution, public or private, to submit its curriculum for examination and approval; or to disclose the attendance of its students; or even to subject its students to periodic testing. Such action would not, in my mind, constitute a violation of the religious clauses of either the United States Constitution or the Nebraska Constitution.
However, based upon the record in this case, I must respectfully dissent from that portion of the majority opinion which in effect upholds the State’s requirement that all elementary and secondary teachers, public or private, hold a baccalaureate degree before a student’s attendance at such school may satisfy the State’s compulsory attendance laws. I do not believe either logic or experience, or current law, justifies such a conclusion.
Just as no group may obtain a first amendment exemption from all State regulations by merely asserting that the regulated activity has some basis in a religious belief, neither can the State regulate or control all action of a group under the bald assertion that such regulation is necessary to preserve and maintain the health, safety, or welfare of such group. We have traditionally attempted to balance those concepts and have diligently sought to find a reasonable middle ground. As Chief Justice Burger wrote in Yoder, supra at 214-15: “Thus, a State’s interest in universal education, however highly we rank it, is not totally free from a balancing process when it impinges on fundamental rights and interests, such as those specifically protected by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, and the traditional interest of parents with respect to the religious upbringing of their children so long as they, in the words of Pierce, ‘prepare [them] for additional obligations.’
*821“The essence of all that has been said and written on the subject is that only those interests of the highest order and those not otherwise served can overbalance legitimate claims to the free exercise of religion. We can accept it as settled, therefore, that, however strong the State’s interest in universal compulsory education, it is by no means absolute to the exclusion or subordination of all other interests. E. g., Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 [83 S. Ct, 1790, 10 L. Ed. 2d 965] (1963); McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420, 459 [81 S. Ct. 1101, 6 L. Ed. 2d 393] (1961) (separate opinion of Frankfurter, J.); Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 165 [64 S. Ct. 438, 88 L. Ed. 645] (1944).”
In this case, I believe that we have failed to bring about the necessary balance and have unnecessarily opted in favor of the State when such result is neither required nor justified.
Time has adequately disclosed to us the hazards of attempting to determine in the abstract what is necessary and proper in providing children with an eduation. It would not require a great deal of research to establish that whatever steps we have taken heretofore in our effort to ensure a meaningful education for our children have not accomplished our objectives.
Likewise, we may find examples in our own state which prove the hazards of attempting to determine what is truly necessary to ensure education. In 1919 the Legislature, in what it then believed to be its infinite wisdom, enacted a law making it unlawful to teach a foreign language to a student before the student attained and successfully passed the eighth grade. This court, in affirming the constitutionality of that act, finding it a valid exercise of the State’s police power, wrote, in part, as follows: “The salutary purpose of the statute is clear. The legislature had seen the baneful effects of permitting foreigners, who had taken residence in this country, to rear and educate their children in the language of their native land. The result of that condition was found to be inimical *822to our own safety. To allow the children of foreigners, who had emigrated here, to be taught from early childhood the language of the country of their parents was to rear them with that language as their mother tongue. It was to educate them so that they must always think in that language, and, as a consequence, naturally inculcate in them the ideas and sentiments foreign to the best interest of this country. The statute, therefore, was intended not only to require that the education of all children be conducted in the English language, but that, until they had grown into that language and until it had become a part of them, they should not in the schools be taught any other language. The obvious purpose of this statute was that the English language should be and become the mother tongue of all children reared in this state. The enactment of such a statute comes reasonably within the police power of the state.” See Meyer v. State, 107 Neb. 657, 661-62, 187 N.W. 100, 102 (1922).
In striking down the law and rejecting the logic of our opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court, in the case of Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 400, 43 S. Ct. 625, 67 L. Ed. 1042 (1923), said: “The American people have always regarded education and acquisition of knowledge as matters of supreme importance which should be diligently promoted. . . . Corresponding to the right of control, it is the natural duty of the parent to give his children education suitable to their station in life; and nearly all the States, including Nebraska, enforce this obligation by compulsory laws.”
“It is well known that proficiency in a foreign language seldom comes to one not instructed at an early age, and experience shows that this is not injurious to the health, morals or understanding of the ordinary child.” Id. at 403.
That general notion was again approved in Pierce v. Society of Sisters, supra, wherein the U.S. Supreme Court was called upon to examine the Oregon compulsory education act. In striking down an Oregon law *823requiring all children between the ages of 8 and 16 years to attend the public schools as an unlawful and unconstitutional interference with the liberty of parents and guardians to direct the upbringing and education of children under their control, the U.S. Supreme Court said at 534, in part: “Under the doctrine of Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U. S. 390 [43 S. Ct. 625, 67 L. Ed. 1042], we think it entirely plain that the Act of 1922 unreasonably interferes with the liberty of parents and guardians to direct the upbringing and education of children under their control. As often heretofore pointed out, rights guaranteed by the Constitution may not be abridged by legislation which has no reasonable relation to some purpose within the competency of the State. The fundamental theory of liberty upon which all governments in this Union repose excludes any general power of the State to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only. The child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.”
While I recognize that we do not require attendance in a public school, but will certify a private school if its teachers all hold baccalaureate degrees, I find nothing either in our statutes or in logic which compels a conclusion that one may not teach in a private school without a baccalaureate degree if the children are to be properly educated. Under our holding today, Eric Hoffer could not teach philosophy in a grade school, public or private, and Thomas Edison could not teach the theories of electricity. While neither of them could teach in the primary or secondary grades, both of them could teach in college. I have some difficulty with a law which results in requiring that those who teach must have a baccalaureate degree, but those who teach those who teach need not. The logic of it escapes me. The experience of time has failed to establish that *824requiring all teachers to earn a baccalaureate degree from anywhere results in providing children with a better education.
While it may be appropriate for a state to set such requirements in a public school where state funds are expended and, in effect, the state is the employer, I find no basis in law or fact for imposing a similar requirement in a private school. The failure of the private school to have as adequate and as trained teachers as the public school may be a factor which parents will take into account in deciding whether their children should be enrolled in that private school. I do not believe, however, that it should disqualify children from satisfying the compulsory attendance laws. I .could accept a regulation which required instructors in such schools to satisfy the state that they were adequately trained to perform the functions they were hired to perform. I believe, however, that such functions may be adequately performed absent a baccalaureate degree.
I am of the opinion that our Legislature also holds that view. There are at least two specific statutory provisions concerning teachers which lead one to that conclusion. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 79-1247.05 (Reissue 1976) specifically provides that regulations with regard to the issuance of certificates shall be “based upon earned college credit, or the equivalent thereto____” (Emphasis supplied.) It is difficult to imagine how “the equivalent thereto” can be satisfied if the college degree is the minimum requirement. Obviously, the Legislature concluded that something other than classroom attendance in a college would be sufficient to satisfy certain educational requirements of a teacher.
And, likewise, as argued by appellants, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 79-1247.06 (Reissue 1976) provides, in part, that the “maximum” requirement which the State Board of Education may impose on one seeking certification is a baccalaureate degree. Yet, by mere rule, the state board has converted the maximum require*825ment into a minimum requirement. This action taken by the state board in promulgating Rule 21 appears to me to constitute the exercise of undelegated legislative authority and may, therefore, be void. See Lincoln Dairy Co. v. Finigan, 170 Neb. 777,104 N.W.2d 227 (1960).
The record in this case clearly establishes that the failure of all instructors in appellants’ school to hold a baccalaureate degree has not in any manner detracted from the quality of the education being given its students. No evidence was offered that, absent a baccalaureate degree, one is not qualified to teach. Likewise, the State conceded at oral argument before this court that the program of instruction offered by appellant school was, indeed, satisfactory, and if submitted to the State for approval, would undoubtedly be approved. Yet that approval would not result in the school’s being certified or in the students’ status being such as to satisfy the compulsory attendance law. That defect could not be cured unless and until all instructors held a baccalaureate degree, as if the earning of such a degree somehow magically bestowed upon the recipient that knowledge which one without such a degree could not otherwise obtain.
Even the State Board of Education has recognized that the obtaining of a degree may, under certain circumstances, be waived. Rule 21-(70) of the rules adopted by the State of Nebraska Department of Education under date of July 8, 1977, provides for the issuance of an emergency teaching certificate. The bases upon which such certificate may be issued are, in part: “[T]o legalize the payment of a salary from tax sources to a person not fully qualified for a regular teaching certificate required for the position to be filled; or to legalize the employment in a private, parochial or denominational school of a person not fully qualified for a regular teaching certificate required for the position to be filled.”
While it is true that there are further requirements *826of that rule which ultimately may compel the individual to obtain a baccalaureate degree, one must ask the question: If the holding of such a degree is so critical as to affect the education of a child, why does the State Board of Education waive it under any circumstance? Obviously, the requirement of holding such a degree is not so indispensable to the providing of a good and sufficient education that it must be required under all circumstances and at all times.
It may be argued, as the State does, that any other requirements would impose a severe burden upon the State, in that it would then be required to conduct various tests of students in these schools in order to determine whether, in fact, they are receiving an adequate education. No one, however, has ever suggested that the mere fact that action required to be performed by the government may be difficult justifies the government’s refusal to perform the required act.
The majority points out that to wait until after a period of time has expired before we test the students may be too late. If the holding of a baccalaureate degree by a teacher in and of itself ensured that students would thereby be educated and able to pass the test, that argument might wash. Experience, however, discloses that students taught by teachers holding baccalaureate degrees do not necessarily receive an adequate education in each and every instance. The record in this case supports that view. Witnesses who qualified as experts in the field of education ventured the opinion that the mere fact that a person held a baccalaureate degree did not mean that he or she would be a good teacher.
In my view, attempting to strike a balance between the various interests of the parties herein does not justify requiring that all persons teaching in appellants’ school can qualify as a teacher only by holding a baccalaureate degree. I believe there are other reasonable regulations which can be adopted for private *827schools that would permit these schools to continue, thereby striking the necessary balance between the two competing interests. I would have so held.