Academic Freedom After Edwards
Document Type
Article
Publication Title
Regent University Law Review
Abstract
When the ACLU staged the trial of John Scopes in 1920, its purpose was to suggest in the public mind a contrast between an educator fearlessly searching for truth and a rigid orthodoxy afraid of any challenge. The Scopes case has often been cited as an example of a case in which the battle was lost but the war was won. Those who accept and those who reject the theory of evolution differ sharply over what should be taught in the public schools, but almost everyone affirms the value of academic freedom as opposed to the use of the public schools as a vehicle of indoctrination. Thus, when the Louisiana legislature enacted the Balanced Treatment Act in 1981, its supporters thought that they were on firm ground by prescribing that the teaching of evolution be accompanied by a presentation of creation-science. However, not everyone saw it that way. Indeed, by the time the case reached the United States Supreme Court, a district court judge had already concluded that the Balanced Treatment Act was anything but balanced and, far from promoting academic freedom, was an unconstitutional advancement of religion. In his dissent, Justice Scalia scolded the majority for doing the very thing that it accused the Act's sponsors of perpetrating: a "Scopes-in-reverse. Despite the strong disagreements in this particular case, there was nothing in the majority or concurring opinions that would suggest any repudiation of the principle that academic freedom should apply to the question of how to teach the origins controversy. Instead, the debate was over how that principle should be applied to this delicate area. Depending upon how broadly or how narrowly one reads different portions of the Edwards opinion, different conclusions might be drawn as to what school board policies would be consistent or inconsistent with its strictures. For instance, the Court states that one might legitimately "teach] a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to schoolchildren . . . with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction."'" Thus, one might expect subsequent case law to provide greater clarity for those charged with the responsibility of adopting curriculum standards and classroom policies. Unfortunately, such is not the case. The case law on how best to teach the controversy is scant, and the only guidance comes from cases that are not directly on point. Thus, the purpose of this article is twofold: first, to provide an explanation of those cases that might shed light on the question of how best to teach the controversy, and second, to suggest an approach, consistent with Edwards, that makes sense of the principle of academic freedom. Before doing so, however, the Edwards case must be examined.
First Page
447
Last Page
482
Publication Date
2001
Recommended Citation
13 REGENT U. L. REV. 447 (2000-2001).