Chris Comer loses appeal
We received the following announcement from the National Center for Science Education and reproduce it with permission:
In a decision issued on July 2, 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld a lower court’s decision that the Texas Education Agency’s policy requiring “neutrality” of its employees when “talking about evolution and creationism” is not unconstitutional. The case, Comer v. Scott, was filed by Chris Comer, the former director of the Texas Education Agency, who was forced to resign from her post in November 2007 after she forwarded a note announcing a talk by Barbara Forrest. In June 2008, Comer filed suit, arguing that the agency’s neutrality policy violates the Establishment Clause. Her lawsuit was dismissed in March 2009, but she appealed the decision, and oral arguments were heard in April 2010.
Writing for a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit, Fortunato Benavides explained (pp. 11-12), “Upon review of the record and applicable law, we cannot conclude that TEA’s neutrality policy has the ‘primary effect’ of advancing religion. The fact that Comer and other TEA employees cannot speak out for or against possible subjects to be included in the curriculum … does not primarily advance religion, but rather, serves to preserve TEA’s administrative role in facilitating the curriculum review process for the Board. … Thus, we find it hard to imagine circumstances in which a TEA employee’s inability to publicly speak out for or against a potential subject for the Texas curriculum would be construed or perceived as the State’s endorsement of a particular religion.”
For the Fifth Circuit’s ruling (PDF), visit: http://ncse.com/webfm_send/1390
For NCSE’s collection of documents from the case, visit: http://ncse.com/creationism/legal/chris-comer-docs
Dave Thomas has previously reported on the Comer case here, here, and here.
I have not read the full decision yet, but it escapes me how “neutrality” with respect to evolution versus creationism can be anything but an indirect endorsement of religion, primarily because opposition to evolution is purely religious and there are no valid scientific reasons for opposing evolution.