Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, No. 04-2688 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 20, 2005)
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania has ruled that the Dover School Board’s (DSB) policy of reading a disclaimer to ninth grade students in science classes that questions the scientific validity of evolution and offers intelligent design as an viable alternative violates the First Amendment Establishment Clause’s requirements of religious neutrality and separation of church and state. A group of parents, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, filed suit against DSB after the board voted to adopt the policy. The parents contended that the board was attempting to introduce religion under the guise of promoting intelligent design as an alternative to evolution as an explanation for the origin of life. The policy required teachers or administrators to read a disclaimer that states that evolution is a theory, not a fact, which contains gaps for which there is no scientific evidence. The disclaimer goes on to offer intelligent design as an alternative and refers students to a reference book on intelligent design, Of Pandas and People.
In deciding the case, the court applied both the endorsement and Lemon Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971) tests to determine if DSB’s policy passed First Amendment muster. The court agreed with the parents that the tests should be applied separately. Addressing the endorsement test, which requires the court to view the challenged conduct as an objective observer, the court stated that such an observer would not only be a reasonable student of like age, but also a reasonable adult from the greater Dover community, because DSB had publicized and attempted to sell the policy to the community. Regarding the student observer, the district court framed the issue as “whether an ‘objective observer’ in the position of a student of relevant age ‘would perceive official school support’ for the religious activity in question.” It concluded that the classroom disclaimer, read by school administrators making a special appearance in science classes to read the statement, the complete ban on discussing or questioning intelligent design, and the opt-out option made available to objecting parents, combined to convey “a strong message of religious endorsement.” The court stated: “the disclaimer singles out the theory of evolution for special treatment, misrepresents its status in the scientific community, causes students to doubt its validity without scientific justification, presents students with a religious alternative masquerading as a scientific theory, directs them to consult a creationist text as though it were a science resource, and instructs students to forego scientific inquiry in the public school classroom and instead to seek out religious instruction elsewhere.” The court also concluded that an objective adult observer from the Dover community would find the DSB’s policy to be an endorsement of religion.
Turning to the Lemon test, the court went on to find that intelligent design theory is not science, for three reasons. First, intelligent design invokes and permits supernatural causes, which violates the well-established principles of science. Second, its central tenet of irreducible complexity uses the same flawed and illogical dualism that discredited creation science in the 1980s. Third, the scientific community has successfully refuted intelligent design’s negative attacks on evolution. The concluded that DSB’s claimed secular purpose for the policy amounted to a pretext for the board’s real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public schools. The court also found that the policy violated the Lemon test’s effects prong, concluding that because intelligent design is not science, the “only real effect of [the] policy is the advancement of religion.” Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, No. 04-2688 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 20, 2005)
[Link to full opinion][
Editor’s Note: While the district court decision is nearly 140 pages long, it is a worthwhile read. Judge Jones specifically compliments COSA member Steve Russell on having given the school board “detailed and prudent advice” on why the policy in this case was likely unconstitutional. The opinion is eloquent and unapologetic. In the conclusion, Judge Jones chastises “an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm” for driving the school board to adopt a policy of “breathtaking inanity” resulting in the “utter waste of monetary and personal resources.” For background on the dispute, including a report of the ousting in recent local elections of eight Dover school board members who supported the policy, see below.]
[NSBA's School Law pages on Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District]