Clever v. Cherry Hill Township Bd. of Education

838 F. Supp. 929, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17140, 1993 WL 497014
CourtDistrict Court, D. New Jersey
DecidedDecember 2, 1993
DocketCiv. 93-1012(JEI)
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 838 F. Supp. 929 (Clever v. Cherry Hill Township Bd. of Education) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Clever v. Cherry Hill Township Bd. of Education, 838 F. Supp. 929, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17140, 1993 WL 497014 (D.N.J. 1993).

Opinion

OPINION

IRENAS, District Judge:

I. INTRODUCTION

The Christmas season brings with it not only sidewalk Santas, mercantile mania, and endless .reruns of Its A Wonderful Life and Miracle on S^th Street, but also a spate of constitutional litigation testing the limits to which governmental or public bodies may legally join in the festivities. In this case the plaintiffs challenge the policies of the Cherry Hill Board of Education in attempting to deal with issues which are both constitutionally abstruse and highly emotive.

Plaintiffs bring this action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988 and under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. This court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. .§§ 1331 and 1343. Plaintiffs also assert state law causes of action under Article I, ¶ 4 of the New Jersey Constitution and N.J.S.A. 18A:36-20 which are cognizable by this court pursuant to its supplemental jurisdiction under 28 .U.S.C. § 1367(a). 1 '

This matter comes before the Court on cross-motions for summary judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. On November 24, 1993, this Court heard oral argument from the parties and reserved decision. For the *932 reasons set forth below, this Court will deny plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and grant defendant’s cross-motion.

II. BACKGROUND

This case explores the constitutionally amorphous dividing line between the laudable educational goal of promoting a student’s knowledge of and appreciation for this nation’s cultural and religious diversity, and the impermissible endorsement of religion forbidden by the Establishment Clause of the United States and New Jersey constitutions.

Plaintiffs include Cherry Hill taxpayers, parents of students who attend Cherry Hill public schools and the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey (“ACLU”), some of whose members are either Cherry Hill taxpayers or public school parents. 2 They have challenged the constitutionality of Policy JO adopted by the Cherry Hill Board of Education to govern “THE USE OF CULTURAL, ETHNIC, OR RELIGIOUS THEMES IN OUR EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM.” This one-page statement is supplemented by an additional three-page document known as “Administrative Procedure C-17” and by two pages of “Guidelines For the Implementation of Policy JO and Administrative Procedure C-17.” Copies of Policy JO, C-17 and the Guidelines are attached to this opinion as Exhibits A through C.

All parties agree that the present student population of the Cherry Hill school district is both culturally and religiously diverse, although it is not disputed that the majority of the students are Christian and Caucasian.

Policy JO opens with the statement that it is the responsibility of the schools to “foster mutual understanding and respect for the rights of. all individuals regarding their beliefs, values, and customs.” It goes on to provide that instructional programs must be conducted

with sensitivity to the many religious beliefs existing within our student population ... [and] must remain consistent with the law as interpreted by state and federal courts in accordance with the Constitution of the United States. Programs which teach about religion and its role in the social and historical development of civilization and in the social and political context of world events do not violate the religious neutrality of public schools: Schools may teach about but not promote religion.

There is a recognition in Policy JO of the “special significance of seasonal observances and religious holidays.” It should come as no surprise that the nature and extent of the “seasonal observances” contemplated by Cherry Hill for the Christmas and Chanukah holidays are at the legal and emotional heart of this litigation.

Policy JO anticipates three types of public displays which might include religious symbols, only two of which are challenged in this litigation. Plaintiffs do not object to the display of religious symbols which are part of a “planned program of instruction.” 3

What plaintiffs do challenge are (i) calendars which are to be maintained in each classroom and in one central location, Administrative Procedure C-17, ¶ 4, and (ii) a display dealing with “cultural, ethnic, and religious customs and traditions of others during the appropriate season.” Administrative Procedure C-17, ¶ 5. Although Christmas is not mentioned in connection with this dis *933 play, there is little doubt as to which “appropriate season” the drafters of this provision had in mind. 4

Thé usé of classroom and central calendars is mandated in the elementary and junior schools and optional in high schools at the discretion of the principal. Seasonal displays are permissible, but not required, in any particular school.

The calendars recognize a large variety of national, cultural, ethnic, and religious holidays 5 which are taken from a “district-approved list which is created in accordance with educational criteria, and which reflects the world’s multi-cultural diversity.” Administrative Procedure C-17, ¶ 4. 6 In some instances the holiday is marked not only by words, but also by a symbol which, if the holiday is a religious one, may have religious significance. However, any such symbol is confined to the square representing the date of the holiday. A copy of symbols approved for use in connection with the implementation of Policy JO are attached to this opinion as Exhibit D. 7

Cherry Hill’s policy also mandates that the calendars be used in conjunction with a list of books and other resource materials available in the school library relating to the holidays identified in the, calendar. Teachers are provided with descriptions of each holiday to “be utilized by staff members as an educational resource throughout the school year. Id.

In addition to recognizing Election Day, Veterans Day, Thanksgiving Day and American Education Week, the November calendar highlights the “Birthday of Baha’u’llah (Baha’i)” on the 12th, “Divali (Hindu)” on the next day, “Shiehi-so-san Seven, Five, Three Festival (Japan)” two days later, and, finally, on November 29 “Nanak’s Birthday (Sikh)” is recognized. Divali and Nanak’s Birthday are also marked by what appear to be religious symbols.

December’s calendar recognizes nine days of significance including, appropriately if not ironically, “Bill of Rights Day” on the 15th.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Rojas v. Fitch
928 F. Supp. 155 (D. Rhode Island, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
838 F. Supp. 929, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17140, 1993 WL 497014, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clever-v-cherry-hill-township-bd-of-education-njd-1993.