Hilsenrath v. Sch. Dist. of the Chathams, 136 F.4th 484 (May 5, 2025) Hardiman, Circuit Judge.
This appeal concerns the constitutionality of a middle school social studies curriculum. Libby Hilsenrath sued the Board of Education of the School District of the Chathams over instructional videos about Islam in her son’s seventh-grade World Cultures and Geography class. She claimed the Board violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by assigning the videos. Applying recent path marking decisions of the Supreme Court, the District Court disagreed and granted summary judgment to the Board. Hilsenrath filed this appeal. Because the school’s curriculum does not resemble a traditional hallmark of religious establishment, we will affirm.
The record here shows that the Board did not proselytize. Even assuming students were compelled to watch the “Intro to Islam” and “5 Pillars” videos—a point which the parties dispute—they did so “as part of a secular program of education.” The videos were embedded in PowerPoint slides entitled “Introduction to Islam” and “Making Generalizations with Content,” which were presented during two sessions of a year-long class that also covered Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, and Hinduism. In short, the MENA lesson was “integrated into the school curriculum” as part of “an appropriate study of history, civilization,” and “comparative religion.” That context distinguishes this case from the Supreme Court’s decisions addressing proselytization in public schools.
Here, by contrast, the Board assigned videos to help students “understand what a generalization is and the benefits and consequences of using them” and to “explore the 5 Pillars of Faith and be able to explain the impact/significance of them in the Muslim culture.” Because the “Intro to Islam” and “5 Pillars” videos were presented in an academic rather than devotional context, they do “not come close to crossing any line” separating permissible curricular materials from impermissible proselytization.
Hilsenrath counters that, unlike the instruction on other religions, the MENA lesson “extol[led]Islam over all other faiths and encourage[d]conversion to the religion.” This argument once again ignores context. It is true that the creator of the Intro to Islam video described Allah as “the one God” and Islam as “the true faith.”78But the videos were embedded within PowerPoint slides that refer to Muslims exclusively in the third person, repeatedly describing what “Muslims believe.” The “Introduction to Islam” worksheet did the same, detailing Muslim beliefs and practices only from the perspective of a nonbeliever. Even apart from instructional materials, the record contains no evidence that Ms. Jakowski is a Muslim or that she ever tried to convert her students to Islam.
Middle School does not establish a religion. Instead, all that is needed is a recognition that teaching on matters of religion or even encouraging religious belief or practice in public school does not constitute a “law respecting an establishment of religion.” U.S. Const. amend. I. Indeed, one of the other organic documents of the United States, the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, encouraged the teaching of religion in schools: “Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.” An Ordinance for the Government of the Territory of the United States North-west of the River Ohio, Act of July 13, 1787,art.III. Thus, with the lifting of the constitutional mandate of secularism, teaching about religious matters in a public school does not violate the Establishment Clause. For that reason, the instructional materials about Islamic beliefs, practices, and modes of worship do not offend that constitutional provision, and I respectfully concur in the judgment.
