The Scopes Trial: Who Decides What Gets Taught in the Classroom? PDF

BILLOFRIGHTS INACTION CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS FOUNDATION S PR I N G 2 00 6...

BILLOFRIGHTS INACTION CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS FOUNDATION S PR I N G 2 00 6 V O L U M E 22 N UMBE R 2 The Scopes Trial: Who Decides What Gets Taught in the Classroom? One of the most famous trials in American history took place in a small town in Tennessee in 1925. On trial was a high-school teacher, John Scopes. The O charge against him: teaching evolution. n July 10, 1925, hundreds of reporters gathered in Dayton, Tennessee. They were covering the trial of John Scopes, a 24-year-old science teacher and part-time football coach. Scopes had been arrested for violating a Tennessee law that made it unlawful “to teach any theory that denies the Story of Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animal.” The Scopes trial riveted Attorney Clarence Darrow (standing on the right) questions the witness William national attention and is one of the most famous trials of Jennings Bryan in the Scopes trial. The judge had moved the trial outdoors the century. because he was afraid the floor might collapse. (Smithsonian Institution Archives, Record Unit 7091, image #2005-26202) War I. The outcome of the war caused widespread disillusion- Evolution Versus Religion In 1859 in Great Britain, Charles Darwin published On the Origin of the Species. In his book, Darwin laid out evidence ment, and many were concerned about a perceived collapse in W that living things had evolved from common ances- public morals. Fundamentalists shared a belief in biblical lit- tors through a mechanism he called “natural selec- eralism. They opposed teaching evolution because of the U tion.” While most scientists responded positively to harm they believed it would do to the spiritual and moral Darwin’s theory of evolution, it provoked anger development of students. “Ramming poison down the throats S among those who saw it as an attack on their reli- (Continued on next page) gious beliefs. In 1874, a Princeton theologian named Charles Hodge wrote a book titled What Is H Darwinism? It answered that question simply: “It is The Establishment of Religion This edition of Bill of Rights in Action examines issues on the I Scriptures.” atheism [and] utterly inconsistent with the relationship of religion and government. The first article explores the Scopes trial, the famous trial pitting William S In the United States, an anti-evolution movement Jennings Bryan and Clarence Darrow in a courtroom contest over a Tennessee law banning the teaching of evolution. The T began in the early 1920s. Many leaders of the new second article looks at the development of law in this area campaign had been involved in the Prohibition O since the Scopes trial. The third article examines Turkey and movement. Prohibitionists had succeeded in banning its attempt to create a secular democracy in the Middle East. R the sale of alcohol by getting the 18th Amendment ratified in 1919. U.S. History: The Scopes Trial Y U.S. Government: More Monkey Trials Other leaders in the anti-evolution movement were members of the “fundamentalist” Christian move- World History: Turkey: An Evolving Democracy in the ment, which had begun to gather steam after World Middle East © 2006, Constitutional Rights Foundation, Los Angeles. All Constitutional Rights Foundation materials and publications, including Bill of Rights in Action, are protected by copyright. However, we hereby grant to all recipients a license to reproduce all material contained herein for distribution to students, other school site personnel, and district administrators. (ISSN: 1534-9799) of our children is nothing compared with damning their Scopes agreed, Rappelyea called a justice of the peace and souls with the teaching of evolution,” claimed one swore out a warrant for Scopes’ arrest. activist. The charge in the case was that John Scopes had violated Believing the teaching of evolution posed a danger, the the Tennessee anti-evolution law by using a textbook that fundamentalists sought a legal remedy. The first anti-evo- included material about human evolution. The penalty for lution law passed with little notice in Oklahoma in March breaking the law was $100. As one local lawyer said to a 1923. Two months later, Florida adopted a resolution on reporter, this was a simple misdemeanor case that any evolution. It stated that it was improper for any public judge should be able to dispose of in a few hours. But that school teacher “to teach as true Darwinism or any other was not to be. The ACLU wanted to make the Scopes case hypothesis that links man in blood relation to any form of the centerpiece of its campaign for freedom of speech. lower life.” Roger Baldwin, the founder of the ACLU, said: “We shall take the Scopes case to the United States Supreme Court if The Florida resolution had been proposed by William necessary to establish that a teacher may tell the truth Jennings Bryan. He had served as secretary of state and without being thrown in jail.” had run three times for president as the nominee of the Democratic Party. In his later years, he emerged as a major Clarence Darrow, one of the most famous trial lawyers in opponent of evolution. In 1924, Bryan went to Tennessee the country, volunteered his services to the ACLU. He and gave a speech in the state capital against teaching evo- agreed to serve without pay—the only time in his career lution. Most people, he had concluded, “do not believe in that he did so. the ape theory.” He favored laws against teaching evolu- There was similar passion among the fundamentalists tion because “those who pay the taxes have a right to who believed that Darwinism undermined belief in the determine what is taught; the hand that writes the pay- Bible. Raising money to prosecute Scopes, Methodist check rules the school.” Thousands of copies of his ministers in Dayton preached: “We do not believe that the speeches were distributed to legislators and state resi- right of freedom or religious liberty warrants any man... dents. One year later, on March 23, 1925, Tennessee to teach our children any theory which has as its purpose became the third state to pass an anti-evolution law. It was or tendency the discrediting of our religion.” the first state in which the law was tested in court. William Jennings Bryan agreed to join the prosecution team. Bryan was a hugely popular orator. During the win- The Monkey Trial Unfolds On May 4, 1925, the Chattanooga Daily Times printed a ter, from December to May, he drew an average of 4,000 statement by the American Civil Liberties Union: people to his Sunday Bible classes at Royal Palm Park, We are looking for a Tennessee teacher who is Florida. Bryan went to Dayton not so much as a lawyer willing to accept our services in testing this law in going to court, but as a preacher going to a revival meet- the courts.... Distinguished counsel have volun- ing. He saw the Scopes trial as a ”battle royal” in defense teered their services. All we need now is a willing of the faith. client. In fact, the trial was more of a carnival than a war. Forty miles north of Chattanooga, in the small rural town Journalists came to town in huge numbers. They had of Dayton, George Rappelyea, a local businessman, read already been writing about the upcoming “monkey trial” the ACLU announcement. He believed that staging the for weeks. The townspeople organized a “Scopes Trial test case in Dayton might boost the local economy. Entertainment Committee” to help arrange accommoda- Rappelyea convinced other businessmen that the case tions. Shop windows were hung with pictures of monkeys would bring Dayton much-needed publicity. At the soda and apes, and a policeman cruised town with a sign fountain in Fred Robinson’s drugstore, he talked to John “Monkeyville Police” on his motorcycle. When the court Scopes, who taught science in the Dayton high school. adjourned at noon on the first day of trial, four steers were Scopes was popular in the town and did not intend to live roasting in a barbeque pit behind the courthouse and hot- there permanently. dog and soft-drink stands lined the main street. Scopes told Rappelyea that he had assigned students to Who Won the Trial? read about evolution in the state-approved biology text. Coming into court, Darrow and Bryan had opposing Rappelyea asked him to be the defendant in the case. After strategies and goals. As an agnostic who did not believe in Bill of Rights in Action (22:2) 2 © 2006, Constitutional Rights Foundation traditional religion, Darrow want- What ensued was a debacle for ed to free people from unthinking the witness. Darrow posed belief in biblical truth and encour- numerous questions about events age skepticism and scientific recounted in the Book of inquiry. To this end, he put togeth- Genesis: Did Jonah live inside a er a group of eight distinguished whale for three days? How could scientists and theologians who Joshua lengthen the day by mak- would explain the scientific basis ing the sun stand still? Bryan had for evolution and show that it did no good answers to the ques- not conflict with the Bible. tions, and the interactions grew nasty. When lawyers tried to stop Bryan’s strategy was far different. the questioning, Bryan shouted: He would have liked to present “I am simply trying to protect the scientific experts to show the flaws word of God against the greatest and gaps in evolutionary theory, atheist or agnostic in the United but could not find any distin- States.” guished scientists who would agree to testify. Instead, he focused “I object to your statement,” on the argument for majority rule. Darrow shouted back. “I am In a letter to one of the prosecutors, Charles Darwin (1809–1882) developed the theory of examining your fool ideas that he said: “This is the easiest case to evolution in his book On the Origin of the Species. no intelligent Christian in the explain I have ever found. The (Library of Congress) world believes.” right of the people speaking After two hours, the judge through the legislature to control the schools which they adjourned the court. The next day, the defense conceded create and support is the real issue as I see it.” that it had no defense to the charge that Scopes had taught Early in the trial, prosecution lawyers objected to the evolution. The judge then sent the case to the jury. It defense calling any expert witnesses. They argued that returned nine minutes later with a verdict of guilty. expert testimony would be irrelevant because the law The ACLU appealed the decision to the Tennessee banned any teaching about human evolution. It did not Supreme Court, arguing that the statute was unconstitu- matter whether or not it conflicted with the Bible or was tional. The court narrowly upheld the constitutionality of scientifically valid. The judge agreed and ruled that the the statute. But it overturned the verdict on a technicality, defense would not be allowed to present their expert wit- which ruled out any chance of taking the case to the U.S. nesses to the jury. The judge also denied a motion by the Supreme Court. defense challenging the constitutionality of the law. The law, according to the judge, did not violate any teacher’s Neither side had achieved a clear victory in the case. The rights. “The relations between the teacher and his employ- jury had found Scopes guilty, but his conviction was over- er are purely contractual and if his conscience constrains turned on appeal. Bryan had taken a beating in court and him to teach the evolution theory, he can find opportuni- was widely ridiculed in the national press. Five days after ties elsewhere.” the trial, he died in his sleep. The ACLU had brought the case to get a definitive ruling in favor of free speech and The only issue that remained was whether Scopes had against anti-evolution laws. The Scopes case failed to violated the law. But Darrow had one last strategy to show achieve this goal. that the Bible could not be interpreted literally. On the last day of trial, he called Bryan as an expert on the Bible. Bryan, who had been teaching the Bible for years, could Forty Years Later Two more states passed anti-evolution bills after the not resist. By then the trial had been moved outside, Scopes trial: Mississippi (in 1926) and Arkansas (in because the judge was worried that the floor of the court- 1928). Various state and local school boards also passed room might collapse. So Bryan took the stand on the measures barring the use of textbooks that included courthouse lawn, surrounded by 2,000 people sitting on material on evolution. But the laws were never enforced, benches under the maple trees and sitting cross-legged on and the ACLU couldn’t find anyone to challenge them. the grass. (Continued on next page) Bill of Rights in Action (22:2) 3 © 2006, Constitutional Rights Foundation  Forty years later, Susan Epperson, a 10th-grade biology 3. Some people argue that neither side won the Scopes teacher in Little Rock, Arkansas, decided to take up the case? Do you agree? Explain. challenge. Epperson was teaching from a new edition of 4. What was the Epperson case? On what basis was it a textbook titled Modern Biology, which discussed the decided? Do you agree with the decision? Why or fossil evidence for human evolution. After several pages, why not? the book concluded that: “It is believed by many anthro- pologists that, although man evolved along separate lines from primates, the two forms may have had a com- A C T I V I T Y mon generalized ancestor in the remote past.” The text was thus in direct conflict with the Arkansas law that Change and Reaction barred teaching “the theory or doctrine that mankind The 1920s was a time of change and reaction against ascended or descended from a lower order of animals.” change. The Scopes trial exposed fault lines in American society between those embracing modernity and science Backed by the Arkansas Education Association, and those believing in fundamentalism and a literal inter- Epperson filed a complaint in December 1965. She pretation of the Bible. asserted that the anti-evolution law violated her freedom of speech and other constitutional rights. After a trial that In this activity, students pick a topic under one of the cat- took just over two hours, the judge ruled that the law was egories below about the 1920s. Students write an essay unconstitutional. The appellate court disagreed, and the explaining the topic and how it relates to the theme of case went to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1968. “change and reaction against change” in the 1920s. Then students report to the class on the topic. The Supreme Court based its decision on the First Amendment, specifically on its ban against the govern- ment establishing a religion. Over the years, the Supreme Topics on the 1920s Court had decided a number of cases on the First Trials Social Trends Amendment’s establishment clause. In 1947, the court Black Sox Migration of African- ruled that a state may not pass a law that aids or prefers Sacco and Vanzetti Americans one religion over another. In 1963, in Abington v. Fatty Arbuckle Black Nationalism Schempp, the court held that a state may not adopt pro- Leopold and Loeb Ku Klux Klan grams or practices in public schools that “aid or oppose” Billy Mitchell “New Woman” any religion. Ossian Sweet Fundamentalism Urbanization In the Abington case, the court applied a two-pronged Laws & Politics Celebrities and Sports test of purpose and effect: “[W]hat are the purpose and Election of 1920 Heroes primary effect of the enactment? If either is the advance- Teapot Dome Scandal ment or inhibition of religion, then the enactment” vio- Hays Office Organized Crime lates the Constitution. Applying that test in the Epperson “Red Scare” and Palmer Business case, the court found that the Arkansas law was not one Raids Chain Grocery Stores of religious neutrality. It found that the motivation for the American Civil Liberties Advertising law was the same as the motivation for the Tennessee Union The Assembly Line law in the Scopes trial, which was “to suppress the teach- 18th Amendment and Stock Market Crash ing of a theory which, it was thought, ‘denied’ the divine Volstead Act creation of man.” The court struck down the Arkansas 19th Amendment law and brought to an end the first chapter of the legal Cultural Trends Immigration Act of 1924 debate over teaching evolution. Harlem Renaissance New Technologies Jazz Radio 1. Why did the Scopes trial take place? What was the “Lost Generation” For Discussion Motion Pictures controversy in the case? Why was the case so impor- Fads of the 1920s tant to both sides? Automobile Airplane 2. Who were William Jennings Bryan and Clarence Spread of electricity Darrow? Why did they participate in the case? Penicillin Bill of Rights in Action (22:2) 4 © 2006, Constitutional Rights Foundation