Rod Miner and Marty Stomberg don't want to sue the Darby School Board of Trustees, but they will if they're "forced to."
On Tuesday, Miner carefully picked the best words to describe a letter he and Stomberg, his wife, have sent to the board's five trustees.
"I do not want to make a threat to the board," Miner said Tuesday of the two-page letter. "We want to say to the board, 'You're getting yourself into trouble. There are legal consequences to what you're doing. We can help you avoid this, if you will only let us.' "
That said, Miner and Stomberg have stepped forward in the letter as possible plaintiffs in a lawsuit, should the Darby board move ahead with final passage of the origins policy, which seeks to teach criticism of evolutionary theory in Darby science classes.
"If they are going to implement this, however, then we will have to take a step," Miner said. "We feel that the board has pushed us into this position, but we will not be run over by the board. If there is any way we can avoid a lawsuit, that's what we want to do."
The board has been actively preparing for a lawsuit. Three of the board's five members voted last week to retain a Lincoln lawyer whose fees will be paid in the event of a suit by an Arizona legal foundation founded by prominent Christian conservatives.
Lawyer Bridgett Erickson has a private practice in Lincoln, but she has trained with the Alliance Defense Fund, and her fees and costs will be paid by the organization, which describes itself as a servant organization working to spread the Christian Gospel.
The board was warned about aligning itself with an attorney affiliated with a Christian group by its regular attorney, Elizabeth Kaleva of the Montana School Boards Association. But the board moved ahead to retain Erickson. Kaleva, who believes the board will ultimately be sued, also warned the board that a court case could be extremely expensive for the district, estimating costs as high as $300,000 should the district lose.
In fact, that estimate may be low if the case is filed in federal court and appealed several times.
Miner and Stomberg reference such a scenario in their letter, which the board will receive on Wednesday.
"If you pass this policy on second reading, you will choose to risk a great deal of the district's money on opposing lawyer's fees and the costs of litigation incurred by both the district and opposing parties," Miner and Stomberg wrote in the letter. "If you pass the policy on second reading you will abrogate your greatest responsibility, the care of our children's education."
Miner is a co-chair of Ravalli County Citizens for Science (RCCS), a group that formed to oppose the science proposal first floated in December by Darby minister Curtis Brickley. The letter speaks for the science group, but it's also a personal plea to the board from Miner and Stomberg.
"I don't believe in making threats," Stomberg said Tuesday. "But the board has given this so little discussion, and they've given the public so little information on why they're doing this. This is an attempt to bring this discussion into the public eye. We are clearly demanding from them that they state the intentions behind this policy."
The Miner-Stomberg letter reads almost like a legal critique of the board's actions to date. Miner said he wrote the letter - which was reviewed by other members of the science group and an attorney - so that the board will fully understand RCCS's objections to the science policy.
The letter notes what it describes as a lack of due diligence on the board's behalf - both in considering the need for such a policy and the possible ramifications of implementing it. The board, Stomberg and Miner said, has done nothing to really assess the "science" that lies behind Brickley's proposal.
"They set up a system of public participation which wasn't effective or productive," Miner said. "Listening to 100 people talk for three minutes each is not a way to assess a science policy."
Worse, Miner said, Brickley and the policy's proponents produced no scientists to back their claims that evolutionary theory is flawed and unsupportable. Instead, the board saw a computer presentation of facts, figures and quotes gathered by the industrious Brickley.
"Š you have not stated clearly why you believe the scientific theory of evolution has been discredited, and have not presented to Darby parents and taxpayers evidence to support this assertion and thus the need for this policy," Miner and Stomberg wrote. "In the absence of this evidence, your actions must be unavoidably interpreted as seeking to introduce religious doctrine into our school."
Although the board has been careful not to use the words, Miner and Stomberg do not mince them when it comes to assessing what, exactly, Darby teachers might wind up teaching.
"If you remain passive regarding the presentation of evidence, the legal defensibility of this policy will then rest upon the strength of two variations of creationist argument raised against the theory of evolution in public testimony and Curtis Brickley's presentation: these are Creation 'Science' (CS) and Intelligent Design," the letter states. "Each of these is proposed by its apologists as a 'scientific' alternative to the theory of evolution. Nevertheless, no one and no court has ever recognized that to be the case. CS has been revealed in court for what it is, religious doctrine."
Intelligent design (ID) proposes that certain forms of life are too complex to explain, and are thus likely the work of an intelligent designer. Although ID proponents, many of whom are affiliated with the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, have published a handful of books about intelligent design, they have not garnered much respect in the scientific community.
The board has been quick to point out that it has not sanctioned teaching ID by approving "objective origins," but trustees have offered no guidance on what materials other than ID teachers might use to criticize evolutionary theory. And that rankles Miner and Stomberg, who believe Brickley has been little more than a front man for the Discovery Institute, an allegation Brickley has denied.
"The esoteric and gauzy nature of ID arguments are its strategic strengths, as it is not easily critiqued except by knowledgeable scientists, and thus (as shown in the Darby debate) it can gain a great deal of political momentum that is not easily slowed by the few who recognize its claims are false," the letter states. "Although this has worked in the political arena, it will fail in the judicial system, where rigorous analysis replaces chaotic and ill-informed public debate."
Ideally, Miner and Stomberg said, the board would sit down with a few proponents and opponents of the policy and talk, in depth, about the science and intent behind "objective origins."
"We want the board to listen to us seriously, and we want them to talk about why they're doing this," Miner said. "Ravalli County Citizens for Science is very willing to sit down with the board and the proponents without a judge and without a lawyer and explain to them how they're being misled," Miner said. "We can show them precisely who is misleading them and how."
Efforts to reach the three members of the board who voted in favor of the policy for comment were unsuccessful.
Reporter Michael Moore can be reached at 523-5252 or 370-3330, or at mmoore@missoulian.com
|
 |
 |
Add your comment now! Write your comment in the form below.
(Email address is for verification only. If you'd like to email a story, look for the link above)