Scribd
Upload
68 views1 page

11 Epperson v. Arkansas

The US Supreme Court held that an Arkansas statute prohibiting the teaching of evolution in public schools was unconstitutional. The statute violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by favoring the religious doctrine of creationism over evolution. While courts generally do not interfere with public school systems, the statute in this case had direct implications on freedom of speech and belief that are protected by the Constitution.

Uploaded by

kafoteon media
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
68 views1 page

11 Epperson v. Arkansas

The US Supreme Court held that an Arkansas statute prohibiting the teaching of evolution in public schools was unconstitutional. The statute violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by favoring the religious doctrine of creationism over evolution. While courts generally do not interfere with public school systems, the statute in this case had direct implications on freedom of speech and belief that are protected by the Constitution.

Uploaded by

kafoteon media
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Epperson vs Arkansas (1968)

Facts:
- Arkansas had an “anti-evolution” statute that prohibited the teaching the Darwinian Theory
(that man evolved from other species of life) in its public schools and universities
o Law makes it unlawful to: (1) teach the theory or doctrine that man ascended or
descended from lower order of animals, and (2) use any textbook that teaches this
theory
- Only Arkansas and Mississippi have such “anti-evolution” or “monkey” laws
- Susan Epperson, a teacher of 10th grade Biology at the Central High School, instituted this case,
questioning the constitutionality of the Arkansas statute, because she was supposed to use a
textbook that had a chapter about the Darwinian Theory but knew that it would constitute a
criminal offense and would make her vulnerable to dismissal from the school
- Chancery Court held that the statute violated the 14 th Amendment, but the SC of Arkansas
reversed Chancery Court’s decision

Issue:
- WON the Arkansas statute is unconstitutional

Held: YES
- Statute is in conflict with the constitutional prohibition of state laws respecting an establishment
of religion or prohibiting free exercise thereof. In this case, it is obvious that the statute favors
the doctrine taught by the Book of Genesis and thereby prohibits another doctrine that is
deemed to conflict with it
o It does not matter whether the statute is deemed to prohibit mere mention of Darwin’s
theory, or to forbid any or all of the infinite varieties of communication embraced within
the term “teaching”
- Government must be neutral in matters of religious theory, doctrine, and practice
o First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality between religion and religion, and
between religion and non-religion
- Courts should generally NOT interfere with the operation of public school systems, but they may
do so if there are direct and sharp implications on basic constitutional values, like that of
freedom of speech and inquiry and of belief
- 1st Amendment does not permit the state to require that teaching and learning must be tailored
to the principles or prohibitions of any religious sect or dogma
- Objective study of religions from a literary and historic viewpoint is allowed as long as the State
does not adopt programs that “aid or oppose” any religion
- Test: What are the purpose and the primary effect of the enactment? If either is the
advancement or inhibition of religion then the enactment exceeds the scope of legislative power
as circumscribed by the Constitution

You might also like