To introduce the unit to the students, I have taken information from
a 1981 court case, McClean v. Arkansas, which challenged a
"balanced treatment" law allowing Creation-Science and Evolution-
Science to be taught in Arkansas' public school classrooms. On Day
One of the unit, I introduce a role play involving an imaginary
biology teacher. This science teacher is required by law to teach
Darwin's theory of evolution to his students. He does not believe that
evolution should be taught all by itself, without a "balanced
treatment" given to the Bible-Creation explanation, a belief both he
and many of his students share. But there is nothing mentioned in
the science textbook about Bible-Creation, only evolution. His
principal warns him to "stick to the textbook." He is not sure what to
do. He has four alternatives: (1) teach evolution only; (2) teach Bible
creation only; (3) teach both; (4) teach neither.
Following a discussion of the issues and after having been given a
"Fact Sheet" on both Creation-Science and Evolution-science, (see
Lesson Plan section below) students are put into discussion groups
with the purpose of preparing a recommendation to the "School
Board." After hearing the recommendations, the Board will
recommend a policy to be followed in all science classes. This
activity is geared toward familiarizing students with concepts such as
"balanced treatment," evolution and creation-science, but, more
importantly, for them to see that many ideas for laws and litigation
arise out of ordinary experiences.
The next class period, after hearing from the "School Board," we learn
that a "Balanced Treatment" Act has been challenged in court and has
been struck down. Students will then hear the court's reasons, which
relate to First Amendment protections against establishment of a
religion. Is this censorship? Students will be encouraged to discuss
their views on forms of censorship carried on in public schools and
the "reasonable limits" of such censorship. Who has the right to
censor? Can policies and laws be challenged? If so, how? This
should lead us into our assignment for the next several days, the
issues surrounding the case of Tennessee v. John Thomas Scopes, the
so-called "monkey trial" held in Dayton, Tennessee in July, 1925, in
which a science teacher was arrested for teaching evolution in
violation of the state laws at that time.
Tennessee v. John Thomas Scopes
For the next five to six class periods the students will study the
famous case as a way of understanding the legal process. To begin,
we will examine the bill presented by Tennessee representative John
Washington Butler. Butler was a second-term legislator and was
concerned about reports that the teachings of Charles Darwin's
theory of evolution in Tennessee schools was causing disbelief in the
Biblical account of creation among young people.
Why had Butler sponsored such a bill? Butler firmly believed that:
"In the first place, the Bible is the foundation upon which our
American Government is built...The evolutionist who denies the bible
story of creation, as well as other Biblical accounts...robs the Christian
of His hope and undermines the foundation of our Government."
(Quoted in Ginger, Six Days or Forever?, 4)
The bill was referred to committee, and was passed by the lower
house by a vote of 71 to 5.
Then it was the senate's turn. The bill in the senate was promoted,
among others, by former Secretary of State and three-time
Presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan, who would later
participate as a special prosecutor in the Scopes trial a few months
later. Bryan had helped successfully to sponsor an anti-evolution bill
which had become law in Florida two years earlier. Bryan's view
was that evolution, if taught, should be recognized for what it was, a
series of educated guesses.
Bunch of out copy
The Senate passed the bill with little opposition by a vote of 24 to 6,
exactly as written by John Butler. (See Appendix, Document 1.) Eight
days later, Governor Austin Peay signed the bill into law, fully
expecting that the law would not effectively change science teaching
in Tennessee. (Appendix, Document 2.) The Butler anti-evolution Act
was now law. Would it be enforced? Would there be a test case?
Tennessee and the world did not have long to wait for an answer.
{{/pre>A HREF="#top">To top of this unit/a>PRE}}
{{HR size="1">A NAME="4"}}
The Defendant: John Thomas Scopes
According to John Scopes, he agreed to stand trial as a result of a
drugstore discussion that got out of hand. More than one observer
has concluded he was snared into it by those seeking publicity for
their hometown of Dayton. A mining engineer named George
Rappelyea, a native New Yorker, had been reading in the newspaper
that the American Civil Liberties Union in New York was willing to
supply a defense team of distinguished lawyers to handle a test case
of the recently passed anti-evolution law in Tennessee, the Butler
Act. Rappleyea thought immediately of Dayton's new science teacher
and football coach, Scopes. Two days later, a meeting was arranged
after school at F.E. Robinson's drugstore, and during the debate over
evolution, Scopes admitted that he did not see how it would be
possible to teach biology without mentioning Charles Darwin's theory.
In fact, he said, the Tennessee-approved textbook, used in Dayton,
Hunter's Civic Biology, contained a chapter on the evolution of man
and Darwin's theory of natural selection.
Scopes admitted he was opposed to the Tennessee anti-evolution law
because he did not think that the state should tell all the Tennessee
schools what could and could not be taught, that was a matter for a
local or county school board, not the state. After some more
discussion, Scopes agreed to be arrested; and on May 10, 1925, he
was given a preliminary hearing before three judges. It was charged
that he had taught the theory of evolution to his class on April 24
from Hunter's Civic Biology textbook, which contained sentences such
as: "We have now learned that animal forms may be arranged so as
to begin with the simple one-celled forms and culminate with a
group which contains man himself." (Appendix, Document 4) A
grand jury was scheduled to meet to formally indict Scopes. Bond
was set at $1,000, and was paid by Robinson and Rappelyea. The
grand jury met on July 10, one month earlier than scheduled, just to
make sure that Dayton would get the test case publicity.
Meanwhile, Scopes had been invited to New York City to meet with
the A.C.L.U. to choose counsel and plan legal strategy. Scopes was
very pleased that the famous trial lawyer Clarence Darrow had
volunteered his services for this case. Assistance would be given by
Dudley Field Malone and Arthur Garfield Hays, two other well-known
attorneys. Three other lawyers represented Scopes, including a
Tennessee law professor John R. Neal, who was placed in charge of
the case.
About 2 pages of out copy
{{/pre>A HREF="#top">To top of this unit/a>PRE}}
{{HR size="1">A NAME="5"}}
The Trial Itself
I.
|
Day One: July 10 (Friday)
|
1 paragraph of out copy
-
Court was called to order promptly at 9:00 A.M. by Judge John T.
Raulston. The defendant, John T. Scopes was there with his six
attorneys, including Darrow and two other lawyers, Malone and Hays,
from outside of Tennessee. They were introduced to the court by the
chief counsel, Mr. John Neal. The prosecution was represented by A.T.
Stewart, the attorney-general. Ben Mckenzie, McKenzie's son Gordon,
and five other lawyers, including William Jennings Bryan. Bryan, it
should be noted, had a special interest in this case, since he had
helped to draft Tennessee's anti-evolution bill. He was a staunch
defender of fundamental Bible beliefs. More than one hundred
reporters and two from London, England, sat at the press tables. The
courtroom was bulging with over four hundred spectators who lined
the walls. The judge asked that the session be opened with prayer,
as he did throughout the trial.
About 2 lines of out copy
A new indictment of Scopes had to be handed down, since the first
indictment was done so hurriedly on May 25. Quickly, the first order
of the court was to impanel a new grand jury and read them the
anti-evolution statute that Scopes allegedly had violated. (Appendix,
Document 1)
1 paragraph of out copy. Too much more to mark.
He then read from Genesis, Chapter One, containing the divine story
of creation in the Bible. "And God created man in his own image, in
the image of God created He them, male and female, created He
them." (Appendix, Document 3)
The judge went on to explain that the issue before the grand jury
was not the wisdom of the Butler Act, but whether there had been a
violation of it. If so, after an impartial examination of evidence
(three of Scopes' students had to be rounded up in order to give
statements to the jury), it was found that the teacher broke the law,
then it was their duty to return a report to the judge so stating. By
11 A.M. the grand jury returned an indictment. Now at last the case
of Tennessee v. John Thomas Scopes, No. 5232, could begin.
Before the selection of jury members for the trial to begin, Darrow
wanted to know if and when his scientists were going to be able to
testify for the defense. This question was a major issue before the
court: Could the defense try to prove in the trial that the theory of
evolution was a valid scientific proposition, and that it did not
necessarily negate the teachings of the Bible? Or would the scope of
the case be narrowed to the simple violation of the Butler Act?
Judge Raulston then ordered the selection of jury members to begin,
even though a jury pool of only sixteen men was present. Darrow
was shocked that the judge expected the jury to be impaneled in one
afternoon; why there were times when two hundred venireman and
several weeks were needed to select a satisfactory jury.
The jury selection process which followed was quite fascinating. And
it was complete by the end of the afternoon, much to everyone's
surprise. In order for students to more completely understand this
segment of courtroom procedures, students may participate in a role
play, where potential jurors are interviewed by the defense and
prosecution attorneys, each with varying viewpoints toward either
evolution or the Bible. In this way, with role-playing attorneys given
only two peremptory challenges, the students will heighten their
awareness not only of how jury selection works but also the issues at
stake in the Scopes case. (Appendix, Document 7)
After accepting the first and second jurors, Darrow interviewed an
ex-miner now a farmer, Jim Riley. Darrow inquired as to whether he
had ever talked to anyone about evolution or heard any sermons
about it. Riley said no.
DARROW:Ever hear Mr. Bryan speak about it?
RILEY:No, sir.
DARROW:Ever read anything he said about it?
RILEY:No, sir; I can't read.
DARROW:Well, you are fortunate. (Laughter)
(Quoted in Ginger, 98)
Riley was accepted, along with eight other farmers; two were
landowners, and one a shipping clerk.
During the questioning, Darrow revealed that his strategy was to
contend that evolution did not necessarily contradict Genesis, and
therefore under the wording of the Butler Act, establish that his
client, Scopes, may only have partially broken the law: the part that
said it was forbidden to teach, "any theory that man has descended
from a lower order of animals." According to the defense motion,
Scopes would have to commit two separate acts to be fully guilty
under the law, the other act being that, "any theory that denies the
story of the Divine Creation as taught in the Bible", is illegal. Was
this the lawmakers' original intent, or just legal "hairsplitting?" The
court would have to rule on this motion (See Day Four of the trial).
{{/pre>A HREF="#top">To top of this unit/a>PRE}}
{{HR size="1">A NAME="6"}}