Supreme Court Rejects Bible Case

The Supreme Court said Monday it will 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 alongside one it decided last week, 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," 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 comes 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 money as punishment 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 calls a "captive audience" of 6 and 7-year-olds.

The courts relied in part on a Supreme Court case that says 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 aything 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.

Zachary is no longer enrolled in Medford schools.

Michael P. Madden, who argued the case for the school board, said 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," since a second part of the case has yet to be decided.

The case is Hood v. Medford Board of Education, 00-845.

© MMI The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed