View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by bepress Legal Repository SEEING GOVERNMENT PURPOSE THROUGH THE OBJECTIVE OBSERVER’S EYES: THE EVOLUTION- INTELLIGENT DESIGN DEBATES KRISTI L. BOWMAN* Debates about teaching intelligent design in public school science classes are inflaming communities across the nation. These controversies present thorny Establishment Clause ques- tions at a time when that doctrine is less clear than ever. The ambiguity is not due to a lack of case law: Just last year, the Supreme Court issued two seemingly contradictory Establish- ment Clause decisions, driven by what then-Chief Justice Rehnquist characterized as “Januslike” interests. McCreary County v. ACLU, with its focus on government purpose, is more applicable to curricular disputes such as intelligent design than Van Orden v. Perry, with its examination of passive, apparently uncontroversial expression. This Article thus examines McCreary County within the intelligent design context, focusing on McCreary County’s decision to import the “objective ob- server” from the effects-endorsement analysis into the gov- ernment purpose inquiry. Such analysis makes clear the ways in which a strict reading of McCreary County leads to undesir- able results, and the reasons why the Court should retain McCreary County’s focus on government purpose, but reject the expanded role of the objective observer. CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION......................................................419 II. AN EVOLUTION-INTELLIGENT DESIGN PRIMER ..426 * Assistant Professor of Law, Drake University Law School; J.D., Duke University; M.A., Duke University; B.A., Drake University. The author is grateful to Martin Begleiter, John Borkowski, Jan Bowman, John Bowman, Paul Carrington, Tracy Dodds, Gabrielle Hann, Mark Kende, Christine Marchand, David McCord, Michael Pardo, H. Jefferson Powell, Keith Summerville, and students in Education Law for their comments, and to Martha Sibbel for research assistance. 418 Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy [Vol. 29 A. Revisiting the Ideas at Issue.........................427 1. Evolution..................................................427 2. Creationism..............................................431 3. Intelligent Design....................................432 B. The Cultural Context, at Home and Abroad ............................................................439 III. THE ESTABLISHMENT QUAGMIRE ........................442 A. The Life of Lemon...........................................443 B. The Objective, Reasonable Observer: At First an Evaluator of Effect and Endorsement ..................................................445 1. Emerging in Justice O’Connor’s Concurrences...........................................445 2. The Early Stages of Adoption ...............447 3. The Objective, Reasonable Observer Accepted...................................................450 4. Applying the “Standard”.......................451 C. McCreary County v. ACLU: An Objective, Reasonable Observer’s Perspective on Governmental Purpose.................................454 D. Establishment Clause Considerations in Public School Curricular Debates ...............461 IV. DON’T THROW THE BABY OUT WITH THE MCCREARY COUNTY BATHWATER .......................465 A. Changing the Constitutional Harm ............466 1. What Apparent Intent Misses: Hidden Motives.....................................................467 2. Increasing Problems with “Neutrality”.............................................472 3. Apparent Intent’s Potential for Overreaching ...........................................474 B. What Did the Reasonable Observer Know, and When Did the Reasonable Observer Know It?..........................................................476 1. NCLB’s Requirements, or Lack Thereof......................................................476 2. The Santorum Amendment...................478 3. Conference Committee Report Language..................................................480 4. The “Secular, Neutral, and Nonideological” Directives ...................481 No. 2] The Evolution-Intelligent Design Debates 419 5. What Is a Reasonable Observer to Do?........................................................483 C. The Ever-Important Standard of Review...485 V. CONCLUSION .........................................................489 I. INTRODUCTION On October 18, 2004, the 3,700-student school district in Do- ver, Pennsylvania became the first in the nation to require that its students be taught about the concept of intelligent design when learning the theory of evolution.1 The Dover school dis- trict thus presented in public school science classrooms the idea that an intelligent agent must be responsible for the origin and variety of the species because evolution alone could not have produced such complexity. The Dover school district’s instruc- tion in intelligent design was cursory, requiring only that the 1. Although Dover was the first school district in the country to require such instruction, other school districts have adopted policies implicitly or explicitly permitting intelligent design instruction. Most recently, in August 2005, the Rio Rancho, New Mexico school board specifically voted to permit high school science classes to discuss alternatives to the theory of evolution. See Martha Raffaele, New Mexico Schools Could Enter Battle over “Intelligent Design,” WASH. POST., Oct. 9, 2005, at A7. Additionally, the school board in Grantsburg, Wisconsin approved teaching “all theories of origin” in June 2004 and modified its policy to teach “various scientific models/theories of origin” in October 2004. John Angus Campbell & Stephen C. Meyer, How Should Schools Handle Evolution?, USA TODAY, Aug. 15, 2005, at A13. Cecil County, Maryland also has adopted a policy encouraging, but not requiring, the teaching of intelligent design. See Bruce Alberts, President, National Academy of Sciences, The Evolution Controversy in Our Schools, Letter to Academy Members (Mar. 4, 2005), available at http://www.nasonline.org/site/PageServer?pagename=NEWS_letter_president_030420 05_BA_evolution. Additionally, a note on an issue that is not all semantics: Intelligent design advocates posit the concept of intelligent design as a “theory.” Used colloquially, “theory” indicates an untested explanation for a past or future occurrence, similar to a scientific hypothesis. In its technical, scientific sense, however, “theory” indicates a well tested, verifiable, and substantially proven scientific explanation closely akin to the common understanding of “fact.” Scientific facts, by contrast, are mere observations or results, usually from experimentation, with little value until understood in the context of a theory. See, e.g., Transcript of Trial Proceedings, Day 1 PM, at 91–92, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area Sch. Dist., 400 F. Supp. 2d 707 (No. 4:04-CV-02688) (M.D. Pa. 2005) (all trial transcripts are available at http://www.aclupa.org/legal/legaldocket/intelligentdesigncase/dovertrialtranscripts. htm); NILES ELDREDGE, THE TRIUMPH OF EVOLUTION AND THE FAILURE OF CREATIONISM 21–24 (2001). Accordingly, this Article refers to evolution as a theory and creationism and intelligent design as concepts. 420 Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy [Vol. 29 following statement (modified slightly in June 2005) be read to biology students studying evolution:2 The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin’s Theory of Evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part. Because Darwin’s Theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is de- fined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations. Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People, is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what In- telligent Design actually involves. With respect to any the- ory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the Origins of Life to indi- vidual students and their families. As a Standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on Standards-based assessments.3 In January 2005, when Dover science teachers refused to read the statement, the school district’s assistant superintendent did so instead.4 Even before the statement was read in Dover class- rooms, however, parents already had challenged its constitu- tionality in federal court.5 The trial in this case was the first in the nation to address the evolution-intelligent design dispute directly.6 Just six weeks after the twenty-one-day trial con- cluded, the district court ruled soundly for the plaintiffs.7 While the trial was in full swing, the ideological battle also played out in the Dover school board election, in which the eight incumbents standing for reelection (all supporters of the 2. The policy, as modified, mentions “other resources” about intelligent design, including PERCIVAL DAVIS & DEAN H. KENYON, OF PANDAS AND PEOPLE: THE CENTRAL QUESTION OF BIOLOGICAL ORIGINS (2d ed. 1993), available in the school library. Transcript of Trial Proceedings, supra note 1, Day 1 AM, at 16–18. 3. Dover Area Board of Directors, Board Press Release for Biology Curriculum (Nov. 19, 2004), http://www.ncseweb.org/kitzmiller/DASD_Policy.htm;