Re: ACLU Demands and Dover Designs
- From: "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lflank@xxxxxx>
- Date: 4 Apr 2006 16:55:31 -0700
Joe Cooper wrote:
Just ran across this article contending that the Dover School Board
conspired to hike the settlement costs of one million dollars.
I dont regard the source as too reliable, but some here may be
interested
Joe Cooper
http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleID.19100/article_detail.asp
"The election of Dover C.A.R.E.S. endangered the plans of the ACLU and
AUSCS. Both groups used the calamitous situation in the Dover Area
School District to launch a comprehensive attack against scientists,
philosophers, academics, and institutions throughout the nation that
advocate the emerging scientific theory of intelligent design. They
hoped for an authoritative court decision banning discussion of
intelligent design in public schools and government, perhaps via a U.S.
Supreme Court decision to ban the theory of intelligent design by
subsuming it under creationism and its decision of Edwards v. Aguillard
(1987).
Dover was never the primary target of the lawsuit, but rather served as
a springboard for striking a blow nationwide against the theory of
intelligent design. But the election of a new board that opposed its
predecessors' evolution policy threatened the hopes of the national
groups. Even if federal trial judge John E. Jones III declared the old
board's evolution policy unconstitutional, the new board could not be
counted on to challenge any decision on appeal to the Third Circuit
Court of Appeals, let alone the Supreme Court. Furthermore, if the new
board were to rescind the old board's evolution policy prior to any
ruling by Judge Jones, the case might be settled through a consent
decree, which would lack the authoritativeness of a mere federal
district court decision. It would also diminish or possibly eliminate
any chance of the ACLU or AUSCS's recovery of legal costs and fees from
the Dover School District. "
Read the full article if you wish, but I cannot follow the logic
Joe Cooper
Search:
Home Subscriptions Current issue Back issues About TAE
Internships Advertising Write us
Home > Back issues > Good Sex/Bad Sex >
Other TAE Daily columns
04/04/06 - Democracy and Elections in the Ukraine
04/03/06 - Neoconservatism: RIP?
04/03/06 - Get Real
03/31/06 - Down and Out in the ATL
03/31/06 - The Sports Blogosphere: It's No Hooterville
Click here to access the Archives
ACLU Demands and Dover Designs
By Joe Manzari and Seth Cooper
If the ACLU happens to sue your small hometown and then demands $1
million dollars for their lawyers, would you call them generous and
charitable? Strangely enough, that's exactly what they've done to the
small town of Dover, Pennsylvania. Following the ACLU and Americans
United for Separation of Church and State's (AUSCS) federal trial court
victory in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School Board (M.D.Penn. 2005), the
ACLU recently announced it would "generously" demand only $1 million in
costs and attorneys fees. Why $1 million you may ask? According to the
ACLU's Eric Rothschild, "We think it's important that the public
record will reflect how much it costs to stop an unconstitutional
action." But a closer look at the public record shows a highly
questionable path was taken to "stop" the Dover Area School
District's evolution policy that was at the heart of the controversy.
In October 2004 the Dover Area School Board made national headlines for
its controversial evolution policy. It stated: "Students will be made
aware of gaps/problems in Darwin's Theory and of other theories of
evolution including, but not limited to, intelligent design. Note:
Origins of the life will not be taught." The policy also required
school administrators to read to students a statement mentioning
problems with Darwin's theory and refers students to school library
textbooks discussing the theory of intelligent design. Students were
permitted to leave the room when the statement was read. Ironically,
the policy itself wasn't favored by such leading proponents of
intelligent design as the Discovery Institute, which opposes mandating
the topic in public schools and repeatedly urged the Dover board to
repeal its policy well before any lawsuit was filed. (For a detailed
treatment of the Dover policy and the ensuing trial see the newly
released Traipsing into Evolution.)
A group of parents from the community sued the school district, which
led to a trial last fall. The trial proceeded poorly for the Dover
Board, as two of its members who testified appeared to give
contradictory (and possibly false) testimony on facts leading up to the
evolution policy's adoption. The trial concluded in October, with a
decision not expected for a couple months.
In the meantime, the Dover Area School District held November elections
for the School Board. A slate of candidates formed under the name
"Dover C.A.R.E.S.," to challenge incumbent members by campaigning
on an anti-intelligent design policy platform. The Dover C.A.R.E.S.
coalition campaigned vehemently against the board's flawed evolution
policy, and attacked the theory of intelligent design along the same
lines as the ACLU and AUSCS. Dover C.A.R.E.S. decried the litigation
costs that the board risked, insisting that, by displacing the
incumbents, they would heal the divided community.
In light of their opposition to the Dover Board's evolution policy,
the election season brought charges that Dover C.A.R.E.S. was in league
with the ACLU and AUSCS. The incumbent Dover Board members sent letters
to residents arguing that the Dover C.A.R.E.S. candidates support the
ACLU. One of the Dover C.A.R.E.S candidates, Phil Herman, responded,
"I'm very angry. We're not involved with the ACLU. I would like to
see [the incumbents] bring out proof that we are."
The Dover C.A.R.E.S. candidates defeated the incumbents who were up for
election. The new Board was has an 8-1 majority against the old board's
evolution policy.
The election of Dover C.A.R.E.S. endangered the plans of the ACLU and
AUSCS. Both groups used the calamitous situation in the Dover Area
School District to launch a comprehensive attack against scientists,
philosophers, academics, and institutions throughout the nation that
advocate the emerging scientific theory of intelligent design. They
hoped for an authoritative court decision banning discussion of
intelligent design in public schools and government, perhaps via a U.S.
Supreme Court decision to ban the theory of intelligent design by
subsuming it under creationism and its decision of Edwards v. Aguillard
(1987).
Dover was never the primary target of the lawsuit, but rather served as
a springboard for striking a blow nationwide against the theory of
intelligent design. But the election of a new board that opposed its
predecessors' evolution policy threatened the hopes of the national
groups. Even if federal trial judge John E. Jones III declared the old
board's evolution policy unconstitutional, the new board could not be
counted on to challenge any decision on appeal to the Third Circuit
Court of Appeals, let alone the Supreme Court. Furthermore, if the new
board were to rescind the old board's evolution policy prior to any
ruling by Judge Jones, the case might be settled through a consent
decree, which would lack the authoritativeness of a mere federal
district court decision. It would also diminish or possibly eliminate
any chance of the ACLU or AUSCS's recovery of legal costs and fees from
the Dover School District.
One might assume the new board's first item of business would be to
rescind the old board's evolution policy. Not so. During their first
meeting on December 5th, former Dover Board member David Napierski
proposed a resolution to rescind the old board's evolution policy
(prior to any court ruling). Acting as a private citizen, Napierski
procured the opinion of an attorney, who said that a vote to rescind
the evolution policy could stave off a courtroom defeat and
significantly reduce or eliminate legal costs and fees. Yet the new
board rejected Napierski's proposal to rescind the old policy.
What's more, one of the new board members, Bryan Rehm, was both a Dover
C.A.R.E.S. candidate and a plaintiff represented by the ACLU and AUSCS
in Kitzmiller.
Why would the new board keep in place the evolution policy it once so
ardently opposed? The School District's suit brought national
attention and ridicule to the community, and the testimony of the
former board members exacerbated the situation. A likely forthcoming
decision by Judge Jones would overrule both the board and the theory of
intelligent design. By rescinding the old board's evolution policy
prior to a court ruling, the new board might have curtailed legal costs
and fees incurred by a victorious ACLU and AUSCS. But the new board
accepted a likely stinging defeat in court, with painful legal bills
attached.
It is now three months following the Dover Area School District's
courtroom defeat and the ACLU, AUSCS, and the new board members have
some tough questions to answer. The groups' ostensibly charitable
demands for $1 million in costs and attorneys' fees (rather than the
original $2 million) needs to be explained in greater detail than has
henceforth been granted. Dover Board member Rehm hasn't returned
phone calls or answered e-mails.
With a $1 million reimbursement from the Dover School District, and
their ongoing public relations campaign to pose as generous
compromisers in this struggle, the ACLU and AUSCS are playing up their
achievement to the broader American public, over three quarters of
which want intelligent design taught alongside Darwinism in schools. In
the words of ACLU's Eric Rothschild following their victory in Dover:
"Are we a little bit famous now? Yes, and it's amazing."
Editor's note: Correction - The Dover Board considered rescinding the
evolution policy at the December 5th meeting; Board member Bryan Rehm
did not participate in the consideration.
Joe Manzari is a research assistant with the American Enterprise
Institute. Seth Cooper is an attorney and former law & policy analyst
with the Discovery Institute.
To all the IDers:
Sorry that you don't like the judge's ruling. Please feel free to
whine, weep, moan, groan, jump up and down, and throw as many hissy
fits as you want to over it. After all, it simply DOES NOT MATTER
whether you like the decision or not. All that matters is that you
FOLLOW it. If you don't, then we'll sue the crap out of you. (shrug)
================================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
DebunkCreation email list:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation/
.
- References:
- ACLU Demands and Dover Designs
- From: Joe Cooper
- ACLU Demands and Dover Designs
- Prev by Date: Re: ACLU Demands and Dover Designs
- Next by Date: Re: Darwin's Variation
- Previous by thread: Re: ACLU Demands and Dover Designs
- Next by thread: Re: ACLU Demands and Dover Designs
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
