Difference between revisions of "Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District"

Revision as of 21:08, May 31, 2008

Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al., Case No. 04cv2688, was a challenge brought in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania against the Dover Area School District by a group of eleven parents whose children were subject to the requirement that a statement in support of intelligent design (ID) be read aloud by any science class instructor prior the presentation of any material about the theory of evolution. The statements read as follows. The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin’s Theory of Evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part. Because Darwin’s Theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations. Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People, is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves. With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the Origins of Life to individual students and their families. As a Standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on Standards-based assessments. ^[1]

Plaintiffs were a group of 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 boards 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. ^{[2] [3]}

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 More Law Center on a pro bono basis. ^{[4] [5]}

Based on the "Consideration of the Applicability of the Endorsement and Lemon Tests 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. ^[6]

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 also concluded, "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. ^[7]

Criticism

Immediately after the ruling in favor of the plaintiffs, Judge Jones, a Republican appointed by President George W. Bush, was accused of judicial activism. ^[8]

Discovery Institute: Judge Jones's Kitzmiller decision was based upon faulty reasoning, non-existent evidence, and a serious misrepresentation of the scientific theory of intelligent design. Despite Judge Jones's protestations to the contrary, his attempt to use the federal bench to declare evolution a sacred cow turns out to be a textbook case of good-old-American judicial activism. [1]

Despite the accusations that he admitted to making an activist ruling, he actually preempted his critics by stating; "Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board’s decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources." ^{[9] [10]}

The Discovery Institute found that in his decision Jones has copied verbatim from the ACLU's proposed findings of fact. Casey Luskin, a scholar of intelligent design at the Discovery Institute has shown that the decision amounts to judicial activism, although Judge Jones has denied this. ^[11] Critics of the Discovery Institute have countered that it is not unusual for a judge to use the findings of fact from the side that has proved their case. See UNITED STATES v. EL PASO GAS CO., 376 U.S. 651 (1964) ^[12]

The term cdesign proponentsists was spawned into the American culture due to this case. ^[13]

See also: Intelligent design and creationism.

References

1. ↑ http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf
2. ↑ http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf
3. ↑ http://www.pepperlaw.com/pepper/pracarea/doverID/doverID.cfm
4. ↑ http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf
5. ↑ http://yorkdispatch.inyork.com/searchresults/ci_3535139
6. ↑ http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf
7. ↑ http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf
8. ↑ http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/11/judge_jones_admits_the_activis.html
9. ↑ http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf
10. ↑ http://www.adl.org/Civil_Rights/speech_judge_jones.asp
11. ↑ http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/11/judge_jones_admits_the_activis.html
12. ↑ http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=376&page=651#656
13. ↑ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUB8Mv1SaKQ