Yesterday I attended a seminar presented by Stephen Harvey, a lawyer in the Law Firm of Pepper Hamilton LLP in Pennsylvania. Mr. Harvey was one of the leading lawyers for the famous case of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. In this case, the school board of the Dover Area School District voted to require Biology teachers in the District to read a disclaimer when teaching evolution that promoted the theory of “Intelligent Design” and offered the book “Of Pandas and People” available to students in the library. The teachers all refused to read the statement, and as a result the administrators were forced to read it in class. 11 parents contacted the ACLU and the lawsuit was soon initiated. Mr. Harvey’s work on this case was provided pro bono through his law firm.

Before I go any further, let me say that I have no problem with Intelligent Design. It has no basis in science of course, but all people living in this country have a right to their religious beliefs. That is where we have to draw the line. I’m free to believe, but I’m not free to force that belief on others, especially children. And more, this country has a long and dedicated history of separation of church and state.

Contrary to popular belief, the U.S. Constitution does explicitly state the phrase “separation of church and state.” Instead, it is an interpretation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The first use of the phrase comes from an 1802 letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists in Danbury, Connecticut. Jefferson, quoting the First Amendment, writes: “I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting and establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between Church and State“. For more information, see here.

So Mr. Harvey presented some of the evidence that they used in the trial, as well as a number of themes that the attorneys felt represented their understanding of the issues. As you might have guessed, the plaintiffs in this case won and the disclaimer was revoked. The school district was left with a mountain of legal bills and every one of the board members who voted in favor of the disclaimer were voted off the board in the next election. One of my classmates was a legal aide to Mr. Harvey during the trial, and needless to say I was envious of that experience.