Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!columbia!cheshire.columbia.edu!hoffman From: hoffman@cheshire.columbia.edu (Edward Hoffman) Newsgroups: net.origins,net.legal Subject: Scopes II Message-ID: <2806@columbia.UUCP> Date: Fri, 25-Jul-86 14:34:52 EDT Article-I.D.: columbia.2806 Posted: Fri Jul 25 14:34:52 1986 Date-Received: Fri, 25-Jul-86 21:42:05 EDT Sender: nobody@columbia.UUCP Reply-To: hoffman@cheshire.columbia.edu (Edward Hoffman) Organization: Columbia University CS Department Lines: 66 Xref: mnetor net.origins:1954 net.legal:2746 I've recently seen two news reports (one on NBC about a week ago, the other on McNeil/Lehrer last night) about a court case pending in Tennessee which has been dubbed Scopes II. The background, as best as I can recall, is as follows: The fundamentailist parents of a number of children in a public school system (seven families in all) complained that the contents of the textbooks used in their children's classes taught material which conflicted with their religious beliefs, and requested that a different set of books be used. This request was denied by the school board on the grounds that honoring such a motion would constitute support of a particular set of religious beliefs. The parents for- bade their children to use the books in question, and the children were subse- quently expelled. They are now in private religious schools, and the parents have brought suit claiming that they were forced to choose between a free public education and the observance of their religious beliefs. Among their complaints about the books were that some portrayed men engaged in domestic work (they say this contradicts their beliefs about the roles of men and women), that at least one stated that Christ was illiterate, that some were critical of the U.S. government, that some allegedly encouraged children to cheat, steal, and lie to their parents, that they encouraged suicide, and (of course) that they taught evolution without also teaching creationism. As far as I am concerned, the parents are clearly in the wrong. Public educa- tion does not mean education subject to the terms of the various segments of the community. Further, I do not believe that religious doctrine should re- place (or even supplement) the material taught in our schools. This applies mostly to those who would have scientific evidence ignored when it conflicts with the Bible, but is also applicable to those who wish to avoid mention of certain aspects of society (i.e. as it ACTUALLY exists) which conflict with their interpretation of Biblical ideals. If parents wish their children to learn such material, there are religious organizations which would be more than happy to accomodate them. The biggest threat I see in all of this is that they might actually win. I don't know if a judge has been chosen to hear the case, but I fear that an ultra-consevative judge might side with the plaintiffs. Of course, the case is almost certain to be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court regardless of the outcome, but a ruling for the parents anywhere along the way might set a tragic precedent. As an aside, I took a Civil Rights Law seminar last semester which included discussion of a recent (i.e. less that ten-year-old) case involving the San Antonio School system. The suit was brought by a group of citizens who claimed that the funding mechanism for the school system discriminated against the poor. Although the substance of the case does not bear directly on the matter at hand, part of the Supreme Court's (or maybe District Court--I've sent the book home for the Summer, and can't research it right now) ruling does have a direct relation. The court found in favor of the School Board, but stated that, despite the importance of a public education, there is no constitutional mandate declaring that such an education must be provided. Thus it seems to me that the Tennessee parents are in a situation where (assuming the school board policy is a threat to their religious freedom) a constitutionally guaranteed right is in conflict with a non-guaranteed right. Thus, unless the Tennessee Constitution or local law mandates free education for all, it seems clear that the ruling should be in favor of the school board. Comments? Edward Hoffman ARPAnet: hoffman@cheshire.columbia.edu BITnet: CC4.EA-HOFFMAN@CU20A UUCP: ...![seismo,topaz]!columbia!cheshire!hoffman