Smith v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County

Last updated

Smith v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County
US-CourtOfAppeals-11thCircuit-Seal.png
Court United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Full case nameDouglas T. Smith, et al v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County, et al
DecidedAugust 26, 1987
Citation(s)827 F.2d 684 (11th Cir. 1987)
103 A.L.R.Fed. 517
56 USLW 2143
41 Ed. Law Rep. 452
Case history
Prior history655 F. Supp. 939 (S.D. Ala. 1987)
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Frank Minis Johnson, Thomas Alonzo Clark, Joe Eaton (S.D. Fla.)
Case opinions
MajorityJohnson, joined by Clark, Eaton
Laws applied
First Amendment

Smith v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County, 827 F.2d 684 (11th Cir. 1987), [1] was a lawsuit in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that the Mobile County Public School System could use textbooks which purportedly promoted "secular humanism", characterized by the complainants as a religion.

Contents

Parents and other citizens brought a lawsuit against the school board, alleging that the school system was teaching the tenets of secular humanism, an anti-theistic religion. The complainants asked that forty-four different elementary through high school level textbooks be removed from the curriculum. After an initial ruling [2] in a federal district court in favor of the plaintiffs, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled [1] that as long as the school was motivated by a secular purpose, it didn't matter whether the curriculum and texts shared ideas held by one or more religious groups. [3] The Court found that the texts in question promoted important secular values (tolerance, self-respect, logical decision making) and thus the use of the textbooks neither unconstitutionally advanced a nontheistic religion nor inhibited theistic religions.

This case is occasionally and incorrectly cited as proving that 'secular humanism' is a religion. The text below shows the Circuit Court, in overturning the District Court decision, made no such finding. They both set aside the question as moot and offered that even if it were (and they weren't saying it is), the teaching of science is not invalidated purely because of its association with secular humanism. Excerpt below from the Circuit Court decision (cited earlier):

The Supreme Court has never established a comprehensive test for determining the "delicate question" of what constitutes a religious belief for purposes of the first amendment, and we need not attempt to do so in this case, for we find that, even assuming that secular humanism is a religion for purposes of the establishment clause, Appellees have failed to prove a violation of the establishment clause through the use in the Alabama public schools of the textbooks at issue in this case.

Background

According to Dreilinger, the 1980s were an era where the religious right brought home economics into the culture wars. In the 1980s, The Heritage Foundation published a pamphlet attacking the American Home Economics Association for a broad definition of the word "family" and for encouraging children to make their own choices. In 1986, an Alabama federal court heard a class-action suit which challenged the materials in forty-four textbooks. Five of the textbooks, which were based on the subject of home economics, were deemed the worst by a prosecutor. The case brought national attention from the start, with The National Legal Foundation funding the prosecution and in response, the ACLU and the People for the American Way funding a defense team to work with the state school board's attorney. At the time, Pat Robertson was seeking the Republican presidential nomination and was also the founder of The National Legal Foundation. The judge hearing the case, W. Brevard Hand, was described as a hero for the religious right. The plaintiffs charged that the books established a religion of secular humanism which gave no reason to believe in God. They attacked the home economics topic of values clarification - a favorite topic of home economics leader, Satenig St. Marie - for venturing too far away from what the plaintiffs viewed as home economics topics like sewing and cooking. The defense focused on religious liberty claims rather than accept help from the American Home Economics Association, and gathered Christian witnesses for that purpose. Many of the academic experts on both the prosecution and defense sides of the case admitted they had not read the books, had not seen a home economics class, nor had their children taken home economics. It was in this first ruling on March 3, 1987, that Judge Hand states that secular humanism was a religion and that the textbooks unconstitutionally promoted it. The ruling also said that the textbooks had to be removed from the class rooms. A few months later, over the objection of Alabama governor Guy Hunt, the appellate court overturned the verdict. [4]

Books in question

The textbooks in the case were divided by the plaintiffs into three categories: home economics books, history books and social studies books. These were: [2]

Home economics
History
Social Studies

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Secular humanism</span> Life stance that embraces human reason, secular ethics, and philosophical naturalism

Secular humanism is a philosophy, belief system or life stance that embraces human reason, secular ethics, and philosophical naturalism while specifically rejecting religious dogma, supernaturalism, and superstition as the basis of morality and decision making.

Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987), was a United States Supreme Court case concerning the constitutionality of teaching creationism. The Court considered a Louisiana law requiring that where evolutionary science was taught in public schools, creation science must also be taught. The constitutionality of the law was successfully challenged in District Court, Aguillard v. Treen, 634 F. Supp. 426, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed, Aguillard v. Edwards, 765 F.2d 1251. The United States Supreme Court ruled that this law violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because the law was specifically intended to advance a particular religion. In its decision, the court opined that "teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to school children might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction."

Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), was a case argued before the Supreme Court of the United States. The court ruled in an 8–0 decision that Pennsylvania's Nonpublic Elementary and Secondary Education Act from 1968 was unconstitutional and in an 8–1 decision that Rhode Island's 1969 Salary Supplement Act was unconstitutional, violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The act allowed the Superintendent of Public Schools to reimburse private schools for the salaries of teachers who taught in these private elementary schools from public textbooks and with public instructional materials. Lemon was a major precedent in federal and local courts until it was effectively overturned by Kennedy v. Bremerton School District in 2022.

Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985), was a United States Supreme Court case deciding on the issue of silent school prayer.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama</span> United States federal district court in Alabama

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama is a federal court in the Eleventh Circuit.

Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court reaffirmed that the United States Constitution prohibits states and the federal government from requiring any kind of religious test for public office, in this specific case as a notary public.

McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky, 545 U.S. 844 (2005), was a case argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on March 2, 2005. At issue was whether the Court should continue to inquire into the purpose behind a religious display and whether evaluation of the government's claim of secular purpose for the religious displays may take evolution into account under an Establishment Clause of the First Amendment analysis.

<i>Aronow v. United States</i> Legal case

Aronow v. United States (1970) was a case heard by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit challenging the inclusion of "In God We Trust" on U.S. currency. The lawsuit alleged that a law passed by Congress requiring that "the inscription 'In God we Trust'... shall appear on all United States currency and coins" was a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

<i>Dettmer v. Landon</i> 1986 United States court case

Dettmer v. Landon, 799 F.2d 929, is a court case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that although Wicca was a religion, it was not a violation of the First Amendment to deny a prisoner access to ritual objects.

<i>Daniel v. Waters</i>

Daniel v. Waters, 515 F.2d 485 was a 1975 legal case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit struck down Tennessee's law regarding the teaching of "equal time" of evolution and creationism in public school science classes because it violated the Establishment clause of the US Constitution.

<i>Selman v. Cobb County School District</i> 2004 United States court case

Selman v. Cobb County School District, 449 F.3d 1320, was a United States court case in Cobb County, Georgia involving a sticker placed in public school biology textbooks. The sticker was a disclaimer stating that "Evolution is a theory, not a fact, concerning the origin of living things." The plaintiffs were parents of children in Cobb County schools who claimed the sticker violated both the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution and the separation of church and state clause in the Georgia State Constitution because its purpose and effect was to cast doubt on the scientific consensus regarding evolutionary theory in order to promote religious beliefs in the schools.

Willoughby v. Stever, 504 F.2d 271 was an American legal decision in a case brought by evangelist William Willoughby against the National Science Foundation director H. Guyford Stever and the Board of Regents of the University of Colorado for using taxpayer money to fund textbooks developed by the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS) because they included evolution instruction. Willoughby claimed the pro-evolution curriculum was by extension also promoting secular humanism as the "official religion of the United States," and thus violated the Establishment clause of the US Constitution. Willoughby accused scientists of "intellectual snobbery", and opposed tax revenues going to support education offensive to his religious views. He argued that creationist education should be given the same tax payer funding as evolution education.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Milan Smith</span> American judge (born 1942)

Milan Dale Smith Jr. is an American attorney and jurist serving as a United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Smith's brother, Gordon H. Smith, was a Republican U.S. Senator from 1997 to 2009. Milan Smith is neither a Republican nor a Democrat.

<i>Wright v. Houston Independent School District</i>

Wright v. Houston Independent School District, 486 F.2d 137 was an American legal case brought by a parent of a student in the Houston Independent School District in Houston, Texas suing on behalf of her daughter and fellow students to prevent the district from teaching evolution as fact and without reference to alternative theories. The plaintiffs claimed evolutionary theory endorsed a secularist religious view, and argued the school's failure to incorporate the teaching of a particular religious alternative to evolutionary theory as derived from the Bible's creation account held that religious view up to ridicule and contempt. To allow evolution while avoiding creationism was unconstitutional, the suit claimed, because it advanced one particular sectarian view over another. The plaintiffs maintained that the school's evolutionary teaching constituted "the establishment of a sectarian, atheistic religion" and was an interference of their own rights to the free exercise of religion as guaranteed by the Establishment clause in the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The case is one of a series of legal battles over the teaching of evolution in American public schools, and the first to be initiated by opponents of such teaching.

In Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a Kentucky statute was unconstitutional and in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, because it lacked a nonreligious, legislative purpose. The statute required the posting of a copy of the Ten Commandments on the wall of each public classroom in the state. The copies of the Ten Commandments were purchased with private funding, but the Court ruled that because they were being placed in public classrooms they were in violation of the First Amendment.

<i>Bown v. Gwinnett County School District</i>

Bown v. Gwinnett County School District, 112 F.3d 1464, refers to an Eleventh Circuit Court case in which the plaintiff, Brian Bown, a school teacher, challenged as an unconstitutional Establishment Clause violation Georgia's law requiring a "Moment of Quiet Reflection". The Court ruled that the Moment of Quiet Reflection was not unconstitutional. The Supreme Court of the United States denied certiorari for an appeal.

William Brevard Hand was a United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama.

The issue of school speech or curricular speech as it relates to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution has been the center of controversy and litigation since the mid-20th century. The First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech applies to students in the public schools. In the landmark decision Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, the U.S. Supreme Court formally recognized that students do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate".

Mueller v. Allen, 463 U.S. 388 (1983), was a United States Supreme Court case examining the constitutionality of a state tax deduction granted to taxpaying parents for school-related expenses, including expenses incurred from private secular and religious schools. The plaintiffs claimed that a Minnesota statute, allowing tax deductions for both public and private school expenses, had the effect of subsidizing religious instruction since parents who paid tuition to religious schools received a larger deduction than parents of public school students, who incurred no tuition expenses.

References

  1. 1 2 Smith v. Bd. of School Com'rs of Mobile Cnty., 827F.2d684 ( 11th Cir. 1987).
  2. 1 2 Smith v. Bd. of School Com'rs of Mobile Cnty., 655F. Supp.939 ( S.D. Ala. 1987).
  3. Notable First Amendment Court Cases , Am. Library Ass'n (Updated May 2017).
  4. Dreilinger, Danielle (2021). The Secret History of Home Economics. W. W. Norton & Company, Inc. pp. 263–267. ISBN   9781324004493.