Prof. here as well.

I don't see anything particularly biased about the prompt. Poorly worded? Sure. I don't love the idea of having students recite the "errors" of the decision because it seems like a highly normative and rote approach to the task, and I'm a bit confused how you could truly write a "comprehensive" essay when you aren't allowed to develop your own argument.

BUT this doesn't immediately indicate political bias. I'd ask yourself, "what does and doesn't constitute political bias in the classroom?" If an expert, presumably someone with expertise in both U.S. history and law, is telling the students there were some serious flaws in the SC's argumentation, then maybe its best to defer to the expertise instead of accusing them of bias. For instance, when I teach that the SC's argumentation in Ruffin v. Commonwealth, 1871 (allowing penal servitude under the 13th amendment's loophole on incarceration) was deeply problematic and allowed for Southern states to continue the institution of slavery in the form of prison farming, am I being politically bias? No. I'm presenting a historical argument rooted in robust academic scholarship. If I then tasked the students with reciting that argument on an exam, would it be politically biased? No. A bit pedagogically lazy and egocentric? Sure, haha. But not inherently biased.

To Blacks' decision / argumentation, the argument rests upon the idea that the religious freedoms guaranteed in the 1st amendment also guaranteed citizens access to "receiving the benefits of public welfare legislation," even if it meant that public money would be used to help parents bus their children to private, religious schools. That's a very debatable interpretation of the 1st amendment, to say the least, so it seems totally reasonable for a professor to talk about the problems in the argument without it being some sort of political crusade.

In conclusion: 1) Taking it to the dean seems... extreme. 2) Your sister should be referring to the lecture content / readings--not you or any other person--to prepare for the exam *unless* outside resources are allowed. 3) Supposed "political bias" is VERY easy to find if you're looking for it. I suggest giving the professor the benefit of the doubt until more evidence comes to light about a repeated, and intentional, pattern of politicizing the classroom.

I'm going to focus on the first question about Everson v. Bd. of Ed., as I just don't know much about the Battle of Athens. And I would like to split this into two parts - one is more about how to take exams effectively when dealing with court cases and precedent, and the second is about Everson itself.

Taking Exams with Court Cases

I can't know for sure without more context about the class, but Question 1 is calling for a very specific response about a Supreme Court opinion. The professor asks for "the three errors" made by Justice Black in the Everson opinion. Without having attended the class or seen the material presented in class, it is hard to say why the prompt specifically wants students to argue against Black's opinion, and I'm not really going to touch the political bias issue. Instead, lets talk a bit about court precedent.

The fun thing about court precedent is that every opinion has its critics, and every opinion can be placed differently in the broader context of whatever legal issues the case dealt with. This means that when taking exams on these issues, the important thing is to build your response primarily based on the frame discussed in the class, with references as appropriate to whatever sources your class addressed. Here, the professor expressly asks for answers based on the class content, without using other sources. When taking an exam with these types of constraints, the goal is to work with what your professor gave you rather than conduct independent research. Of course, if you need more help understanding the case, the world internet is your oyster - just be sure to only include class materials in your exam answer.

I'm going to address it more below, but Everson itself is a good example of why it is important to start with the professor's lecture content. Everson impacts establishment clause cases in two ways: First, it briefly confirms that the establishment clause is applicable to state governments. Second, it discusses what the establishment clause is supposed to prohibit. Both of these questions are interesting ones, but they go in two different directions. Does your professor want you to discuss whether or not the Bill of Rights should apply to state governments? Or are they interested in what actions the government may take without violating the rule against "establishing religion"? Or both?

The challenge with college classes, especially those that teach large periods of time, is that the class cannot cover everything. You and your sister will want to look over the class content and her own notes to see what the professor is interested in testing vis a vis Everson.

Tools for Writing About Everson

Because you've asked a homework question, I'm not going to dissect Everson. First, I don't want to lead your studying down a path that the professor didn't want you to go down. Second, while I have some background in the trend of establishment clause cases generally, I don't have the background needed to really dissect the social and political conditions leading up to the Everson opinion.

My core recommendation is that your sister read the Everson case, including Jackson's dissent, assuming that her professor assigned it. Since the prompt calls for students to dissect the opinion, I am making the assumption that it was assigned reading. If not, reading the opinion might still provide useful context, but see point 1 above, and be sure to only talk about issues presented in class.

My main comment to help understand Everson is two points. First: Everson spends a lot of time grappling with hard questions about the establishment clause, questions which have been treated differently over decades of Supreme Court precedent. Second: Everson is 5-4, again showing that working with the text of Justice Black's majority and Justice Jackson's dissent can be a useful starting point (if it is an allowed resource for the exam) and reinforcing my point that Everson deals with a difficult question.

Hi - we as mods have approved this thread, because while this is a homework question, it is asking for clarification or resources, rather than the answer itself, which is fine according to our rules. This policy is further explained in this Rules Roundtable thread and this META Thread.

As a result, we'd also like to remind potential answerers to follow our rules on homework - please make sure that your answers focus appropriately on clarifications and detailing the resources that OP could be using.

Additionally, while users may be able to help you out with specifics relating to your question, we also have plenty of information on /r/AskHistorians on how to find and understand good sources in general. For instance, please check out our six-part series, "Finding and Understanding Sources", which has a wealth of information that may be useful for finding and understanding information for your essay.