concurring.
I concur but feel compelled to comment that Chief Judge Lowenstein’s opinion places far too much emphasis on the reasonableness of the District’s policy. The opinion agrees with the trial court’s conclusion that the District’s policy is “sound,” but it is not the District’s policy which we must review. In this case, we must presume the District’s policy to be reasonable. Our duty is to judge whether the District has taken sufficient steps to accommodate Mary Schumaker’s sincerely-held religious beliefs.
Because she is not able to articulate with any reasonable amount of definiteness what words would be included in her personal taboo list, she leaves the District and the parents of the deaf students beholden to her ad hoc administration of the District’s policy. This is unreasonable and *933makes accommodating her religious beliefs virtually impossible. Hence, pursuant to Regulation 4 CSR 180-3.050 and the case law cited by Chief Judge Lowenstein, I conclude that accommodating her religious beliefs would place an undue hardship on the conduct of the District’s educational policy.