Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish Board of Education
185 F.3d 337 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A public school board's mandated disclaimer to be read before teaching evolution violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment if its primary effect is to protect and maintain a particular religious viewpoint, especially by explicitly referencing a specific religious doctrine and encouraging students to adhere to parental religious beliefs on the origin of life.
Facts:
- The teaching of evolution had generated controversy for many years in the Tangipahoa Parish Public Schools (TPPS).
- Prior to the disclaimer, the School Board had a failed attempt to introduce 'creation science' into the curriculum as a legitimate scientific alternative to evolution.
- On April 19, 1994, the Tangipahoa Parish Board of Education (School Board) adopted a resolution by a 5-4 vote.
- The resolution mandated that before the scientific theory of evolution was presented, a statement be quoted immediately, clarifying it was 'not intended to influence or dissuade the Biblical version of Creation or any other concept.'
- The statement further recognized 'the basic right and privilege of each student to form his/her own opinion and maintain beliefs taught by parents on this very important matter of the origin of life and matter.'
- During the resolution's adoption debate, School Board member Logan Guess voiced concerns that the reference to the 'Bible' excluded non-Christian viewpoints.
- Board member Bailey, who proposed the disclaimer, justified including the phrase by arguing that 'there are two basic concepts out there' (creation science and evolution) and that 'perhaps 95 percent' of the community believed in 'divine creation.'
- Bailey further suggested that evolution theory should not be confused with fact and that the School Board should explicitly decline to endorse it due to its inconsistency with the faith of the larger community.
Procedural Posture:
- Parents of children in the Tangipahoa Parish Public Schools, including Herb Freiler, Sam Smith, and John Jones, brought suit on November 7, 1994, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, challenging the validity of the disclaimer under the United States and Louisiana constitutions.
- The district court concluded that the resolution was devoid of secular purpose under the first prong of the Lemon test and held it invalid under federal and state constitutions.
- The district court enjoined the reading of the disclaimer.
- The School Board and the named individual defendants appealed the district court's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a public school board's mandated disclaimer, to be read immediately before the teaching of evolution, violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment if it explicitly references the 'Biblical version of Creation' and encourages students to maintain beliefs taught by their parents regarding the origin of life, thereby having the primary effect of protecting and maintaining a particular religious viewpoint?
Opinions:
Majority - Benavides, Circuit Judge
Yes, the specific disclaimer adopted by the Tangipahoa Parish Board of Education contravenes the First Amendment. The court affirmed the district court's finding, applying the Lemon test to determine if the disclaimer violated the Establishment Clause. First, under the secular purpose prong, the School Board articulated three purposes: to encourage informed freedom of belief/critical thinking, to disclaim orthodoxy of belief in evolution, and to reduce offense to student/parent sensibilities. The court found the 'critical thinking' purpose to be a 'sham,' as the disclaimer's message that evolution 'need not affect what they already know' and the right to 'maintain beliefs taught by parents' actively discourages critical thinking, which requires an open mind. However, the court found the purposes of disclaiming orthodoxy and reducing offense to be sincere and permissible secular objectives, acknowledging that school boards can address concerns about evolution's teaching. Therefore, the disclaimer could arguably pass the first prong. Second, under the primary effect prong (also known as the endorsement test), the court focused on the message conveyed to students. The court concluded that the disclaimer's primary effect was to protect and maintain a particular religious viewpoint, namely the 'Biblical version of Creation.' This conclusion was based on three factors: (1) the juxtaposition of the disavowal of endorsement of evolution with an urging that students contemplate alternative theories; (2) the reminder that students have the right to maintain beliefs taught by their parents; and (3) the 'Biblical version of Creation' as the only alternative theory explicitly referenced. The court found this actively encouraged students to consider religious theories as alternatives to the state-mandated science curriculum, distinguishing it from incidental religious benefits or secular studies of religion. Thus, the disclaimer impermissibly advanced religion, violating the second prong of the Lemon test and the endorsement test. The court also affirmed the district court’s award of attorneys’ fees to Freiler.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the strict interpretation of the Establishment Clause within public education, particularly concerning the teaching of scientific theories like evolution. It clarifies that while a school board may genuinely seek to accommodate religious sensibilities or disclaim endorsement of a particular scientific theory, the manner in which it does so must not have the primary effect of promoting or favoring religious viewpoints. The ruling highlights the judiciary's role in scrutinizing purported secular purposes for sincerity and evaluating the actual message conveyed to students, ensuring that attempts to balance scientific instruction with religious concerns do not cross into unconstitutional establishment of religion. It emphasizes that promoting a religious alternative to scientific curriculum, even under the guise of encouraging critical thinking, is unconstitutional.
