McCollum v. Board of Education


McCollum v. Board of Education
McCollum v. Board of Education
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued December 8, 1947
Decided March 8, 1948
Full case name People of State of Illinois ex rel. Vashti McCollum v. Board of Education of School District № 71, Champaign County, Illinois, et al.
Holding
The use of public school facilities by religious organizations to give religious instruction to school children violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
Court membership
Case opinions
Majority Black, joined by Vinson, Murphy, Douglas
Concurrence Frankfurter, joined by Jackson, Rutledge, Burton
Concurrence Jackson
Dissent Reed
Laws applied
U.S. Const., Amends. I and XIV

McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203 (1948), was a landmark 1948 United States Supreme Court case related to the power of a state to use its tax-supported public school system in aid of religious instruction. The case was an early test of the separation of church and state with respect to education.

The case tested the principle of "released time", where public schools set aside class time for religious instruction. The Court struck down a Champaign, Illinois program as unconstitutional because of the public school system's involement in the administration, organization and support of religious instruction classes. The Court noted that some 2,000 communities nationwide offered similar released time programs affecting 1.5 million students.

Contents

Background

The case was brought by Vashti McCollum, the mother of a student enrolled in the Champaign public school district.

In 1940, interested members of various Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish faiths formed an association named the Champaign Council on Religious Education. This association obtained permission from the Champaign Board of Education to offer voluntary religious education classes for public school students from grades four to nine. These weekly 30- and 45-minute classes were led by clergy and lay members of the association in public school classrooms during school hours.

McCollum, an atheist, objected to the religious classes, stating that her son James was ostracized for not attending them. After complaints to school officials to stop offering these classes went unheeded, McCollum sued the school board in July 1945, stating that the religious instruction in the public schools violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment—the principle of separation of church and state in the United States. McCollum also complained that the school district's religious education classes violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The principal elements of the McCollum complaint were that:

  • In actual practice certain Protestant groups exercised an advantage over other Protestant denominations.
  • The school district's calling the classes "voluntary" was in name only because school officials coerced or forced students' participation.
  • The power exercised by the Champaign Council on Religious Education in its selection of instructors, and the school superintendent's oversight of these instructors served to determine which religious faiths participated in the instructional program, and constituted a prior censorship of religion.

In her suit, McCollum asked that the Board of Education be ordered to "adopt and enforce rules and regulations prohibiting all instruction in and teaching of all religious education in all public schools in Champaign District Number 71, and in all public school houses and buildings in said district when occupied by public schools".

The Circuit Court of Champaign County ruled in favor of the school district in January 1946, and upon appeal the Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's ruling.

Decision of the Court

McCollum appealed the case to the U. S. Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case, taking oral arguments in December 1947. A number of religious groups including the American Unitarian Association, the Synagogue Council of America, the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists and the Baptist Joint Committee of Religious Liberty filed briefs in support of McCollum’s position.[1][2]

On March 8, 1948, the Court ruled 8-1 in favor of McCollum, ruling that the classes were unconstitutional.

In the majority opinion, written by Justice Hugo Black, the Court held that

[The facts] show the use of tax-supported property for religious instruction and the close cooperation between the school authorities and the religious council in promoting religious education. The operation of the state's compulsory education system thus assists and is integrated with the program of religious instruction carried on by separate religious sects. Pupils compelled by law to go to school for secular education are released … in part from their legal duty upon the condition that they attend the religious classes.

To hold that a state cannot consistently with the First and Fourteenth Amendments utilize its public school system to aid any or all religious faiths or sects in the dissemination of their doctrines and ideals does not … manifest a governmental hostility to religion or religious teachings. … For the First Amendment rests upon the premise that both religion and government can best work to achieve their lofty aims if each is left free from the other within its respective sphere.

Dissent

The lone dissenting justice, Stanley Forman Reed, objected to the breadth of the majority's interpretation of the Establishment Clause and stated that an incidental support of religion should have been permissible with a more narrow reading of the First Amendment.

Subsequent developments

The Supreme Court's ruling remanded the case to the Illinois high court for relief consistent with the federal ruling.

The high court revisited the issue of religious instruction in Zorach v. Clauson in 1952. The 6 to 3 ruling in the later case held that a New York program allowing religious education during the school day was permissible, because it did not use public school facilities or public funds.

See also

References

  1. ^ Lieblich, Julia (18 May 1998), "Back to the Future?", Christianity Today 
  2. ^ Dart, John (19 September 2006), "A pioneer figure in church-state rulings", Christian Century 

Further reading

  • Cushman, Robert F. (1950). "Public Support of Religious Education in American Constitutional Law". Illinois Law Review 45: 333. ISSN 02769948. 
  • Patric, Gordon (1957). "The Impact of a Court Decision: Aftermath of the McCollum Case". BYU Journal of Public Law 6: 455. ISSN 08962383. 
  • Sullivan, Russell N. (1949). "Religious Education in the Schools". Law and Contemporary Problems 14 (1): 92–112. doi:10.2307/1189950. 
  • McCollum, Vashti (1993). One Woman’s Fight. Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc.. ISBN 978-1877733086. 
  • McCollum, Dannel (2008). The Lord Was Not On Trial: The Inside Story of the Supreme Court's Precedent-Setting McCollum Ruling. Americans For Religious Liberty. ISBN 978-0982125403. 

External links

  • Text of McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203 (1948) is available from: Justia · Findlaw · LII

Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.

Look at other dictionaries:

  • McCollum — may be the family name of an individual: Allan McCollum, American artist (1944–present) Betty L. McCollum, Minnesota Representative (1954–present) Ira William Bill McCollum, Jr., Florida Congressman (1944–present) C. J. McCollum, American… …   Wikipedia

  • Vashti McCollum — Vashti Cromwell McCollum (November 6 1912 ndash; August 20 2006) was the plaintiff in a landmark 1948 Supreme Court case that struck down religious education in the public schools. The defendant in the McCollum case was the school district of… …   Wikipedia

  • Weekday Religious Education — is a released time Christian education programLithwick, Dahlia. [http://www.slate.com/id/2113611/ Bible Belt Upside the Head] . Slate , February 16, 2005. Accessed July 27, 2006.] Palmetto Family Council.… …   Wikipedia

  • Davenport v. Washington Education Association — Davenport v. Washington Ed. Assoc. Supreme Court of the United States Argued January 10, 2007 Decided …   Wikipedia

  • Released time — is a concept used in the United States public school system wherein pupils enrolled in the public schools are permitted by law to receive religious instruction. The principle is based on the constitutional right of parents to direct the religious …   Wikipedia

  • Stanley Forman Reed — For the Indian newspaper editor and British politician, see Stanley Reed. Infobox Judge name = Stanley Forman Reed imagesize = 200px caption = Stanley Forman Reed office = Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court termstart = January… …   Wikipedia

  • Abington School District v. Schempp — Abington Township School District v. Schempp Supreme Court of the United States Argued February 27–28, 196 …   Wikipedia

  • Stanley Forman Reed — Stanley Forman Reed, etwa 1942 Stanley Forman Reed (* 31. Dezember 1884 in Minerva, Mason County, Kentucky; † 2. April 1980 in Huntington, New York) war ein amerikanischer Jurist. Er fungierte v …   Deutsch Wikipedia

  • Minersville School District v. Gobitis — Supreme Court of the United States Argued April 25, 1940 Decid …   Wikipedia

  • Jewish Released Time — Jewish Released Time, also known as Sheloh (an abbreviation for Shi urei Limud Hados (Classes for Learning the Religion)), is an organization promoting released time for the Jewish education of Jewish children learning in public schools.HistoryIn …   Wikipedia