nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 13:
Line 13: + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District (view source)
Revision as of 14:20, June 4, 2008
, 14:20, June 4, 2008→Details of the case: Reinstate previously-deleted material. There's probably some unnecessary duplication now, which will need removing. (fighting edit conflicts)
== Details of the case ==
== Details of the case ==
=== Plaintiffs ===
The plaintiffs were a group of eleven parents that brought the case on behalf of their children that attended the Dover Area School District. Dover resident Tammy Kitzmiller learned of the school board's revised policy during November 2004 and filed suit with the other parents on December 14, 2004. They were represented by [[American Civil Liberties Union]], [[Americans United for Separation of Church and State]], and Pepper Hamilton LLP. Pepper Hamilton LLP accepted the lead role of presenting the plaintiffs case.<ref name="Memo" /><ref>http://www.pepperlaw.com/pepper/pracarea/doverID/doverID.cfm</ref>
=== Defendents ===
The defendants were the Dover Area School Board who presided over schools in the Dover area that taught approximately 3700 students. About 1000 students attended Dover High School, the school where the ID policy was placed in effect. The Defendants retained the services of the Thomas Moore Law Center on a pro bono basis.<ref name="Memo" /><ref>http://yorkdispatch.inyork.com/searchresults/ci_3535139</ref>
=== Endorsement and Lemon Tests ===
Based on the "Consideration of the Applicability of the Endorsement and [[Lemon Test]]s to Assess the Constitutionality of the ID Policy", the court determined that both the "endorsement test and the Lemon Test should be employed in the case to analyze the constitutionality of the ID policy under the [[Establishment Clause]]." The court determined this course of action based on the opinions of Justice Sandra Day O'Conner and previous court cases involving the establishment clause, the Lemon Test, and other cases involving the teaching of creationism and evolution in public schools. <ref name="Memo" />
=== Verdict ===
On December 20, 2005, Judge [[John E. Jones III]] rendered his verdict and ruled the Dover ID policy violated the Establishment Clause of the [[First Amendment]] of the [[Constitution of the United States]] and the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The court summarized in stating, "The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board’s ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents." Judge Jones held that "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 defendants were permanently enjoined from maintaining the ID policy in any school within the Dover Area School District. <ref name="Memo" />
On December 20, 2005, Judge [[John E. Jones III]] rendered his verdict and ruled the Dover ID policy violated the Establishment Clause of the [[First Amendment]] of the [[Constitution of the United States]] and the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The court summarized in stating, "The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board’s ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents." Judge Jones held that "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 defendants were permanently enjoined from maintaining the ID policy in any school within the Dover Area School District. <ref name="Memo" />