C.F. v. Capistrano Unified Sch. Dist., No. 07-1434 (C.D. Cal. May 1, 2009)
A U.S. district court in California has ruled in an unreported opinion that a high school teacher violated the Establishment Clause when he stated in class that creationism is “superstitious nonsense.” However, the court found that neither the school district nor the teachers unions that were co-defendants in the suit were liable for the violation. C.F., a student in James Corbett’s Advance Placement history course, along with his parents, sued Mr. Corbett and Capistrano Unified School District (CUSD), alleging that C.F.’s rights under the Establishment Clause were violated by practice and policy hostile toward religion and favoring irreligion over religion. The claim focused on various remarks made by Mr. Corbett in his class. The California Teacher Association (CTA) and Capistrano Unified Education Association (CUEA) subsequently were allowed to intervene as defendants. Both sides filed motions for summary judgment.
After finding that some of Mr. Corbett’s alleged statements that did not touch on religion were irrelevant to the Establishment Clause, the court analyzed the others using the three-pronged test established in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971). The first statement, to the effect that creationism is “superstitious nonsense,” the court found lacked a valid secular purpose and would be perceived by a reasonable observer as disapproving of religion in general or Christianity in particular. It also represented improper entanglement with religion, although C.F. could not make out an ongoing violation on this point. The next statement, a “Mark Twain Quote,” the court found did not have a primary purpose of disparaging religion, and at any rate it was unclear whether the teacher was merely quoting Twain rather than espousing his viewpoint. As for a “Jesus Glasses” comment, this statement’s “primary purpose was to illustrate the specific historical point regarding the peasants in the discussion and to make the general point that religion can cause people to make political choices which are not in their best interest.” As a result, this statement did not violate the Establishment Clause.
Turning to CUSD’s liability for Mr. Corbett’s unconstitutional statement, the court concluded that C.F. had failed to present sufficient evidence that CUSD itself conveyed a “governmental message that students holding religious beliefs are outsiders and are not full members of the community.” Lastly, the court added an “afterword” in which it pointed out that the suit reflected the “tension between the constitutional rights of a student and the demands of higher education as reflected in the Advanced Placement European History course in which [C.F.] enrolled.” The court emphasized that its ruling demonstrated the “constitutionally-permissible need for expansive discussion even if a given topic may be offensive to a particular religion or if a particular religion takes one side of a historical debate.” It concluded that its ruling not only protected student First Amendment rights, but also afforded teachers, like Mr. Corbett, protection to carry out their teaching duties.
C.F. v. Capistrano Unified Sch. Dist., No. 07-1434 (C.D. Cal. May 1, 2009)
[Legal Clips Editor’s Note: Reporting the lawsuit, the Orange County Register stated that the suit had ignited a flurry of debate about the role a teacher's convictions and faith should play in the classroom. The article noted that C.F. had recorded some Mr. Corbett’s classroom discussions. See below.]
NSBA School Law pages on C.F. v. Capistrano Unified Sch. Dist.