Court: Supreme Court of the United States; November 12, 1968; Federal Supreme Court; Federal Appellate Court
The appeal challenges the constitutionality of Arkansas's 1928 "anti-evolution" statute, which prohibits the teaching of evolution in public schools, reflecting the rise of fundamentalist religious sentiments in the 1920s. This statute is similar to Tennessee's "monkey law" from 1925, upheld in the Scopes case. Specifically, the Arkansas law makes it a misdemeanor for teachers to instruct students on human evolution or to use textbooks that present this theory, risking their employment if violated. The case arose when Susan Epperson, a biology teacher in Little Rock, faced a dilemma with a newly adopted textbook that included evolution content, conflicting with the statute. Epperson sought a court declaration that the statute was void, claiming it violated her rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects freedom of speech and thought. The Chancery Court agreed, stating the statute hinders knowledge and educational freedom. However, the Arkansas Supreme Court reversed the decision, upholding the statute as within the state's curricular authority without addressing constitutional concerns. The Supreme Court of the United States now reviews the case, noting the law's vagueness and its implications under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Currently, only Arkansas and Mississippi have such laws, and there are no known prosecutions under the Arkansas statute.
The Arkansas Supreme Court's opinion highlights the vagueness of the Act, which neither clearly prohibits the explanation of the theory of evolution nor merely forbids teaching it as true. Despite this ambiguity, the court deemed the statute constitutional. However, State counsel indicated that Arkansas would interpret the law to criminalize merely informing students about the theory, suggesting that discussing Darwin’s theory could lead to prosecution. Regardless of this vagueness, the court concluded that the statute must be struck down due to its conflict with constitutional protections against the establishment of religion and the free exercise thereof. The law specifically targets a segment of knowledge based on its opposition to a particular religious doctrine associated with a specific interpretation of Genesis.
The document emphasizes that government, at any level, must maintain neutrality regarding religious beliefs, neither favoring nor opposing any religion or non-religious perspectives. This principle is rooted in the First Amendment, which has historically been interpreted to prevent governmental support of any religious sect or dogma. The importance of protecting constitutional freedoms within education is underscored, asserting that public education is primarily under state and local control, though the courts must intervene to uphold fundamental values of free speech and inquiry as necessary. The courts have consistently ruled against laws that impose orthodoxy in the classroom, affirming the need for vigilance in safeguarding constitutional rights in educational settings.
In 1923, the Court struck down a Nebraska law that criminalized teaching in languages other than English for pupils not yet in eighth grade, recognizing that such arbitrary restrictions infringed on the rights of teachers and students under the Due Process Clause. Although the state aimed to promote English learning and civic unity, the Court ruled that these goals did not justify limiting individual liberties and the acquisition of knowledge.
The current legal issue can be resolved through the lens of the First Amendment, which prohibits any state action that favors or restricts religious beliefs. Citing cases like Everson v. Board of Education and McCollum v. Board of Education, the Court emphasized the principle of separation of church and state, asserting that public schools cannot support or oppose any religion. Educational programs must be secular and cannot promote or inhibit any religious doctrine. The state’s authority to define school curricula does not extend to criminalizing the teaching of scientific theories based on First Amendment violations. Thus, any law that serves to advance or inhibit religion exceeds the limits of legislative power defined by the Constitution.
The State cannot impose restrictive conditions on teachers that infringe on constitutional guarantees. Arkansas attempted to prevent teachers from discussing evolution due to conflicting religious beliefs regarding creation, specifically those adhering to the Book of Genesis. The law's justification is purely rooted in these religious views, mirroring the intent of Tennessee's "monkey law," which explicitly sought to ban teachings contradicting the Biblical account of creation. Although Arkansas's law is less overt than Tennessee's, its aim remains to suppress the teaching of evolution based on perceived conflict with religious doctrine. This law violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution. The Supreme Court of Arkansas's judgment is reversed. The text of the Arkansas law prohibits the teaching of human descent from lower animals and penalizes violators with fines and loss of teaching positions. The Chancery Court, while analyzing the Tennessee case, chose not to follow its precedent.
The court rejected the notion that the law should only be viewed as a directive from the State as an employer to its employees, stating that such a limited view would overlook essential constitutional values. It ruled that Initiated Measure No. 1 of 1928, Ark. Stat. Ann. 80-1627 and §80-1628 (Repl. 1960) is a legitimate exercise of state authority to determine public school curricula. The court did not address whether the Act bans teaching the theory of evolution as truth or merely limits its explanation, as this issue was not necessary for the case's resolution. The decree was overturned, and the case dismissed, with Justice Ward concurring and Justice Brown dissenting. Additional references noted that anti-evolution laws had been enacted and repealed in various states, and included historical commentary on the implications of such laws on educational freedom and ideological censorship. The text cites figures like Clarence Darrow and legal scholars who drew parallels between anti-evolution statutes and blasphemy laws, underscoring a broader ideological struggle against teachings that contradict prevailing social and religious beliefs.
Atheists support the teaching of evolution, while proponents of the Bible advocate for voting in favor of Act No. 1 to prevent it from being taught in schools. There is a concern among church members that funding for teachers who teach evolution undermines their children's faith. Public letters express fears that evolution education is detrimental to Christianity and leads to disrespect for the Bible. One letter argues that evolution contradicts biblical teachings and calls for Christian parents to support the anti-evolution bill to protect their children’s faith and, by extension, the state. The Arkansas anti-evolution law was adopted in 1928, influenced by the recent legal developments surrounding Tennessee's law and the Scopes trial. The state acknowledges that the Arkansas statute was enacted with the Scopes decision in mind.
