top-rated free essay

Minersville School District V. Gobitis

By hennessy Feb 02, 2010 1509 Words
At times in schools, there could be disagreements and disputes between the decisions of government and the rights of individuals. Students attend school in order to become well-educated young adults. The schoolteacher’s main objective is to make sure that students are receiving the maximum amount of learning to prepare them for future endeavors. Schools educate students on citizenship and what it means to live in a democracy. Public schools are under the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment, which gives citizens protection of their individual liberties from governmental interference. Public school officials must obey the demands of the Constitution. The Supreme Court ruled in the 1943 case West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette that school officials violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments when they punished students and their parents for the students’ refusal to salute to the American flag.

During the 1940s, the United States Supreme Court discussed two cases in which the majority disputed with the rights of individuals. In the first case, Minersville School District v. Gobitis, the court ruled that all students had to recite the Pledge of Allegiance while saluting the flag in the classroom. However, the Supreme Court faced the same issue three years later in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette and was against a state school order that public school students must participate in a patriotic ceremony.

The issues of the Barnette case came from the decision of the Minersville School District v. Gobitis case. Lillian and William Gobitis came home from school and told their parents that they had been expelled from their school in Minersville Pennsylvania because they did not salute to the American flag during the morning announcements. The Gobitis family belonged to the Jehovah’s Witnesses, which bans any act that is like worshipping an image or idol, which is an offense against God. Walter Gobitis, Lillian and William’s father, asked the Minersville School Board to excuse his children from the flag-salute requirement. When the Board refused, Gobitis removed his children from the public school and enrolled them into a private school, which did not require the patriotic requirements. He then sued in the federal district in Philadelphia to stop the school board from requiring children to salute to the flag. Gobitis argued that his children’s rights to religious liberty under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution were violated. The lawyers of the Minersville School Board disagreed that the flag-salute requirement was a way to teach good citizenship and that it was a “secular regulation” that had nothing to do with religion and everything to do with patriotic education. They also argued that if they let students opt out of the patriotic ceremonies, it would conflict with the school’s responsibility to promote national loyalty and unity. However, the Court voted 8-1 to uphold the school district’s requirement that students take part in the daily flag-salute exercises.

The Court agreed to overturn their decision within the Gobitis result. They stated, “Since we joined in the opinion of the Gobitis case, we think this is an appropriate occasion to state that we now believe that it was also wrongly decided.” There were many negative responses to the Gobitis decision. Over 170 newspapers throughout the country opposed the Court’s decision. For example, in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch stated: “We think this decision of the United States Supreme Court is dead wrong.” Also, the Gobitis decision caused Jehovah's Witnesses to become regular targets of harassment and cruel treatment. The persecution of these people concerned the justices. Two years after the Gobitis decision, the justices publicly stated that they changed their minds about the requirement of flag salutation in schools.

After declaring the change in flag-salute requirements in 1942, public school officials in Charleston, West Virginia expelled several Jehovah’s Witnesses as well as the children of Walter Barnette for the refusal of participating in the flag salutation ceremony. Barnette asked the federal district to stop enforcement of the requirements of the patriotic exercises. A three-judge panel granted Barnette’s request. Judge John J. Parker stated that the flag-salute requirement was “violative of religious liberty when required of persons holding the religious views of the plaintiffs.” After the board’s decision, no more Jehovah’s Witnesses were expelled from schools for not saluting to the flag. The decision was then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court and by a 6-3 vote they ruled that it was unconstitutional for public school officials to require students to salute and pledge allegiance to the flag at the risk of expulsion from school on June 14th, 1943. “The Barnette Court couched its decision in language evoking freedom of speech. The choice to salute the flag was speech, the Court said, and the First Amendment protected individuals from compelled speech. It almost did not matter that the Jehovah's Witnesses had religious objections to pledging allegiance to the American flag; neither they, nor anyone, could be forced to verbally espouse beliefs they did not hold.”

Justice Robert Black wrote the opinion of the court. Justice Jackson did not concentrate only on the violation of the First Amendment right to free religion but he based his opinion on several individual freedoms in the Bill of Rights, especially the freedom of speech. He thought the issue in the Barnette case was whether the government had authority under the Constitution to force the participation in any kind of public ceremony regardless of the person’s religious beliefs. He stated that the government had no right to interfere with individuals protected right to freedom of expression. He stated, “To believe that patriotism will not flourish if patriotic ceremonies are voluntary and spontaneous instead of a compulsory routine is to make an unflattering estimate of the appeal of our institutions to free minds.'' In response to the school officials violating the First and Fourteenth Amendments when they punished students and their parents for the students’ refusal to salute the American flag, Jackson stated:

“The Fourteenth Amendment, as now applied to the States, protects the citizen against the State itself and all of its creatures—Boards of Education not excepted. These have, of course, important, delicate, and highly discretionary functions, but none that they may not perform within the limits of the Bill of Rights. That they are educating the young for citizenship is reason for scrupulous protection of Constitutional freedoms of the individual.”

Hugo Black, William O. Douglas and Frank Murphy had concurring opinions of the West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette case. They were the most passionate supporters of the First Amendment. "Love of country must spring from willing hearts and free minds, inspired by a fair administration of wise laws enacted by the people's elected representatives within the bounds of express constitutional prohibitions."

Justice Felix Frankfurter opened his dissenting opinion stating the Nazi atrocities against Jews during the world war that was going on at the time of the Barnette decision. He expressed his sense of judicial duty, which was to observe and respect the Gobitis decision, which was the requirement in public schools to salute to the U.S flag. He argued that the Court had violated its bounds by imposing its judgments on the people instead of decisions of the elected representatives in government. He felt that the branches of government and the judiciary should not overturn these decisions. He also objected to Jackson’s argument that questions affiliated with the Bill of Rights should be beyond the reach of local officials and legislatures who supported the people’s decision. Despite his dissenting opinion, Jackson’s opinion in Barnette is considered one of the greatest statements on civil liberties ever written.

As a result of the West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette case, no more Jehovah’s Witnesses were expelled from their schools for the nonparticipation in the patriotic ceremonies. Students possess constitutional rights under the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment. Students are entitled to the freedom of expression and they do not have to salute to the U.S. flag if they do not believe to. Today, students may choose not to participate in patriotic ceremonies held in their schools.

I feel that the Court made the right decision in abolishing the requirement to salute to the flag. If everyone is entitled to protection of the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment, they should not be penalized or punished for not doing something they do not believe in. There are certain “unalienable” rights that we, as human beings, hold. These rights cannot be, or should never be, taken away from us.

Source:

http://www.answers.com/topic/west-virginia-state-board-of-education-v-barnette

http://www.answers.com/topic/minersville-school-district-v-gobitis

http://law.jrank.org/pages/12562/West-Virginia-State-Board-Education-v-Barnette.html

http://usinfo.org/docs/democracy/46.htm

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0319_0624_ZC.html

Cite This Document

Related Documents

  • Vernonia School District V. Acton

    ...Brycen Wojta Ms. Sheehan Gov. 12, Hr. 4 Dec. 17, 2012 Vernonia School District v. Acton (1995) Case Identification The Vernonia School District v. Acton case took place in 1995 at the Rehnquist Court at Vernonia High School in Oregon(1). This case was decided on Monday, June 26, 1995 (2). In a town named Vernonia, Oregon, the local p...

    Read More
  • Vernonia School District V. Acton

    ...On June 26, 1995, the Supreme Court decided on the case Vernonia School District v. Acton as to whether or not random drug testing of high school athletes violated the reasonable search and seizure clause of the Fourth Amendment. During the 1980's and 1990's there was a large increase in drug use. The courts decision was a strong interpretation ...

    Read More
  • Safford Unified School District #1 V. Redding

    ...Safford Unified School District #1 v. Redding Facts In Safford Arizona school on October 8th, officials strip-searched a 13-year-old girl after they received information from another student that the girl possessed "prescription strength" 400 mg ibuprofen and 200mg naproxen. While attending math, assistant principle Kerry Wilson entered t...

    Read More
  • McGrath v. Shenendehowa Central School District

    ... McGrath v. Shenendehowa Central School District (2010) The case of McGrath v. Shenendehowa Central School District began on May 3rd, 2005 when Theresa McGrath, a senior at Bethlehem High School, suffered a horrific knee injury playing a regular season, varsity lacrosse game at their opponent’s field in the Town of Clifton Park. From The...

    Read More
  • Timothy W. V. Rochester School District

    ...Timothy W. V. Rochester School District Abstract The provision of resources to handicapped children is subject to a wide variety of federal and state laws and statutes. However, due the varied and spectacular range of disabilities and combination of disabilities it is often difficult to easily decide who should receive benefits and who shoul...

    Read More
  • Bethel School District vs. Fraser

    ...Bethel School District vs. Fraser This case involved a public high school student, Matthew Fraser who gave a speech nominating another student for a student elective office. The speech was given at an assembly during school as a part of a school-sponsored educational program in self-government. While giving the speech, Fraser referred to his ...

    Read More
  • District of Columbia v. Heller

    ...American Government November 29, 2014 District of Colombia v. Heller The District of Columbia had a law banning all handguns. Dick Heller challenged this law in 2008, on the grounds of the Second Amendment. This was the first time that the Supreme Court had regarded what it meant for an individual’s right to possess weapons for private uses,...

    Read More
  • The Oakland School District

    ...THE OAKLAND SCHOOL DISTRICT BUSINESS PURCHASING 104-170 MARCH 6, 2012 OVERVIEW In reviewing an analysis of his school district’s paper buying habits, supply manager Gene Smith uncovered some interesting statistics regarding the Oakland School District’s supply ordering habits. Through the growth of the school district, purchase o...

    Read More

Discover the Best Free Essays on StudyMode

Conquer writer's block once and for all.

High Quality Essays

Our library contains thousands of carefully selected free research papers and essays.

Popular Topics

No matter the topic you're researching, chances are we have it covered.