|
Eight Significant Court Decisions
by Molleen Matsumura
National Center for Science Education
Defending the Teaching of Evolution in the Public Schools
February 15, 2001
1. In 1968, in Epperson v. Arkansas, the United States Supreme Court
invalidated an Arkansas statute that prohibited the teaching of
evolution.
The Court held the statute unconstitutional on the grounds that the
First
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not permit a state to
require that
teaching and learning must be tailored to the principles or
prohibitions
of any particular religious sect or doctrine. (Epperson v. Arkansas
(1968)
393 U.S. 97, 37 U.S. Law Week 4017, 89 S. Ct. 266, 21 L. Ed 228)
2. In 1981, in Segraves v. State of California, the court found that
the
California State Board of Education's Science Framework, as written
and as
qualified by its antidogmatism policy, gave sufficient accommodation
to
the views of Segraves, contrary to his contention that class
discussion of
evolution prohibited his and his children's free exercise of
religion. The
anti-dogmatism policy provided that class discussions of origins
should
emphasize that scientific explanations focus on "how", not "ultimate
cause", and that any speculative statements concerning origins, both
in
texts and in classes, should be presented conditionally, not
dogmatically.
The court's ruling also directed the Board of Education to
disseminate the
policy, which in 1989 was expanded to cover all areas of science,
not just
those concerning issues of origins. (Segraves v. California (1981)
Sacramento Superior Court #278978)
3. In 1982, in McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, a federal
court held
that a "balanced treatment" statute violated the Establishment
Clause of
the U.S. Constitution. The Arkansas statute required public schools
to
give balanced treatment to "creation-science" and
"evolution-science". In
a decision that gave a detailed definition of the term "science",
the
court declared that "creation science" is not in fact a science. The
court
also found that the statute did not have a secular purpose, noting
that
the statute used language peculiar to creationist literature in
emphasizing origins of life as an aspect of the theory of evolution.
While
the subject of life's origins is within the province of biology, the
scientific community does not consider the subject as part of
evolutionary
theory, which assumes the existence of life and is directed to an
explanation of how life evolved after it originated. The theory of
evolution does not presuppose either the absence or the presence of
a
creator. (McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education (1982) 529 F. Supp.
1255,
50 U.S. Law Week 2412)
4. In 1987, in Edwards v. Aguillard, the U.S. Supreme Court held
unconstitutional Louisiana's "Creationism Act". This statute
prohibited
the teaching of evolution in public schools, except when it was
accompanied by instruction in "creation science". The Court found
that, by
advancing the religious belief that a supernatural being created
humankind, which is embraced by the term creation science, the act
impermissibly endorses religion. In addition, the Court found that
the
provision of a comprehensive science education is undermined when it
is
forbidden to teach evolution except when creation science is also
taught.
(Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) 482 U.S. 578)
5. In 1990, in Webster v. New Lenox School District, the Seventh
Circuit
Court of Appeals found that a school district may prohibit a teacher
from
teaching creation science in fulfilling its responsibility to ensure
that
the First Amendment's establishment clause is not violated and that
religious beliefs are not injected into the public school
curriculum. The
court upheld a district court finding that the school district had
not
violated Webster's free speech rights when it prohibited him from
teaching
"creation science", since it is a form of religious advocacy.
(Webster v.
New Lenox School District #122, 917 F. 2d 1004)
6. In 1994, in Peloza v. Capistrano School District, the Ninth
Circuit
Court of Appeals upheld a district court finding that a teacher's
First
Amendment right to free exercise of religion is not violated by a
school
district's requirement that evolution be taught in biology classes.
Rejecting plaintiff Peloza's definition of a "religion" of
"evolutionism",
the Court found that the district had simply and appropriately
required a
science teacher to teach a scientific theory in biology class. (John
E.
Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School District, (1994) 37 F. 3rd 517)
7. In 1997, in Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish Board of Education, the
United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana rejected
a
policy requiring teachers to read aloud a disclaimer whenever they
taught
about evolution, ostensibly to promote "critical thinking". Noting
that
the policy singled out the theory of evolution for attention, that
the
only "concept" from which students were not to be "dissuaded" was
"the
Biblical concept of Creation", and that students were already
encouraged
to engage in critical thinking, the Court wrote that, "In mandating
this
disclaimer, the School Board is endorsing religion by disclaiming
the
teaching of evolution in such a manner as to convey the message that
evolution is a religious viewpoint that runs counter to ... other
religious views". Besides addressing disclaimer policies, the
decision is
noteworthy for recognizing that curriculum proposals for
"intelligent
design" are equivalent to proposals for teaching "creation science".
(Freiler v Tangipahoa Board of Education, No. 94-3577 (E.D. La. Aug.
8,
1997). On August 13, 1999, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
affirmed the
decision; on June 19, 2000, the Supreme Court declined to hear the
School
Board's appeal, thus letting the lower court's decision stand.
8. In 2000, District Court Judge Bernard E. Borene dismissed the
case of
Rodney LeVake v Independent School District 656, et al. (Order
Granting
Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and Memorandum, Court File
Nr.
CX-99-793, District Court for the Third Judicial District of the
State of
Minnesota [2000]). High school biology teacher LeVake had argued for
his
right to teach "evidence both for and against the theory" of
evolution.
The school district considered the content of what he was teaching
and
concluded that it did not match the curriculum, which required the
teaching of evolution. Given the large amount of case law requiring
a
teacher to teach the employing district's curriculum, the judge
declared
that LeVake did not have a free speech right to override the
curriculum,
nor was the district guilty of religious discrimination.
|
