Librarian Has Right to Wear a Cross

Can the government restrict what employees wear in order to prevent them from advocating for religion while on the job? Up to a point, yes - but that doesn't include wearing a necklace with a religious symbol on it. According to Judge Thomas Russell, Kimberly Draper was unjustly fired from her job at a public library for wearing a cross pendant.

The Henderson Gleaner reports:

The library said the dress code was meant to avoid the appearance of religious favoritism and protect librarian impartiality on issues that could come up in questions from library patrons. Russell ruled that the library policy violated the free speech and free exercise clauses of the First Amendment. Russell said that Draper's wearing of her cross was "neither disruptive nor controversial until the library dress code made it a source of contention."

Draper's attorney, Frank Manion, said the ruling "underscores the fact that employees have constitutional rights to express their faith in the workplace" as long as it doesn't interfere with the work setting. "The fact that our client was fired for wearing a cross pendant on a necklace to work is not only absurd but unconstitutional as well," said Manion, senior counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, an organization founded by televangelist Pat Robertson.

The decision is probably correct - an unobtrusive necklace doesn't sound like it should be banned. This does, however, raise an important question: why was she wearing it in the first place? Either it was for her own benefit or it was to communicate something to others. If the former, it should have been acceptable to wear the necklace under her shirts - and if no one saw it, it definitely wouldn't have been a problem.

What if, however, the purpose was to communicate something to others? Even if it is just an unobtrusive necklace which shouldn't be prohibited, the idea that she was using her position to communicate a religious message to library patrons and/or other employees is at least a little bit disturbing, especially since her position is that of a representative of the government. Perhaps that communication is small enough that it doesn't rise to the level of being unconstitutional, but it is at least a violation of the spirit of the First Amendment, which is that the power of the government can't be used to favor or disfavor any particular religion.

If Kimberly Draper wishes to communicate the message of Christianity to others, she should be free to do so - but on her own time, not as an officer of the government. She should have the freedom to express her religion in a wide variety of ways and settings - but only a private citizen, not as a public employee. If her intention is to use her position to promote her religion, then her intention is to misuse her position - and while not technically enough to fire her, it should be enough for her to reconsider her choice of jobs, if she is a moral person.

Read More:

• Secularism 101
• Separation of Church and State 101