Use Of Facilities By The Community Case Study
Use of Facilities by the Community
Does the board's action constitute a breach of duty to honor its verbal authorization? Why or why not?
In my opinion, the board's action does constitute a breach of duty if it does not honor its verbal authorization that was given to the students and parents for the baccalaureate ceremony that is sponsored by the community. It is stated that " a limited open forum exists when an administrator allows one or more noncurricular-related student groups to meet on school premises during no instructional time" (Essex, 2012, p. 29). It also states that "based on the intent of the act, it would be unlawful for a student religious group to be denied use, whereas other noncurricular student groups were …show more content…
"Public school officials are aware that a very fine line separates church and state relationships" (Essex, 2012, p. 35). Just because the school district has changed its policies that prohibit them from utilizing the gym, a way around it is to ensure that the program is not forced to attend nor do they utilize any of the school resources.
Does the district's action amount to a breach? Why or why not?
If the district prohibits the group from using the gym for the baccalaureate ceremony it will constitute a breach of the verbal contract between the group and the administration. It is stated that "based on the intent of the act, it would be unlawful for a student religious group to be denied"(Essex, 2012, p. 29). With this statement, the district action amounts to a breach of contract.
What is the legality of reversing a policy that has been approved and executed for an extended period of time?
The legality of reversing a policy that has been approved and executed for an extended period of time would constitute in a violation of the verbal agreement made between the students, their parents, and the district administration. …show more content…
Since they do not use the school resources for the ceremony moreover not forcing the students to attend it is not a form of violation of the first amendment. (Essex, 2012)
What might the district's defense be in this situation?
The district's defense in this situation might be that if they are utilizing the school resources in the form of classrooms during the school day it is a violation of the first amendment, which also creates a wall of separation between church and state that must be separate. The baccalaureate ceremony must not create excessive entanglement nor advance or inhibit religion. The public-school officials are aware that there is a very fine line that separates church and state relationships. (Essex, 2012)
How would the court likely rule on this issue? Provide a rationale for your
Does the board's action constitute a breach of duty to honor its verbal authorization? Why or why not?
In my opinion, the board's action does constitute a breach of duty if it does not honor its verbal authorization that was given to the students and parents for the baccalaureate ceremony that is sponsored by the community. It is stated that " a limited open forum exists when an administrator allows one or more noncurricular-related student groups to meet on school premises during no instructional time" (Essex, 2012, p. 29). It also states that "based on the intent of the act, it would be unlawful for a student religious group to be denied use, whereas other noncurricular student groups were …show more content…
"Public school officials are aware that a very fine line separates church and state relationships" (Essex, 2012, p. 35). Just because the school district has changed its policies that prohibit them from utilizing the gym, a way around it is to ensure that the program is not forced to attend nor do they utilize any of the school resources.
Does the district's action amount to a breach? Why or why not?
If the district prohibits the group from using the gym for the baccalaureate ceremony it will constitute a breach of the verbal contract between the group and the administration. It is stated that "based on the intent of the act, it would be unlawful for a student religious group to be denied"(Essex, 2012, p. 29). With this statement, the district action amounts to a breach of contract.
What is the legality of reversing a policy that has been approved and executed for an extended period of time?
The legality of reversing a policy that has been approved and executed for an extended period of time would constitute in a violation of the verbal agreement made between the students, their parents, and the district administration. …show more content…
Since they do not use the school resources for the ceremony moreover not forcing the students to attend it is not a form of violation of the first amendment. (Essex, 2012)
What might the district's defense be in this situation?
The district's defense in this situation might be that if they are utilizing the school resources in the form of classrooms during the school day it is a violation of the first amendment, which also creates a wall of separation between church and state that must be separate. The baccalaureate ceremony must not create excessive entanglement nor advance or inhibit religion. The public-school officials are aware that there is a very fine line that separates church and state relationships. (Essex, 2012)
How would the court likely rule on this issue? Provide a rationale for your