Boy barred from reading Bible story loses Supreme Court appeal
By The Associated Press
06.18.01
Printer-friendly page
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court said today it would not get involved in a fight over whether a public school teacher should have allowed a first-grader to read his classmates a story from The Beginner's Bible.
Lawyers for the boy and his mother had hoped the court would consider the case, Hood v. Medford Board of Education, alongside one it decided last week, Good News Club v. Milford Central School, in which the majority ruled that a children's evangelism club could meet in a public school building after class.
The Bible story case arose from a 1996 incident at Zachary Hood's public elementary school in Medford, N.J.
First-grade teacher Grace Oliva rewarded reading achievement by allowing students to read a favorite story to classmates. Students were told they must select stories that were short and simple enough for first-graders to understand, and the teacher vetted their selections.
When it was his turn, Zachary chose a story loosely based on the Old Testament account of estranged brothers Jacob and Esau. The story, called "A Big Family," described Jacob's life away from his home country, his desire to return home and the brothers' joyful reunion.
Although it appeared in The Beginner's Bible: Timeless Children's Stories, the text of the story did not contain overtly religious terminology, such as references to God or the Bible.
The book jacket does feature biblical scenes, and a notation on the first page of "A Big Family" said the story came from Genesis, chapters 29-33.
Zachary's teacher thought it was inappropriate for youngsters to hear the story and had Zachary read it to her in private instead.
When the boy's mother, Carol Hood, complained, Oliva said allowing Zachary to read the story in class would amount to a Bible reading, Hood later claimed. Oliva also told the mother the story "might influence other students," Hood said.
The principal backed the teacher and said reading the story aloud would be "the equivalent of praying."
Hood sued, seeking a school policy allowing religious expression in classwork and monetary damages for the alleged discrimination.
A federal judge and the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Hood, finding that Oliva was within her rights as a teacher to restrict access to what the school called a "captive audience" of 6- and 7-year-olds.
The courts relied in part on the Supreme Court's 1988 ruling in Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, which said teachers have latitude to restrict speech in class for legitimate educational reasons. The appeals court drew a distinction between private student speech, which must be tolerated, and speech inside a classroom, which carries at least an implied stamp of school approval.
Lawyers with the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty argued to the Supreme Court that the school discriminated against Zachary's views in violation of the First Amendment.
Lawyers for the school district argued that the lower court rulings were correct, and accused Zachary's lawyers of misinterpreting or overemphasizing the case's constitutional relevance in hopes of enticing the Supreme Court to get involved.
"If anything may be said regarding the 'right' to read 'The Beginner's Bible' to the classmates of petitioner's son, it is that this right was not at all clearly established at the time of the incident. If anything, the contrary is true," lawyers for the school board wrote.
Michael P. Madden, who argued the case for the school board, said today he was not surprised by the Supreme Court's decision.
"We've won everywhere we've gone," Madden said. "I'm very happy for the board, the district, the teacher and the principal because I know that it's been on the minds of everybody."
Becket Fund lawyer Kevin J. Hasson, who argued the case, said he was "disappointed in the short run, but optimistic in the long run," in that a second part of the case has yet to be decided. In August, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sent back to the district court a portion of the case involving a Thanksgiving poster that Zachary drew.
The Hoods alleged that Zachary's rights also were violated in kindergarten, when a substitute teacher removed a poster he had made for a Thanksgiving display in the hallway.
Students were asked to make posters depicting what they were thankful for. Zachary made a poster showing that he was "thankful for Jesus."
The substitute teacher removed the poster from the display, but his regular teacher returned it to a less prominent place in the hallway the next day.
The appeals court did not rule on the constitutional issues surrounding the removal of the poster. It gave Carol Hood a chance to amend her complaint to make it more specific.
Hasson said a win in the district court on the poster portion of the case "would establish the same precedent as the 'Beginner's Bible' part of the case would."
Zachary is no longer enrolled in Medford schools. The Hoods, who have moved to nearby Lumberton, have an unpublished telephone number and could not be reached for comment today.
Previous
Judges split in case of first-grader barred from reading Bible story
Family of Zachary Hood will take case to Supreme Court, lawyer says.
08.29.00
Related
Split decision over Bible story begs high court involvement
By Charles Haynes Did a first-grade teacher violate Zachary Hood's rights when she barred him from reading a story from the Beginner's Bible?
09.17.00
