In 1994, the Tangipahoa Parish school board passed
a policy requiring public school teachers to tell students that lessons
on evolution were “not intended to influence or dissaude the biblical vision
of creation.”
This month, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected an appeal
that would have kept that policy in place.
In 1994, the Tangipahoa Parish school board passed
a policy requiring public school teachers to tell students that lessons
on evolution were “not intended to influence or dissaude the biblical vision
of creation.”
This month, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected an appeal
that would have kept that policy in place.
By a 6-3 vote, the high court decided not to review
the appeal by the Tangipahoa Parish Board of Education concerning its 1994 policy.
Several parents of children in the school district had sued, arguing the disclaimer
violated the so-called “wall of separation” between church and state.
A federal judge struck down the policy, a ruling
that was upheld by a U.S. appeals court. The federal judge said the disclaimer
was unconstitutional because it had a religious purpose. The appeals court struck
it down for a different reason, declaring it had the effect of promoting religion.
The six Supreme Court justices who rejected the Tangipahoa
appeal of that decision last week did so without comment. Their action was not
precedent-setting and was only a denial of review. Chief Justice William Rehnquist
and Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia dissented.
Scalia offered scathing criticism of the courts
decision. “At the outset, it is worth noting that the theory of evolution
is the only theory actually taught in the Tangipahoa Parish schools,” he
noted.
He referred to the Scopes Monkey Trial of 1925, when
biology teacher John Scopes was convicted and fined $100 for teaching evolution
after Tennessee law made it a crime to teach anything but the biblical version
of creation.
Scalia noted the recent Supreme Court decision moves
a step beyond that. “We stand by in silence while a deeply divided (appeals
court) bars school districts from even suggesting to students that other theories
besides evolution – including, but not limited to, the biblical theory of creation
are worthy of their consideration,” he wrote in a dissenting opinion.
A Southern Baptist scholar commended Scalia, Rehnquist
and Thomas for their dissent and warned that such flawed thinking on the part
of the majority of the justices threatens academic freedom in Americas
classrooms.
“Since when does it become the jurisdiction
of the courts … to rule on the very idea of ideas or to pass judgment
on the numerous extant ideas and theories … (about) the origins of the humankind
question – or the universe for that matter? …” asked Hal Ostrander, associate
dean and associate professor at Boyce College of Southern Baptist Theological
Seminary.
“Such an enterprise should come under the jurisdiction
of the academy, … as opposed to a legal system. …
“Ideas matter,” Ostrander noted. “Creation
ideas matter, too, and as the three dissenting judges phrased it, such ideas
and theories are worthy of consideration. If they arent allowed bona fide
consideration within the academy, just where will folks be allowed to gather
to consider them?”
The Supreme Court did not rule out the possibility
of a school board requiring some type of disclaimer stating that evolution is
not the only accepted view of the origin of life. However, it ruled that the
Tangipahoa disclaimer is not “sufficiently neutral” to be constitutionally
permissible.
The Tangipahoa disclaimer also said: “It is
the basic right and privilege of each student to form his-her own opinion or
maintain beliefs taught by parents on this very important matter. … Students
are urged to exercise critical thinking and gather all information possible
and closely examine each alternative toward forming an opinion.”
Lawyers representing the Tangipahoa appeal insisted
“the mere mention of the biblical version of creation … does not present
a significant risk of perceived endorsement of bible-based religion.”
Lawyers opposing the disclaimer disagreed. “By
disclaiming only evolution – the one element of the school curriculum that generates
religious controversy – the school board has violated both the constitutional
mandate of neutrality toward religion and its obligation to provide its students
with secular educations free from religious indoctrination or partisanship.”