|
Minnesota
Appeals Court on May 8, 2001
The effort of Rodney LeVake to
argue he had free exercise, free speech, and due process rights to teach
"evidence against evolution" has failed. The Minnesota
Appeals Court on May 8, 2001 supported the summary judgement dismissal
decision of the Minnesota District Court of last year.
Regarding the free exercise of religion claim, the Appeals Court wrote:
"It is unclear on what basis LeVake argues that his right to free
exercise of religion was violated. LeVake does not contend that
respondents prohibited him from practicing the religion of his choice.
He does not assert that respondents demanded that he refrain from
practicing his religion outside of the scope of his duties as a public
school teacher in order to retain his teaching position, and he does not
assert that the curriculum requirements incidentally infringed on his
religious practice."
Regarding the free speech argument, the Appeals Court supported the
right of the district to determine curriculum, a position supported with
abundant case law:
"The classroom is a 'marketplace of ideas,' and academic freedom
should be safeguarded (cite). But Levake, (sic) in his role as a
public school teacher rather than as a private citizen, wanted to
discuss the criticisms of evolution. LeVake's position paper
established that he does not believe the theory of evolution is
credible. Further, LeVake's proposed method of teaching evolution
is in direct conflict with respondents' curriculum requirements (cite).
Accordingly, the established curriculum and LeVake's responsibility as a
public school teacher to teach evolution in the manner prescribed by the
curriculum overrides his First Amendment rights as a public citizen.
(cite)
Regarding the due process claim, the Court wrote:
"The school board may regulate a teacher's speech in the classroom
if it has provided the teacher with specific notice of what conduct is
prohibited. (cite) LeVake's due process claim is premised on his
belief that respondents deprived him of his liberty interest to teach
his class free 'from state action which impinges upon and violated his
constitutional rights to free speech and free exercise' by failing to
provide him with adequate notice of what types of expression were
prohibited before reassigning him. The cases LeVake relies on in
making this argument involve the termination of teachers, but LeVake was
not terminated. In fact, he was not even demoted. Further, before
accepting the position to teach tenth-grade biology, LeVake understood
that respondents' prescribed curriculum included teaching students about
evolution. LeVake was given sufficient notice about what he could
and could not teach through the established curriculum and the
syllabus."
The decision was:
"Because LeVake's position paper and his statement to Hubert make
it clear that LeVake would not teach the required course curriculum in
the manner established by the school board, LeVake has not presented any
genuine issue of material fact regarding his free exercise, free speech,
and due process claims. Thus, the district court did not err in
granting respondents' motion for summary judgment."
|