June 19, 2000

ORTHODOX UNION DISAPPOINTED BY HIGH COURT REFUSAL TO HEAR EVOLUTION DISCLAIMER CASE

Today, the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America – through its Institute for Public Affairs, expressed its disappointment with the decision on the U.S. Supreme Court not to review a ruling striking down a disclaimer meant to accompany the teaching of evolution in a Louisiana public school district. In a 6-3 vote, the justices let stand a U.S. 

Court of Appeals decision holding the disclaimer unconstitutional. In 1994, the Tangipahoa Parish Board of Education voted to have a disclaimer read prior to the teaching of the theory of evolution in its schools. The disclaimer at issue states, in part: It is hereby recognized by the Tangipahoa Parish Board of Education that the lesson to be presented…is known as the Scientific Theory of Evolution and should be presented to inform students of the scientific concept and not intended to influence or dissuade the Biblical version of Creation… It is further recognized…that it is the basic right and privilege of each student to form his/her own opinion or maintain beliefs taught by parents on this…important matter of the origin of life… Students are urged to exercise critical thinking…and gather all information possible and examine each alternative toward forming an opinion.

The policy of reading this disclaimer was struck down by a federal district judge and upheld by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals as improperly promoting religion in the public schools. The Union’s Institute had filed a brief with the appellate court asserting that the plain meaning of the disclaimer clearly indicated that the school board was not advancing a religious understanding of the origins of the universe, but clearly stating that the teaching of the scientific theory of evolution is not the only way to approach that issue and that students should not view their school as necessarily contending with the teachings of their parents or clergymen. In light of the Supreme Court’s decision not to hear this case, IPA director Nathan Diament stated that “it is critical that we continue to fight for the principle that the Constitution does not require hostility toward religion; today that cause had been setback, but it will continue.”  

###