Home » Legislature & Courts » Briefs and Complaints » Religious Liberty Briefs and Complaints
Complaint in Gibson v. Lee County School Board
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA, FORT MYERS DIVISION
ROBERT P. GIBSON, individually and as
parent and next friend of his minor children;
MARK A. EHMAN, individually and as parent
and next friend of his minor child; Rev.
JAMES BOLER and Rev. SANDRA BOLER;
KENNETH WEINER; KURT MEYERING,
Case No. individually and as next friend and parent of his
minor child; and JILL DILLON,
Plaintiffs,
V.
LEE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, a political
subdivision of the State of Florida; DOUGLAS
SANTINI, LANNY MOORE, SR., BILL
GROSS, in their official capacities as members
of the Lee County School Board; BRUCE
HARTER, in his official capacity as
Superintendent of the Lee County Schools;
and DOUGLAS K. WHITTAKER, in his
official capacity as Executive Director for
Curriculum of the Lee County Schools,
Defendants. Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief
Plaintiffs sue the defendants and state:
1. This action seeks relief against the defendants for officially authorizing, offering, and preparing to teach a course in the Lee County public high schools that presents the Bible as a history textbook, teaches religious figures and events as "historical," and directs students to engage in learning activities that are intended to and will have the effect of endorsing, advancing, and indoctrinating students in sectarian religious beliefs. The curriculum, authorized by a sharply divided School Board in part over the objections of the Board's own lawyers, is scheduled to be taught commencing on or about January 21, 1998, the first day of the second semester of this school year.PARTIES
2. Plaintiff Robert P. Gibson is an adult resident of Fort Myers, Lee County, Florida, and a taxpayer whose taxes are spent by the Lee County School Board in the operation of Lee County's public schools. He brings this lawsuit as a taxpayers and as a parent on behalf of himself and his minor children, who are ages 8 and 12. Both of these children are currently attending Lee County public schools in grades 2 and 7 respectively.
3. Plaintiff Mark A. Ehman is an adult resident of North Fort Myers, Lee County, Florida, and a taxpayer whose taxes are spent by the Lee County School Board in the operation of Lee County's public schools. He brings this lawsuit as a taxpayer and a parent on behalf of himself and his minor child, who is age 7 and attending first grade in a Lee County public school.
4. Plaintiffs The Rev. James Boler and The Rev. Sandra Boler are adult residents of Fort Myers, Lee County, Florida, and taxpayers whose taxes are spent by the Lee County School Board in the operation of Lee County's public schools. Reverend James Boler is an ordained minister who oversees 36 churches of the United Church of Christ, South Western Region. Reverend Sandra Boler is Associate Pastor, Sanibel United Church of Christ. The Rev. Bolers bring this action as taxpayers.
5. Plaintiff Kenneth Weiner is an adult resident of Fort Myers, Lee County, Florida, and a taxpayer whose taxes are spent by the Lee County School Board in the operation of Lee County's public schools. Plaintiff Wiener is president of the Jewish Federation of Lee and Charlotte Counties. He brings this lawsuit as a taxpayer.
6. Plaintiff Kurt Meyering is an adult resident of Fort Myers, Lee County, Florida and a taxpayer whose taxes are spent by the Lee County School Board in the operation of Lee County's public schools. He brings this lawsuit as a taxpayer and as a parent on behalf of himself and his minor child, who is age 14 and attending grade 8 in a Lee County public school.
7. Plaintiff Jill Dillon is an adult resident of Sanibel, Lee County, Florida, and a taxpayer whose taxes are spent by the Lee County School Board in the operation of Lee County's public schools. Plaintiff Dillon is a founder of Lee County Citizens for Quality Education, a community organization of Lee County residents working for quality education in the County's public schools. She brings this lawsuit as a taxpayer.
8. All of the plaintiffs object to the defendants' efforts to indoctrinate students in religious belief and to promote particular sectarian beliefs in the public schools. They object to the defendants' operation of the Lee County public schools in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and to the use of their tax dollars to fund such operation. The plaintiffparents also object to the diversion of resources that would otherwise be available to provide for their children's education.
9. Defendant Lee County School Board ("the School Board") is a political subdivision of the State of Florida and responsible for providing public education to the children within its jurisdiction and for administering the laws and policies that govern the public schools within its jurisdiction, which includes the Lee County School District ("the School District" or "District"). The School Board violated the plaintiffs' rights by taking official action to adopt and implement the actions that are alleged herein in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
10. Defendant Douglas Santini is and at all relevant times was the chairman of the School Board. Defendant William F. Gross is and at all relevant times was a member of the School Board. Defendant Lanny Moore is a member of the School Board and has been a member since his election to the School Board in the fall of 1996. Defendants Santini, Moore and Gross violated the plaintiffs' rights by taking official action to adopt and implement the actions that are alleged herein in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
11. Defendant Bruce Harter is the Superintendent of the Lee County Public Schools and has been since his appointment in or about mid1997. As such, he is responsible for the operation and administration of the Lee County Schools, including implementation of the School Board's policies. He is sued in his official capacity.
12. Defendant Douglas K. Whittaker is and at all relevant times was the Executive Director for Curriculum of the School District and served as the facilitator of the Bible Curriculum Committee described below. Among other things, Whittaker is responsible for implementing the Bible History course described below. He is sued in his official capacity.
13. At all times relevant hereto, the defendants were acting under color of state law.JURISDICTION AND VENUE
14. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1343(3), 1343(4), 2201 and 2202, and
42 U.S.C. 1983. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to
28 U.S.C. 1391(b). STATEMENT OF FACTS
The Drive for Public School Bible History Begins
15. In January 1996, upon information and belief, defendant School Board member Gross received a copy of a curriculum for the teaching of the Bible prepared by a private organization, selfnamed the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools ("NCBCPS").
16. NCBCPS was formed in Greensboro, North Carolina for the avowed purpose of persuading public school boards throughout the United States to offer a high school class "to study the Bible as a foundation document of society" and the "foundation and blue print for our Constitution." To accomplish its objectives, the NCBCPS has developed two courses with twosemester curricula that focus on the "Old Testament" in the first semester and on what the organization's promotional literature describes as "the life of Jesus of Nazareth and the origins of Christianity" in the second ("New Testament") semester.
17. Although the NCBCPS disavows that its curriculum is designed to promote Christianity, the curriculum is in fact a sectarian and proselytizing tool. The teaching of the curriculum effectively inculcates students with Christian religious belief, consistent with the aim of NCBCPS to convince students through public school education that the United States was founded as a Christian nation and that the principle of separation of church and state is nothing more than a "myth."
18. The NCBCPS board of directors and advisory committee include or have included leaders of other proselytizing religious organizations such as The Conservative Caucus and the Coral Ridge Ministries. The efforts of NCBCPS to introduce its Bible curriculum into public schools have been endorsed and supported by proselytizing religious leaders such as William R. Bright, president of the Campus Crusade for Christ International. Other supporters of NCBCPS include Jay Sekulow, chief counsel to The American Center for Law and Justice; and The American Family Association Law Center.
19. Upon information and belief, contrary to the claims
of the NCBCPS that its curriculum has been adopted in dozens
of states, the curriculum has been adopted by very few,
if any, school districts and the constitutionality of the
curriculum has never been tested in court. The Lee County
School Board
Orders Implementation of a Bible Curriculum
20. At a meeting on March 26, 1996, the School Board considered offering a twosemester Bible history course in Lee County high schools beginning in the 19961997 school year. The first semester of the course would be titled "Bible History: Old Testament," and the second semester would be titled "Bible History: New Testament."
21. Various citizens spoke for and against the new course. Those opposing expressed concern that the course would violate the First Amendment. William Bracken, a resident of Lehigh Acres in Lee County, and later a member of the Bible Curriculum Committee described below, urged the School Board to adopt the course, pointing out that he had never seen separation of church and state in the United States Constitution.
22. In a 4 to 1 vote, the School Board officially authorized the Bible History course. An announcement of the course stated that the first semester "focuses on the Bible as a historical document through an overview of significant events that have affected the people of the Old Testament." The School Board's announcement stated the second semester would help students "understand the relationship between historical events and their interpretations and development of religious and ethical beliefs as described in the New Testament." The announcement did not designate textbooks or other materials that would be used to teach the class, but did specify that both parts of the course would feature "the Bible as an historical document."
23. At its March 26, 1996, meeting, the School Board also directed the establishment of a citizens advisory committee ("the Bible Curriculum Committee" or "the Committee"), to "review the curricula the Superintendent is receiving from districts around the nation; a curriculum would then be developed to be presented to the public and the Board for another vote before adoption."
24. Each of the five members of the School Board appointed
two members to the Bible Curriculum Committee and the Superintendent
appointed five additional members, creating a 15member committee.
The original members of the Bible Curriculum Committee consisted
of Michelle Albion, Rabbi Solomon Agin, Rev. Michael Balfour,
William Bracken, Mary Carmack Williams, Dr. Mark Ehman,
Rev. Larry F. Gutridge, Michael Jenkins, Charles Luckey,
Beverly Kehn, Lanny Moore, Sr., Carl B. Snipes, Guy R. Strayhorn,
Terri Wampler, and Vickie Weiss. Defendant Lanny Moore was
subsequently elected to the School Board in the fall of
1996 and left the Committee. Donald Rajavuori replaced Moore
on February 3, 1997, and Ronald J. Thomas replaced Rajavuori
in the summer of 1997.June 1996: The Bible Curriculum Committee
is
Directed to Produce a Bible History Curriculum Within Six
Months
25. On June 20, 1996, Defendant Whittaker convened the Bible Curriculum Committee for the first time for the purpose of "advising the Board on the best curriculum to introduce to high schools who have an interest in the course." Whittaker stated that the Bible Curriculum Committee's objective would be to recommend a curriculum for a twopart course that could be offered by January 1997. Whittaker also instructed the Bible Curriculum Committee that "[t]he curriculum will be limited to the Old and the New Testament, excluding all other works." He pointed out that the "high schools currently offer a comparative religion course [in which] other religious works may be used," and that the recommended curriculum should not duplicate that offering. The Bible Curriculum Committee agreed to meet on a monthly basis thereafter.
26. The Bible Curriculum Committee convened again on July 22 and on August 18, 1996, to discuss the pros and cons of curricula believed to be in use in other school districts in Florida and in other areas of the country. A majority of the Bible Curriculum Committee advocated that both the NCBCPS curriculum and a curriculum used in Marion County, Florida, should be used to develop a curriculum for the Lee County schools. A minority of Committee members noted that a number of topics within the NCBCPS curriculum appeared to be "doctrinal and theological in nature." The Committee nevertheless asked the School Board staff to draft a proposed curriculum combining "the best" elements of each curriculum.
27. On September 16, 1996, Defendant Whittaker presented the Bible Curriculum Committee with a draft curriculum entitled "Bible History: Old Testament" (referred to herein as "the Bible History I curriculum") prepared by School District staff members including Brenda Palmer, Charles Luckey, and Jack Bovee. The draft described the first semester of the proposed course. Some of the Bible Curriculum Committee members found that the staffrecommended curriculum was insufficient because the "Bible needs to have primacy,'" and the curriculum should "include reading of the Bible with the activities" and use the "Bible as the source document." Other Committee members questioned the curriculum's "placement of creation as [an] historical event." The Bible Curriculum Committee majority asked the staff to revise the draft.
28. By October 14, 1996, committee members began expressing
their strong disagreement through the media. Committee member
Jenkins wrote a guest opinion that appeared in the October
14 edition of Fort Myers NewsPress, headlined "Preserve
our freedom of choice in religion." The column questioned
whether religion should be taught in the schools. Committee
member Bracken responded on November 3 with an opinion column
of his own, condemning the public schools for teaching what
he called "secular humanism" and stating his belief
that "it would make sense to change from secular humanism
to Christianity." He warned that if Lee County did
not do so, "it won't be long until we reach Third World
status."The Bible Curriculum Committee Again is
Pressured to Develop a Bible History Curriculum and Sharply
Divides
29. On November 18, 1996, the Bible Curriculum Committee met to review a second draft of the Bible History I curriculum. Some Committee members observed that the revised curriculum could not be taught without indoctrinating students with Christian views since the curriculum failed to present alternative perspectives and employed doctrinal terminology in an inappropriate manner. Some Committee members also expressed concern that teachers could not be adequately prepared before January 1997 to teach the curriculum in a manner that would avoid inculcating students with a single religious viewpoint.
30. Defendant Whittaker directed the Bible Curriculum Committee that notwithstanding its doubts concerning the effect that the course would have on students, it must present a final Bible History I curriculum to the School Board by December so that the course could be offered in the second semester of the 199697 school year.
31. One Committee member objected that the Bible Curriculum Committee's "sensitive task" would not be wellserved by the pressure of this deadline.
32. Responding to Defendant Whittaker's prodding, the Bible Curriculum Committee voted 8 to 4 to move on from consideration of the Bible History I curriculum to the "Bible History: New Testament" curriculum (referred to herein as "the Bible History II curriculum"). The Bible Curriculum Committee also agreed to generate two reports: a majority report in favor of the Bible History I curriculum and a minority report summarizing dissenting members' objections to the Bible History I course presented to the School Board.The Majority and Minority Reports
33. Shortly after the November 18, 1996, meeting, a majority of eight of the Bible Curriculum Committee issued a report endorsing "the Old Testament Curriculum as prepared by the Curriculum Staff of the District, and with the changes adopted by the Bible Curriculum Committee," and the performance standards contained therein, claiming that they were "nondoctrinal" and "nonsectarian," The Majority Report also stated "although the curriculum itself does not specifically state the primary source text for this course, it is the understanding and recommendation of the majority that this text be the Bible, in various translations."
34. The Bible History I curriculum endorsed by the majority of the Bible Curriculum Committee presented the Bible as a history textbook and treated as "historical" biblical persons and events having no corroboration outside the Bible, including stories concerning the actions of the divine in human affairs that are incapable of historic verification or falsification and that can only be accepted as a matter of religious faith. Performance Standard 1 stated, for example, that by completing the course, a "student will . . . identify the Bible as a historical document, . . . [and] identify the historical events of the Bible." The curriculum indicated that the study of such "historical events" would specifically call for students to, for example, "Review the Cain and Abel story," "Review the Biblical account of Noah and the Flood," "Compare Isaac's lie with Abraham's lie," "diagram the family tree of Jacob's children," "Create a book to illustrate [Abraham's] wandering in the desert," "Sequence . . .the events that ended with the conquest of Jericho," "Create a family tree for Abraham," "Have students read warnings issued by Moses," "describe nine of Elijah's actions called miracles,'" "identify the saga of Joseph," "roleplay the opposing viewpoints of Moses and Pharaoh," "Analyze the Book of Joshua," "read the story of David and Goliath," and "copy five Proverbs." The curriculum also required students to read extensive selections from the "Old Testament" Books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Samuel I, Samuel II, Kings I, Kings II, Ezra, Chronicles, Jeremiah, Psalms, Proverbs, and Maccabees.
35. On December 4, 1996, six Bible Curriculum Committee members Balfour, Wampler, Agin, Ehman, Jenkins, and Albion issued a "Minority Report of the Proposed Bible Curriculum for the Lee County School System." These members criticized "the apparent effort to push the curriculum through prematurely," emphasizing five major problems with the curriculum recommended by the majority: (1) the "19page curriculum outline is too large to be realistically cover[ed] in this class, and may become subject to an instructor's personal views," (2) students should "acquire a knowledge of history, not a prescribed religion or doctrine," (3) students of certain religious affiliations, convictions or upbringing may be uncomfortable, (4) the proposed curriculum might create ill will or misunderstanding, and (5) the School Board may be exposed to expensive lawsuits, tarnishing the District's reputation and unnecessarily expending tax dollars.
36. More specifically, the Minority Report objected to
the curriculum's use of doctrinally based terms, topics,
and source documents as well as its blatant bias in favor
of the dominant culture over minority traditions. The Minority
Report also noted that inadequate provision had been made
for teacher training.The School Board Attorney Advises that
Bible History I Curriculum Has the "Potential for Litigation"
37. On December 16, 1996, School Board Attorney Steven Butler advised the Bible Curriculum Committee that the Bible History I curriculum it had the "potential for litigation" because (1) the title of the course was biased, (2) the course appears to teach the Bible" as an inerrant document," (3) the purpose for teaching the course appeared to be nonsecular, and (4) the course teaches "a single Protestant perspective." Butler also warned the Committee that the Bible Curriculum Committee Minority Report increased the likelihood of litigation.
38. Notwithstanding Butler's advice, the School Board issued a renewed directive to the Bible Curriculum Committee on December 17, 1996, to continue with its work. The School Board also authorized the hiring of an outside law firm to review the constitutionality of the curriculum. The School Board asked to have a report from the firm by March 1997, and decided to postpone offering the classes until the fall of 1997.
39. Butler announced he would resign as of March 14, 1997. According to an article in The Washington Post on June 15, 1997, Butler had warned that the curriculum, as originally proposed, "plainly contravenes the Constitution."
40. On January 13, 1997, the Bible Curriculum Committee members continued to express sharp division over the adoption of any "Bible History" curriculum. Some Committee members called the curriculum not "historical enough" because it relied heavily on"literature, text selection, and music." Other members pointed out that it failed to include multiple perspectives, did not take a critical approach, and used Biblical names and events as historical facts. Other Committee members strongly disagreed with these criticisms, stating their views that "events historical or not are events as named in the Bible" that should be taught in the course. Some Committee members again expressed serious concerns that they could not produce an academically sound curriculum under the "pressure" placed on them by the School Board.
41. On February 3, 1997, Defendant Whittaker again urged the Committee to complete its work as quickly as possible to conclude revisions to the Bible History I curriculum. Beverly Kehn suggested that the Committee should abandon its efforts to design its own curriculum and instead should adopt the entire NCBCPS curriculum. Defendant Whittaker told the Committee that "[u]sing the [NCBCPS] curriculum as a whole is not a consideration." Whittaker later explained to The Washington Post that the NCBCPS curriculum had a " a conservative, Protestant, evangelical slant.'" The Committee began work on revising the proposed Bible History I curriculum.
42. On February 5, 1997, a majority of the School Board voted to buy out the remainder of thenLee County School District Superintendent Bobbie D'Alessandro's contract. The School Board later replaced D'Alessandro as superintendent of the School District with Defendant Bruce Harter, citing, among other things, her alleged failure to implement the Bible History curriculum fast enough.
43. In March 1997, the School District allowed high school
students to enroll in the Bible History course for the Fall
1997 semester, even though no curriculum had been finally
developed, let alone adopted, by the School Board, and no
provision had been made for teacher training.The Bible Curriculum
Committee Majority
Resist Modification of the NCBCPS "New Testament"
Curriculum
44. On February 10, 1997, the Bible Curriculum Committee met and began reviewing various drafts of a Bible History II curriculum. The Committee now became deeply mired in debate over how to structure any course that would teach about the New Testament. Many members of the Committee insisted that the New Testament, including the teachings of Jesus, must be taught as literal history. The Bible Curriculum Committee met again on February 24, 1997, but continued to wrestle with how the course should be taught and whether the curriculum would have the effect of indoctrinating students. Defendant Whittaker instructed the Committee to work toward reaching a consensus, but if that could not be achieved, its next step should be to vote on the lessons to be included in the course.
45. Defendant Whittaker continued to drive the Committee to adopt a Bible History II curriculum at its next meeting on March 10, 1997. Whittaker introduced the new School Board attorney, Keith Martin, to the Committee and announced that Peper, Martin, Jensen, Maichel& Hetlage, a St. Louisbased law firm, had been retained to provide legal advice regarding the curriculum. Still, the Committee reached no consensus regarding the curriculum to be taught.
46. On March 24, 1997, the Bible Curriculum Committee again engaged in a protracted debate regarding how the course should refer to, teach, and test such concepts as "the Church," the "Christian community," the "Holy Spirit," "martyr," and "the Sabbath."
47. On April 14, 1997, the Bible Curriculum Committee debated
whether the curriculum should teach and test about matters
referred to as the "Beast and the Lamb," the "Thousand
Years," "the second' arrival of Jesus," locations
of seven churches, and the major schools of thought about
Revelation.A Second School Board Lawyer Warns the Defendants
That The Bible History I Curriculum May Violate the First
Amendment
48. On May 7, 1997, the School Board's outside counsel, Melanie Gurley Keeney of Peper, Martin, Jensen, Maichel & Hetlage, reported to the defendants on a review of the draft of the Bible History I curriculum submitted to her. The review had been undertaken, she explained, because "the District's Bible courses are likely to elicit a legal challenge." Keeney specifically warned the defendants that "a court may believe that the intent was to teach the religious' significance of the individuals and the listed events," "a court could believe the school district sanctions the Bible's theory on Creation," the curriculum implies "the school district believes there is a God and that God had a covenant with the Israelites." She also observed that the curriculum's teaching about the "Hebrew people's unique role of morality" "has the strong potential for overstepping constitutional parameters," that "extreme caution must be taken to ensure that activities related to [prophets] do not comment on the religious worth of the prophecies," and that requiring students to recognize how their personal experience and philosophy influences their "interpretation of Biblical events . . . could easily cross constitutional boundaries." Keeney recommended extensive revision of the curriculum, including the wholesale elimination of certain sections.
49. On May 12, 1997, some Bible Curriculum Committee members criticized Keeney's analysis of the Bible History I curriculum and her advice for altering it. At least one Committee member commented that the lawyer's analysis "makes me mad" and called her conclusions "ridiculous." Committee member Kehn closed the meeting by reading a poem written by a judge who had a religious display of the Ten Commandments posted in his courtroom.
50. The Bible Curriculum Committee convened again on May 29, 1997, and further discussed Keeney's advice. One Committee member suggested that Keeney should be advised "how strongly members feel on some of the standards." Defendant Whittaker then reported that only one of the high schools that had enrolled students to take Bible History I in the fall had a qualified teacher. He also pointed out that the Committee should anticipate that there would be videotaping and observers in the classroom to ensure the course was taught legally because "it would be well within a judge's prerogative to order videotaping in the classroom."
51. On June 9, 1997, Defendant Whittaker identified the
high schools that planned to offer the Bible History I course
in the fall if 25 students or more elected to enroll: Cypress
Lake, Estero, Lehigh Senior, Mariner, North Fort Myers,
and Riverdale. Defendant Whittaker also announced that the
School Board had directed the Bible Curriculum Committee
to conclude its work by no later than July 15, 1997.The
Deeply Biased and Religious Approach
of the Bible Curriculum Committee Majority is Further Exposed
Publicly
52. On June 15, 1997, The Washington Post published an article on the ongoing controversy in Lee County concerning development of the Bible History curriculum. The article quoted Bible Curriculum Committee member Bracken as saying that those who were not enthusiastic supporters of the Bible course were "Jews . . . and others who you wondered if they had any religion at all." Bracken was further quoted as saying that the proceedings went much smoother when a rabbi on the Bible Curriculum Committee did not attend meetings. "That helped the process quite a bit," Bracken stated to The Post.
53. Days later, in the face of the local controversy that had erupted over Bracken's remarks, Bracken stood behind his remarks, telling the Cape Coral Daily Breeze, "Since this was a Christian Bible course, I wondered why some of the people were chosen." And Bracken told the Fort Myers NewsPress: "[T]hey should appoint Christians to review a Christian curriculum. I wondered from the very beginning why Jews and others, I don't know what they were, were on the committee."
54. Bracken's remarks echoed those he had written earlier to School Board Member Patricia Riley, urging Riley's support for the Bible course. In his letter dated March 18, 1996, Bracken wrote:
Our Founding Fathers, as you know, thought the Bible should be taught as a required subject . . . . History, Law, Philosophy and Culture are all based on the Bible, I frankly don't know either how you can grasp these subjects without studying the basis for them, which is the Bible.
I do not understand how Jewish people can object, since the Old Testament, which is essentially the Jewish Bible will be taught as a separate course. Besides this is a Christian Nation and being founded on the Bible how can we understand our own country without a knowledge of the Bible?
55. The majority of the School Board ignored community calls to remove Bracken from the Bible Curriculum Committee and to halt or postpone the work of the Bible Curriculum Committee in light of Bracken's remarks. School Board member Gross himself had been quoted in the same Post article giving rise to the Bracken controversy as saying: " In Florida, we must teach black history and the Holocaust. It's mandatory. So why not the Bible as an elective. It's the oldest textbook I know of.'"
56. On July 7, 1997, Committee member Mark Ehman composed an open letter to the School Board further revealing the flawed nature of the process undertaken by the Bible Curriculum Committee and the defects in the work it had produced during the preceding 15 months. Ehman's letter reported that the curriculum "in its present form contradicts all that is intellectually sound, historically faithful and educationally defensible." He wrote that "objectivity and the strenuous effort to avoid churchstate entanglements have been set aside in favor of an urgency to offer the course in the Fall of 1997. In addition, the course, as it now stands, is cluttered with subtle and notsosubtle theological biases a clear breach of the First Amendment." Ehman urged the School Board to dissolve the Bible Curriculum Committee and to impose a moratorium on offering a Bible curriculum for the following reasons:
1. The courses as they are presently constituted are not historical courses. They are courses laden with assumptions which often cross the line between historical plausibility and theological presupposition.
2. The activities of the courses are highly prejudicial in favor of a dominant religious tradition.
3. The perspective of the courses in their present form is hermeneutically narrow and morally biased.
4. The tone of the course betrays a political agenda that is based upon an inaccurate reading of history and misguided analysis of the human condition.
5. The content of the course is illdefined and impressionistic.
57. Bible Curriculum Committee members Agin and Jenkins also wrote letters urging the School Board not to offer the Bible course the Committee had devised.
58. On July 14, 1997, the Bible Curriculum Committee met once again. Defendant Whittaker now urged the Committee to ignore its dissenters and to carry on in light of the "dollars spent in staff time and legal counsel." The Committee proceeded to debate how the curriculum should treat such matters as the "resurrection," "virgin birth of Jesus," and "teaching ethics and morality." One Committee member candidly expressed the view that "the reason[] for putting together this program is to teach ethics and morality." School Board Attorney Keith Martin attended the meeting and explained his advise concerning further deletions of any lessons from the curriculum that he considered to be central to religious faith. Using this criterion, he advised the deletion of, among other things, "creation" and "Adam and Eve" from the Bible History I curriculum.
59. Shortly after the July 14, 1997, meeting one or more Committee members met with Martin and asked him what they should do with references in the curriculum to the "resurrection." Martin advised: "[S]trike them all and the teachers should be instructed never to refer to it."
60. Committee member Strayhorn wrote to the Committee urging an "important reason not to change or ignore these historical accounts as presented in the text book (New Testament) that the students will be reading, That is, the question of who and what caused the death of Jesus goes to the very core of the Christian gospel as set forth in that text, both by Jesus and by the authors of the Epistles." Strayhorn explained: "That very direct recorded message of the Church was that Jesus died for, that his death was caused by, the sins of all mankind." Strayhorn recommended that the Committee should vote against "perversions of the New Testament historical accounts of the immediate events leading up to and including the crucifixion of Jesus, as well as the other writings of the New Testament."
61. At the following Bible Curriculum Committee meeting on July 28, 1997, Defendant Whittaker reviewed with the full Committee numerous additional modifications that Martin and Keeney would require in both the Bible History I and Bible History II curricula, including the deletion of any reference to the "resurrection." Committee majority members reacted with anger that lawyers would suggest such "destructive" alteration to the curriculum. Even though the Committee had been advised that the changes recommended by the attorneys were nonnegotiable and would be included in the curriculum submitted to the Board, and even though the attorneys had made the changes to seek to avoid a court ruling that the school district was unconstitutionally promoting religion, the Committee majority made clear that it did in fact want to include much of what had been deleted by the attorneys. For example, the majority voted that the Genesis version of "creation" should be restored (but creation stories from Native American and other cultures should remain deleted), that "Adam and Eve" should be put "back in," that the "Covenant between the Israelites and their God" should be put "back in," that the "Day of Atonement" should be put "back in," and that an exercise requiring students to define "sin" should be put "back in."
62. With respect to the Bible History II curriculum, the Committee majority voted at the July 28, 1997 meeting, in derogation of the lawyers' advice, to keep requirements that students identify the historical significance of "the birth of John the Baptist," "the birth of Jesus," and "the baptism of Jesus." The Committee declined by a 77 vote to follow the lawyers' recommendation to delete the "Resurrection" from its Bible History II curriculum. The Committee majority also voted to add a new performance standard to the curriculum over the lawyers' objections. It required students to "identify the historical influence of the belief by the Christian Community and the resurrection of Jesus on the growth and development of the church."The School Board Adopts the Bible History ICurriculum in the Face of Community Protest
63. The School Board was scheduled to vote on adoption of the Bible History I curriculum on August 6, 1997. The final version of the Bible History I curriculum proposed to the Board, even as edited by the lawyers, continued to present the Bible as a history textbook and to treat as "historical" biblical persons and events having no corroboration outside the Bible, including stories concerning the actions of the divine in human affairs, such as the biblical stories of "Cain and Abel" and "Noah and the Flood." The proposed curriculum also continued to use the sectarian term "Old Testament," which presents the Bible as Christians view it, rather than the term commonly accepted by scholars, "Hebrew Scriptures." Members of the Jewish faith who also consider these books to be canon do not use the term "Old Testament," or recognize a "New" Testament.
64. School Board outside counsel Melanie Keeney opined in a letter dated August 6, 1997, that "a court would likely uphold" the version of the Bible History I curriculum that incorporated changes she had recommended "based on a facial challenge," but her opinion erroneously was based on an "understanding that [the Bible Curriculum Committee] has worked diligently to create course standards and activities conforming to constitutional standards." Keeney either ignored or did not discover that the Bible History I curriculum was created by the Committee with the express intent to ignore the constitutional limitations that she and Martin had advised the Committee about. Keeney also ignored Bracken's apparently antiSemitic explanation of the approach that the Committee had taken, and Ehman's criticism that the curriculum was "not historical," "highly prejudicial," "narrow and morally biased," "a political agenda," "misguided," "illdefined and impressionistic." Keeney offered no opinion regarding whether the curriculum could survive an "as applied" challenge.
65. Significant community opposition to the Bible History curriculum was expressed to the Board because of its improper use of the Bible as a history text and its unconstitutional promotion of religion. For example, on August 5, 1997, the Board received a letter from People For the American Way on behalf of more than 80 named Lee County parents and community members urging that the Board reject the proposed curriculum on these grounds. The letter specifically explained that serious constitutional problems remained in the proposed Bible History I curriculum even after the revisions made by the Board's attorneys.
66. At a School Board meeting on August 6, 1997, a sharply divided crowd of more than 200 people appeared and more than 70 speakers addressed the School Board. Numerous members of the community including parents and business leaders opposed the School Board's adoption of the curriculum on the ground that it presented the Bible as if it were a history book. Others spoke vehemently in favor of the curriculum, imploring the Board to "Let God get a foot in the door . . . in Jesus' name."
67. The School Board refused to allow Committee member Ehman to address the meeting because he had been unable to appear by 6:30 p.m. to sign a card requesting time to speak. School Board Member Boren therefore read Ehman's comments into the record. Ehman's comments stated the course under consideration "is a terrible course . . . fraught with theological presuppositions . . . and it is pedagogically superficial and unsound." He admonished the Board for "believing that it could trample on the spiritual sensitivities of so many in order to achieve the special aims of a few."
68. After hearing public comment, Defendant Gross moved to adopt the Bible History I Curriculum in the form that included alterations made by the lawyers, but Gross also stated: "I don't totally agree with those deletions." Defendant Moore supported the motion, stating:
The young people in our classrooms today don't know who a creator is . . . Why go through that formality of swearing before God when our kids don't even know who a God is. Religion should be taught in the home but I believe the Christian Bible, the Bible, is history and it had a role in the formation of our country and we shouldn't deny our children from being aware of that role . . . I would encourage our board to support the elective curriculum
Moore quoted Ralph Reed, former executive director of the Christian Coalition, as saying, "Not teaching Bible as history is denying a large number of people a seat at the table."
69. Defendant Moore is a member of the Christian Coalition. The Christian Coalition was founded in 1990 by televangelist Pat Robertson and describes itself today as "leading a growing new alliance of evangelicals." The organization states that it is a part of the "religious conservative movement." Its former executive director Ralph Reed has stated that the Coalition would prefer to control the country's school boards than The White House. The Coalition also advises its members on political strategies that will help them to win seats on school boards despite opposition to the Coalition's political and religious policies.
70. Defendant Gross dismissed citizen objections to the curriculum, noting that it would be elective and that he had two sons and had to pay for "basket weaving" courses that he did not agree with.
71. Defendant School Board Chair Santini also urged adoption of the curriculum, stating:
As a history teacher, knowing the rich background of the Middle East is unbelievable; I taught in Orangewood elementary school in 1968, 69, and I quoted from [the Bible] . . . We weren't afraid of a lawsuit at that time; we weren't afraid to really give things kids needed in our society.
72. The School Board voted at the conclusion of the meeting to adopt the Bible History I curriculum by a 3 2 vote. School Board members Katherine Boren and Patricia Riley voted against adopting the curriculum. A copy of the Bible History I curriculum adopted by the School Board is attached as Exhibit A and incorporated by reference.
73. Although no textbook had been selected and no provision had been made for teacher training, the Bible History I course was still scheduled to begin on August 25, 1997. School principals at Cypress Lake and North Fort Myers High Schools, the only schools where the course had finally been scheduled to be taught, expressed concern about exposing their teachers to the risks they believed to be inherent in teaching a Bible curriculum with only limited preparation. Therefore, on August 12, 1997, less than two weeks before classes were to begin, Defendant Harter told the School Board the course would be postponed until the second semester beginning January 21, 1998.
74. Defendant Harter informed the School Board at its August
26, 1997, meeting that eight teachers would be trained to
teach the Bible History I course at a cost of $4,000. The
defendants asked Professor Charles C. Haynes of Vanderbilt
University's First Amendment Center to help prepare teachers
to teach the course.Professor Haynes Concludes the
Bible History I Curriculum Cannot Properly be Taught
75. On September 10, 1997, Professor Haynes, a senior scholar
of religious freedom at Vanderbilt's First Amendment Center,
sent a letter to the School District not only declining
the defendants' invitation to assist with teacher training,
but also criticizing the defendants' efforts to teach the
Bible as history. In a letter to Ruth Rigby of the School
District Curriculum Services Office, Haynes stated: "The
Bible is not a history textbook and should not be treated
as one." According to Haynes, theological arguments
are too complex and controversial, and courses that attempt
to excise the theological debate inevitably assume a single
religious view of the Bible. Haynes suggested that the defendants
should scrap their proposed course in favor of a literary
curriculum that would avoid the "literal" versus
"historical/critical" dispute. "We urge the
Board to rethink the Bible course, and to consider the alternative
such as the one we propose here," Haynes concluded.
Haynes sent a copy of his letter to Defendant Santini. Upon
information and belief, Defendant Santini did not circulate
Professor Haynes's letter to every member of the School
Board and none of the defendants ever responded to Haynes's
offer to assist with the development of an alternative course.The
Bible Curriculum Committee
Recommends the NCBCPS "New Testament" Curriculum
76. The Bible Curriculum Committee attempted to work on the Bible History II curriculum in the fall of 1997, but the majority objected to efforts by the School District attorneys to delete some of the most overtly religious aspects of the NCBCPS "New Testament" curriculum. The minority continued to criticize the curriculum (1) as providing a theological, rather than historical orientation; (2) as inconsistent in its reference to historically verifiable and unverifiable events; (3) for its disregard for Biblical scholarship; and (4) for its disregard for the development of Rabbinic Judaism.
77. After School Board attorneys insisted on deletion of any reference to the "Resurrection of Jesus Christ" and to "the Epistles," Committee Member Rev. Balfour literally shredded a copy of the lawyeredited curriculum at the September 23, 1997, meeting and threw it over his head saying: "This class is not history; this is censorship outright. . . . I move we cease discussions of this garbage on the floor, this atrocity, this blatant malignancy that has grown week after week. . . . Christians died over the last week of Jesus' life. Christians died over this."
78. At Rev. Balfour's urging, the majority of the Bible Curriculum Committee voted to disband, 6to5. One member abstained. Also at Rev. Balfour's urging, the Committee voted 6to5 to recommend wholesale adoption of the NCBCPS "New Testament" curriculum even though it contained many elements that the School Board's own lawyers had advised were unconstitutional.
79. The NCBCPS "New Testament" curriculum facially
reflects that it is intended to and will promote Christian
religious faith and indoctrinate public school students
in Christian religious beliefs. For example, much of the
curriculum is focused on a study of biblical stories about
Jesus that can only be accepted as a matter of faith and
of Christian religious belief, such as Jesus' miracles and
Jesus' resurrection. The curriculum calls for religious
lessons such as comparing the temptations of Eve by the
Serpent with the temptations of Jesus by Satan, and directs
students to engage in such Sunday school tasks as rote memorization
of the order of the 27 books of the New Testament. The curriculum
also calls for the use of such films as "Jesus,"
a proselytizing video distributed by Campus Crusade for
Christ and used in carrying out its mission of converting
people to Christianity. And, like the Bible History I curriculum
adopted by the School Board, adoption of the NCBCPS "New
Testament" curriculum as the Bible History II curriculum
calls for students to study as history biblical persons
and events that have no corroboration outside the Bible,
including matters involving the actions of the divine, and
that cannot properly be considered to be "historical."The
Defendants' Lawyers Warn Them
That the NCBCPS Curriculum is "Not Neutral"
80. School Board outside counsel Keeney then warned Defendant Whittaker in a letter dated September 25, 1997, that she had reviewed the NCBCPS curriculum and she "would not recommend that the Board of Education adopt this curriculum because teaching certain segments of this curriculum could be viewed as an attempt to indoctrinate students. I am concerned that this curriculum may not be viewed as neutral. Accordingly, a court might find that this curriculum violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution."
81. In light of Keeney's strong advice against adoption of the NCBCPS curriculum, Defendant Whittaker pressed on with formulation of a Bible History II curriculum based on the work the Bible Curriculum Committee already had done. School Board Attorney Martin recommended the deletion of much of the NCBCPS "New Testament" curriculum from the Committee's draft, including student activities such as rote memorization of the order of the books of the New Testament, the Beatitudes, and the Similitudes, and the study of such topics as the "farewell instructions of Jesus," Jesus' temptations, Jesus' sayings from the cross, and Jesus' resurrection. Martin also recommended modifying clearly doctrinal language such as the "calling" of the twelve disciples and the "major teachings" of Paul, and adding the words "historically relevant" or "historically significant" in an attempt to secularize obviously religious lessons. Martin also recommended the deletion of the showing of such films as "Jesus."
82. Defendant Whittaker also sought to obtain input from Professor Mitchell G. Reddish, one of several coauthors of An Introduction to the Bible, a collegelevel textbook that the defendants may seek to use with the Bible History course, regarding how the textbook corresponded to course outlines under consideration.
83. Reddish responded on October 14, 1997, noting that designated "sections in the text book are not always a perfect match [with course outline topics] because of [sic] the slant of your courses and the approach of the text are a little different."
84. On October 14, 1997, the Lee County Christian Coalition held its 1997 Faith and Family Prayer Breakfast at the Sheraton Harbor Place in Fort Myers. In a letter from Christian Coalition of Florida Executive Director John Dowless to State Senator Fred Dudley, Dowless wrote, "the purpose of the breakfast is to honor the Lee County School Board for their decision to offer a Bible history elective, and raise the needed funds to continue the work of the coalition." The Breakfast featured American Center for Law and Justice Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow and was cohosted by Defendant Moore. Defendants Santini and Gross were sent invitations, but School Board members Boren and Riley, who had not voted in favor of the Bible History I curriculum, did not receive invitations until after the news media notified Breakfast organizers of the "oversight."
85. On or about October 16, 1997, Defendant Harter held a press conference to announce that he had been advised by the School Board's attorneys that the NCBCPS Bible curriculum is "not as legally defensible" as the curriculum on which the Bible Curriculum Committee had been working before disbanding. Accordingly, Defendant Harter recommended that the School Board adopt the unfinished work of the Bible Curriculum Committee, as it had been completed by his staff and School Board Attorney Martin. Nevertheless, Defendant Harter also provided the School Board with a copy of the complete NCBCPS curriculum.
86. By letter of October 20, 1997, School Board outside counsel Melanie Keeney cautioned the defendants that adopting the Bible Curriculum Committee's recommendation to adopt the NCBCPS "New Testament" curriculum "could create difficulties if the courses are challenged in court." "Specifically," Keeney wrote, "I am concerned with the nature of the Committee's recommendation and the polarization of Committee members the recommendation reflects." Noting the 65 vote, Keeney wrote to inhouse counsel for the defendants:
If the curriculum is challenged, a court is likely to attempt
to ascertain the individual Committee member's [sic] intent.
If a majority of the Committee members advocated that the
curriculum lead students to adopt a particular religious
belief, a court could impute this intent to the District.
If a court made such a ruling, the curriculum would likely
be struck down. To pass constitutional muster, the course
must be neutral and nonproselytizing. . . . Consequently,
the Board's adoption of the staff prepared curriculum, which
is neutral and objective, provides the strongest legal foundation
to withstand legal challenge.The School Board Adopts the
NCBCPS New Testament
Curriculum Over the Objection of the Superintendent and
its Lawyers
87. At its October 21, 1997, meeting, the School Board convened to consider adoption of a New Testament curriculum. The meeting opened with an invocation in the name of Jesus delivered by a minister invited by the School Board.
88. The School Board majority denied School Board Attorney Martin's request to have its outside counsel, Keeney, brought from St. Louis to defend the staff curriculum recommended by Defendant Harter. Defendant Santini commented: "We know what she wanted to say anyway. It probably was a waste of money at this point. I don't think it was worth the money."
89. Approximately 60 speakers appeared before the School Board to express their strong support of and strong opposition to the adoption of a "New Testament" curriculum and more than 200 people attended the threehour, standingroomonly meeting. Many of the speakers questioned the propriety of devoting extraordinary financial resources for a class that, according to School Board members, would be taught to only 125 out of the 51,000 students in the school system. Approximately $37,000 had been spent on the course through the date of the meeting and the Board had yet to acquire a text book or supplementary materials.
90. Defendant Harter reviewed the development of the Bible History II curriculum and stated that School Board Attorneys Martin and Keeney agreed that the NCBCPS curriculum recommended by the majority of the Bible Curriculum Committee did not meet constitutional requirements. Accordingly, Defendant Harter asked the School Board to adopt the hybrid staff curriculum combining the Committee's unfinished work as revised by School Board attorneys and District staff.
91. Before any School Board member could respond to Defendant Harter's recommendation, Defendant Gross offered a substitute motion to adopt the NCBCPS "New Testament" curriculum. Defendant Moore seconded the motion.
92. In support of his motion, Defendant Gross stated that upon hearing that Jesus's resurrection and other matters had been deleted from the Bible History II curriculum, he decided to support the NCBCPS curriculum without deletions.
93. In further support of his motion and also in response to questions from School Board Member Boren regarding teacher training, Defendant Gross represented that Professor Charles Haynes had offered to assist with teacher training. This was untrue, and Defendant Santini failed to correct Gross even though Santini had been sent a copy of Professor Haynes's letter criticizing Lee County's plan to teach the Bible as history and declining to participate in teacher training for the Lee County course.
94. Boren continued to be concerned about teacher training because Attorney Martin had advised that the NCBCPS curriculum could not constitutionally be adopted. Martin then cautioned the Board that he could not go back credibly to the teachers and advise them on how they could teach some of the matters covered by the NCBCPS curriculum given the training he already had provided to them.
95. Defendant Santini stated that if the NCBCPS Curriculum were adopted, the School Board would be given free legal services by the American Center for Law & Justice ("ACLJ"), a law organization founded by Reverend Pat Robertson, chairman of the Christian Coalition, and that supports the NCBCPS. Members of the ACLJ were seated in the front row at the School Board meeting and, upon information and belief, had prior knowledge of Defendant Gross's substitute motion to adopt the NCBCPS curriculum. Members of the Christian Coalition and the NCBCPS were also at the meeting.
96. Board members Riley and Boren expressed concern over recent NCBCPS allegations that the School District had plagiarized the NCBCPS "Old Testament" curriculum in drafting the Bible History I curriculum. Riley and Boren also questioned Defendant Gross about restrictions on implementation of the NCBCPS "New Testament"curriculum, if adopted. Defendant Gross, who spoke with NCBCPS representatives during the October 21 School Board meeting, stated he thought copyright issues could be worked out.
97. In support of the motion to adopt the NCBCPS "New Testament" curriculum, Defendant Moore stated that he recalled discussion of the NCBCPS curriculum at the first Bible Curriculum Committee meeting and noted it was "providential" that it was back before the Board. He further stated that "I think the Bible needs to be taught as history."
98. At the conclusion of the meeting and ignoring the advice of its own lawyers and its superintendent, the School Board voted 3to2 to adopt the NCBCPS "New Testament" curriculum for teaching the Bible History II course to be offered in the Lee County public high schools. Defendants Boren and Riley again were in the dissent. A copy of the NCBCPS "New Testament" Curriculum is attached as Exhibit B and incorporated by reference. Although this curriculum contains two separate courses, both of which provide an "Old Testament" semester and a "New Testament" semester, the Board gave no direction regarding whether one or both of the "New Testament" semester curricula should be used.
99. Both of the NCBCPS New Testament semesters contain lessons that School Board Attorney Martin had advised the School Board against using.
100. Upon information and belief, the teaching of the NCBCPS
"New Testament" curriculum will begin on or before
March 30, 1998. The Aftermath:
Further Confirmation of Defendants' Sectarian Purpose
101. The morning after the School Board vote, October 22, 1997, defendant Moore appeared on the NBC Today show and stated "The events in the Bible happened. They need to be taught as part of our history." Later that night, Defendant Moore was interviewed on the NBC Nightly News and elaborated on his religious belief during the following colloquy with NBC Correspondent Kerry Sanders:
MOORE: These things happened. We may or may not believe
em, but they happened.
SANDERS: Jesus turned water into wine?
MOORE: He did.
SANDERS: Jonah lived in the belly of a whale?
MOORE: Right.SANDERS: There was a resurrection?
MOORE: That's right.
SANDERS: All fact?
MOORE: All fact.
102. Defendant Moore also told the Associated Press: "I
think the Bible needs to be taught as history."The
School Board Gives
the ACLJ Control Over its Defense
103. In a letter dated October 24, 1997, School Board Attorney Martin asked the ACLJ to follow through with its offer to provide the School Board with free legal representation in the event of a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Board's adoption of the NCBCPS curriculum.
104. The ACLJ responded in a letter dated November 20, 1997, clarifying that it would not defend the School Board's adoption of the Old Testament curriculum and that it would "only defend a Bible Course that does not preclude certain portions of the New Testament (e.g. the Resurrection) from study." The ACLJ's proposed "AttorneyClient Agreement" also provided that the ACLJ would "supply legal representation and cover costs of the representation" and that the "Client agrees to cooperate fully with attorney Kevin H. Theriot, and other participating attorneys provided by the ACLJ, and further agrees that said attorneys will have authority to make final decisions in matters concerning the legal representation of the Client in such case."
105. The ACLJproposed agreement further provided: "If at any point in the litigation of the case the ACLJ and the participating attorneys provided by the ACLJ believe, in their sole judgment, that the Client is not cooperating fully in the case, the Client agrees that the ACLJ and the participating attorneys provided by the ACLJ may withdraw from the case in accordance with applicable canons of professional conduct."
106. The ACLJproposed agreement also provided: "The Client further agrees not to make any statements to the news media regarding the case without prior approval from the ACLJ."
107. The School Board evaluated the ACLJ offer at a meeting held November 24, 1997. School Board Member Boren expressed concern about whether the ACLJ would represent the best interest of the Lee County School District, rather than its own interests in promoting the NCBCPS curriculum. She also noted that she had "seen cases like this used by ACLJ on TV to solicit donations." Martin reminded the Board that he had advised it against adopting the curriculum that the ACLJ was now offering to defend.
108. School Board Member Riley stated she would not support hiring the ACLJ because it would be "[i]mportant to retain a firm that has the reputation of being fair and neutral."
109. Nevertheless, the School Board, at its next meeting on November 25, 1997, voted by the same 3to2 majority that had authorized the teaching of the Bible History curriculum, to place the School Board's defense in the ACLJ's hands by accepting the agreement as proposed other than the provision prohibiting "the Client" from making statements to the news media without ACLJ authorization. CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS
110. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 110.
111. The "Bible History: Old Testament" and "Bible History: New Testament" curricula adopted by the Lee County School Board for its Bible History course do not present the Bible objectively as part of a secular program of education.
112. The defendants' purpose and intent in officially authorizing, offering, and preparing to teach a course that teaches the "Bible History: Old Testament" and "Bible History: New Testament" curricula are to promote religion generally and Christianity specifically.
113. The primary effect of the defendants' conduct in officially authorizing, offering, and teaching a course that teaches the "Bible History: Old Testament" and "Bible History: New Testament" curricula will be to advance religion generally and Christianity specifically.
114. The defendants' conduct in officially authorizing, offering, and preparing to teach a course that teaches the "Bible History: Old Testament" and "Bible History: New Testament" curricula fosters an excessive entanglement of the Lee County School Board with religion.
115. For each of these reasons, the defendants' conduct in officially authorizing, offering, and preparing to teach a course that teaches the "Bible History: Old Testament" and "Bible History: New Testament" curricula uses taxpayer dollars to violate the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, applicable to the defendants though the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and proximately causes injury to the plaintiffs and the children of the plaintiff parents.RELIEF
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court enter judgment in their favor and:
a. Issue a declaratory judgment that the defendants' official authorization and offering of a course that teaches the "Bible History: Old Testament" and "Bible History: New Testament" curricula are unconstitutional;
b. Issue a preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting the defendants from offering or teaching the "Bible History: Old Testament" and "Bible History: New Testament" curricula;
d. Award plaintiffs the costs of this action, including attorneys' fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988; and
e. Grant such other and further relief as this Court deems just and appropriate.
Respectfully submitted,
Steel Hector & Davis llp
By_________________________________________
Thomas R. Julin
(Trial Counsel)
Edward M. Mullins & Barbara Bolton Litten
Florida Bar Nos. 325376, 863920 & 091642
200 S. Biscayne Boulevard 40th Floor
Miami, FL 331312398
305.577.2810 or 2844 Fax 7001
Elliot M. Mincberg & Judith E. Schaeffer
People For the American Way
2000 M Street, N.W. Suite 400
Washington, D.C. 20036
202.467.4999 Fax 293.2672
Andrew Kayton
Florida Bar No. 889563
American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Florida, Inc.
3000 Biscayne Blvd. Suite 215
Miami, FL 33137
305.5762337 Fax 1106
Attorneys for the Plaintiffs
