Susan Epperson, et. al v. Arkansas

BACKGROUND Arkansas passes “anti-evolution” statute in 1928 Applies to teachers in state supported schools or universities Unlawful “to teach the theory or doctrine that mankind ascended or descended from a lower order of animals” or “to adopt or use in any such institution a textbook that teaches” the theory

BACKGROUND 1964 – Susan Epperson hired to teach biology at Little Rock Central High School

BACKGROUND 1965 – School administration adopted a new textbook for the school year Contains a chapter that described “the theory about the origin…of man from a lower form of animal”

BACKGROUND Epperson’s “dilemma” – to use the newly adopted textbook even though doing so would be a criminal offense subjecting her to dismissal

BACKGROUND Epperson not opposed to teaching Darwin’s theory Backed by NEA and ACLU Files suit in the Pulaski County Chancery Court Sought nullification of law & injunction against her being dismissed for teaching evolutionary curriculum

The BIG Issue Do “anti-evolution” laws hold up under the US Constitution?

CHANCERY COURT HOLDING Statute violated the 14 th amendment prohibiting state interference with rights mandated by the 1 st Amendment The statute “tends to hinder the quest for knowledge, restrict the freedom to learn, and restrain the freedom to teach” Appealed to Arkansas State Supreme Court

ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT HOLDING Reverses decision of lower court Statute “is a valid exercise of the state’s power to specify the curriculum in its public schools” Vague law – does it prohibit any explanation of the theory, or merely teaching that the theory is true?

APPEAL TO US SUPREME COURT Appealed to US Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren Argued 10/16/1968 Decided by a unanimous 9-0 vote on 11/12/1968

US SUPREME COURT HOLDING The clear purpose of the Arkansas statute was to protect a particular religious view The Arkansas statutes are contrary to the freedom of religion mandate of the 1 st Amendment and violates the 14 th Amendment States may not require curricula to align with the views of any particular religion

JUSTIFICATION OF HOLDING The holding is justified by 5 main points: 1.The law conflicts with the 1 st Amendment’s Establishment Clause

JUSTIFICATION OF HOLDING The holding is justified by 5 main points: 2.The reason for the law is that a particular religious group finds evolutionary theory to conflict with their beliefs “the overriding fact is that Arkansas’ law selects from the body of knowledge a particular segment which it proscribes for the sole reason that it is deemed to conflict with a particular religious doctrine” – Justice Abe Fortas writing the Majority Opinion

JUSTIFICATION OF HOLDING The holding is justified by 5 main points: The court refers to the statute’s antecedent, Tennessee’s infamous “monkey law” Purpose of “monkey law” was to make it unlawful “to teach any theory that denies the story of the Divine creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals” In his concurrence, Justice Hugo Black disagreed with this notion, stating that the court could not adequately determine the motive behind the passing of the statute

JUSTIFICATION OF HOLDING The holding is justified by 5 main points: 3.The 1 st Amendment mandates government neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and non-religion 4.A state’s right to prescribe the public school curriculum cannot violate the principles of the 1 st Amendment 5.The Arkansas statute is not a manifestation of religious neutrality

PRIOR CASES CITED Watson v. Jones (1872) – “the law knows no heresy, and is committed to the support of no dogma, the establishment of no sect” Shelton v. Tucker (1960) – “the vigilant protection of constitutional freedoms is nowhere more vital than in the community of American schools”

PRIOR CASES CITED Keyishian v. Board of Regents (1967) – the 1 st Amendment “does not tolerate laws that cast a pall of orthodoxy over the classroom” Everson v. Board of Education (1947) – “Neither [a] state nor the federal government can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another”

PRIOR CASES CITED Engel v. Vitale (1962) & Abington School District v. Schempp (1963) – the state may not adopt programs or practices in its public schools or colleges with “aid or oppose” any religion Joseph Burstyn Inc. v. Wilson (1952) – “the state has no legitimate interest in protecting any or all religions from views distasteful to them”

IMPLICATIONS Effectively nullified all other prohibitions against teaching evolution in the US Precedent for federal limits to state’s ability to dictate curriculum Led to efforts to include “Creationism” and “Intelligent Design” in science curricula alongside evolution