Creationism Dig Violated Student’s Rights

7 May 2009

saddleupdino

When a high school history teacher told his students that creationism is “superstitious nonsense,” he violated a student’s First Amendment rights, a Federal judge ruled this week.

Christian conservatives are celebrating the decision by U.S. District Court Judge James Selna that high school teacher James Corbett violated the establishment clause, which courts have interpreted to mean that the government should neither promote nor disparage any religion.

But it’s not the big win for creationism that it might seem at first glance. Selna himself was careful to circumscribe the applicability of his decision. No financial reward was sought by the student, Chad Farnan, who filed the suit back in 2007 and the Capistrano School District, where Borbett teaches, was not held liable.

“The ruling today protects Farnan, but also protects teachers like Corbett in carrying out their teaching duties,” the judge wrote.

The teacher got himself into hot water because the creationism statement came outside the context of his AP European History class. In making the statement during a discussion of another teacher’s views on evolution, the court could not find any “legitimate secular purpose in [the] statement.”

However, Selna found a second statement that Corbett made about creationism did not violate the student’s First Amendment rights, although its an equally pointed critique.

“Contrast that with creationists,” Corbett told his class. “They never try to disprove creationism. They’re all running around trying to prove it. That’s deduction. It’s not science. Scientifically, it’s nonsense.”

That statement was OK because it came in the context of a discussion of the history of ideas and religion. Thus, it’s primary purpose wasn’t just to express “affirmative disapproval” of religion, but rather to make the point that “generally accepted scientific principles do not logically lead to the theory of creationism.” One might expect that if creationism came up in the context of evolutionary biology, it would be similarly OK to say, “Scientifically, it’s nonsense.”

The nuanced decision prompted the judge to append an “Afterword.” Selna explains his thinking that there is a basic right at issue, namely, “to be free of a government that directly expresses approval of religion.” Just as the government shouldn’t promote religion, he writes, the government shouldn’t actively disapprove of religion either.

“The Court’s ruling today reflects the constituionally-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,” Selna writes. “The decision also reflects that there are boundaries. In this case, the Court has found that a single statement transgresses Farnan’s First Amendment rights.”

See Also: