N.J.'s Sex-Education Requirement Sustained by High Court

By Susan Walton — June 02, 1982 3 min read
  • Save to favorites
  • Print

In a unamimous decision, the New Jersey Supreme Court last week upheld a state regulation requiring that public schools provide sex education, stating that the regulation does not violate the U.S. Constitution by impinging on the free exercise of religion or by denying due process.

In addition, the justices ruled, the state board of education did not permit a “procedural irregularity” in the process of passing the rule.

But the plaintiffs in the suit, a group of parents led by Mary K. Smith of Belmar, N.J., plan to appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, according to Joseph F. Shanahan, attorney for the group. “We’re not going to let it die, not without a final decision,” Mr. Shanahan said. They plan to file the appeal, probably within a month, on the same grounds on which they originally brought suit: violation of the due-process and establishment clauses, according to Mr. Shanahan.

The parents who brought the suit, which is called Smith v. Ricci, objected to a 1980 state board of education regulation that mandates sex education, beginning no later than the sixth grade (see Education Week, Feb. 24, 1982).

The ruling is the first court decision to be handed down on the case, which, because of its controversial nature, was sent directly to the state supreme court by the state attorney general.

The plaintiffs objected to the regulation on several counts, both religious and procedural, according to Mr. Shanahan. They charged that the regulation established a “secular-humanist” religion, thus violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, and that it interfered with the free exercise of other religions--those that restrict sexual activity to marriage, for example.

They also contended in their suit that, in passing the regulation, the state board violated their right to due process. The board had decided to pass the regulation before holding public hearings, making the hearings a “sham,” according to Mr. Shanahan.

Justices Disagreed

The justices, however, did not concur with any of these allegations, according to a spokesman for the New Jersey Supreme Court.

In the 20-page decision written by Associate Justice Robert Clifford, the court ruled that the regulation did not violate the right to free exercise of religion, since it includes a clause that allows students who find the material objectionable to be excused from the class. That clause, the justices ruled, eliminates any possible infringement on the religious beliefs of students or their parents.

Nor did the regulation establish secular humanism as a “state religion,” according to the opinion. “There is absolutely nothing in the regulation or in the curriculum guidelines that gives even the slightest indication that the program favors a ‘secular’ view of its subject matter over a ‘religious’ one,” the opinion states.

The decision also exonerated the board of education of any “procedural irregularity” and stated that the board’s action did not violate due process.

The decision cited two recent cases in California and Hawaii, where mandatory sex education had been upheld, provided that students who objected to the material be excused. The New Jersey regulation does provide such an “excusal period,” according to the state education department.

In similar cases, the courts have ruled that sex education is a public-health measure that does not infringe on students’ constitutional rights.

New Jersey is one of three states that require sex education; Kentucky and Maryland have similar requirements, as does the District of Columbia.

In New Jersey, the 1980 regulation replaced a 1967 board action that “encouraged” districts to teach sex education. By 1980, 40 percent of the districts did so. The board passed the more stringent requirement in response to the rapidly escalating rate of teen-age pregnancy in the state.

A version of this article appeared in the June 02, 1982 edition of Education Week as N.J.'s Sex-Education Requirement Sustained by High Court


This content is provided by our sponsor. It is not written by and does not necessarily reflect the views of Education Week's editorial staff.
Student Well-Being Webinar
Attend to the Whole Child: Non-Academic Factors within MTSS
Learn strategies for proactively identifying and addressing non-academic barriers to student success within an MTSS framework.
Content provided by Renaissance
Classroom Technology K-12 Essentials Forum How to Teach Digital & Media Literacy in the Age of AI
Join this free event to dig into crucial questions about how to help students build a foundation of digital literacy.

EdWeek Top School Jobs

Teacher Jobs
Search over ten thousand teaching jobs nationwide — elementary, middle, high school and more.
View Jobs
Principal Jobs
Find hundreds of jobs for principals, assistant principals, and other school leadership roles.
View Jobs
Administrator Jobs
Over a thousand district-level jobs: superintendents, directors, more.
View Jobs
Support Staff Jobs
Search thousands of jobs, from paraprofessionals to counselors and more.
View Jobs

Read Next

Education Briefly Stated: June 19, 2024
Here's a look at some recent Education Week articles you may have missed.
8 min read
Education Briefly Stated: June 12, 2024
Here's a look at some recent Education Week articles you may have missed.
9 min read
Education Briefly Stated: May 29, 2024
Here's a look at some recent Education Week articles you may have missed.
9 min read
Education Briefly Stated: May 8, 2024
Here's a look at some recent Education Week articles you may have missed.
8 min read