It's over in Dover

defending the First Amendment against the Christian right ...

... because if Jews don't speak out, they'll think we don't mind

Web JewsOnFirst

Optional Member Code

Please email us
(click here)
catcher@JewsOnFirst.org

And "bookmark" us at
JewsOnFirst.org

Jews on First
P.O. Box 33821
Washington DC 20033

310-910-9153

It's over in Dover

Community grapples with division on intelligent design decision

By Christina Kauffman, The York Dispatch (Dover, Pennsylvania), December 21, 2005

Dover's yearlong debate over intelligent design was likely put to rest yesterday by a scathing, 139-page opinion released by U.S. Middle District Judge John E. Jones III.

The judge said teaching intelligent design in science classes violates the Constitution and the Dover Area school board members who backed the policy were untruthful about their religious motivations.

But what was settled in Harrisburg yesterday with the judge's opinion must still be reckoned with in the Dover community, where residents remain divided over the issue.

New board: Supporters of the school district's intelligent design policy were narrowly ousted from the board in a contentious election last month, and new board members -- who ran on a platform against teaching intelligent design in science classes -- have said they don't intend to appeal the judge's decision.

Bernadette Reinking, the newly elected president of the school board, said she is happy with the judge's decision and the board is likely to remove the illegal policy at the school board's next meeting, Tuesday, Jan. 3.

At a news conference yesterday after the release of the judge's ruling, parents who are also plaintiffs in the lawsuit said it's time for the community to begin to heal.

Another newly elected board member, Larry Gurreri, agreed.

He said he's glad the new school board members were voted into office because the former board would have filed an appeal, "wasting more time and money."

"Now, we can all move forward," he said. "The judge saw (the former board members) for what they are for real."

District could pay: But while the new board members might be pleased with the judge's decision, they could end up having to pay for their predecessors' mistakes. Attorneys for the American Civil Liberties Union, which represented the parents in the lawsuit along with Americans United for Separation of Church and State, have estimated their legal fees at seven figures.

Because the school district and its board lost the suit, the judge could order the school district -- its taxpayers -- to foot the bill for legal fees.

Attorney Eric Rothschild from Pepper Hamilton law firm, which also represented the parents, said the fees have not been totaled.

Rothschild acknowledged there is a new school board, but said board members should not be able to act the way the previous board acted without being held accountable.

Opposing views: Regardless of the previous board's motives, ousted school board member David Napierskie -- who was appointed to the board after the intelligent design vote -- said he doesn't think the judge should have ruled on both Dover's policy and the larger issue of intelligent design.

Jones could have delivered a more narrow opinion that ruled only on the motives of the former Dover school board members. Instead, he ruled also on the nature of the intelligent design movement, saying it is akin to creationism.

Napierskie said it was obvious that some of the former school board members were very religious, but the judge "should never have combined those two issues" because the four-paragraph statement about intelligent design that was read to students was not religious.

Former board members Alan Bonsell and William Buckingham have said they don't believe in the separation of church and state.

Bonsell yesterday said he was disappointed with the judge's opinion because the board members who voted for intelligent design considered it science, not religion.

Buckingham, who resigned from the board and moved to North Carolina, told the Associated Press that he still feels the former board made the right decision.

But Jones had a different opinion, which he expressed in candid terms throughout the lengthy document.

Jones was charged with determining whether the board's policy violated the Constitution's First Amendment Establishment Clause, which says governments can't establish or inhibit the free exercise of religion.

Using the "Lemon Test," a test established by previous litigation, the judge was to determine whether the former school board's policy had a secular legislative purpose, whether its primary effect advanced or inhibited religion or if it promoted an excessive government entanglement with religion.

Jones ruled that the policy failed on all fronts, and it also failed to pass muster with the state's Constitution.

The Dover school district and its board are permanently prohibited from having the policy in effect.

Harsh judgment: Jones wrote that "one unfortunate theme in this case is the striking ignorance concerning the concept of ID amongst board members."

He said the six board members who voted for the intelligent design policy testified at trial "that they had utterly no grasp of ID."

Former board member Jane Cleaver testified that she knew nothing about intelligent design, "including the words comprising the phrase, as she consistently referred to ID as 'intelligence design' throughout her testimony," Jones wrote in his decision.

Though none of the board members knew very much about intelligent design, they "felt it was appropriate" to add it to the ninth-grade biology curriculum and ignored "consistent but unwelcome" advice from science teachers who opposed the change, Jones wrote.

'Repetitious, untruthful testimony': The judge wrote that the school board members "have unceasingly attempted in vain to distance themselves from their own actions and statements, which culminated in repetitious, untruthful testimony" and provided additional evidence that the board members were hiding their motives.

In one passage, Jones wrote that Bonsell, Buckingham and other unnamed defense witnesses "either testified inconsistently, or lied outright under oath on several occasions. ..."

The judge said the defendants' "previously referenced flagrant and insulting falsehoods to the Court provide sufficient and compelling evidence" that other areas of their testimony was "equally insincere."

He said the residents of Dover "deserved better" than the ill-conceived policy.

Though Jones has been candid about the alleged untruths, potential perjury charges would not fall under the judge's purview. Such investigations are handled by the U.S. Attorneys' Offices.

Fair Use Statement: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.