As a consequence of the trial over intelligent design concluded last December, the taxpayers of the Dover Area school District find themselves stuck with a $1 million bill for lawyers' fees. A couple of writers, Joe Manzari and Seth Cooper, writing in The American Enterprise last month, raise an interesting question about this.
Recall the circumstances: A group of parents took the sitting school board to court over the policy of reading a paragraph to science students informing them that there is dissent among scientists about the truth of Darwinian evolution and that there exist other opinions on the matter among people qualified in the sciences. Meanwhile, before the case was complete and a decision handed down, that school board was defeated at the polls by another set of candidates who opposed the old board's policy.
At the first meeting of the new board in early December, before Judge Jones handed down his ruling, it was suggested that the new board rescind the ID policy and thus possibly render the case before Judge Jones moot. Whether it would have actually been declared moot by the judge no one knows, but there was nothing to lose by trying, especially since the new board had every intention of discarding the policy anyway, and $1 million dollars to save. If the case was declared moot because the policy was no longer in effect there evidently would have been no attorney's fees awarded, and the school district would have saved a lot of money.
Nevertheless, the board declined to take that action until after the judge had rendered his decision and the district incurred a $1 million bill. Manzari and Cooper ask:
Why would the new board keep in place the evolution policy it once so ardently opposed? The School District's suit brought national attention and ridicule to the community, and the testimony of the former board members exacerbated the situation. A likely forthcoming decision by Judge Jones would overrule both the board and the theory of intelligent design. By rescinding the old board's evolution policy prior to a court ruling, the new board might have curtailed legal costs and fees incurred by a victorious ACLU and AUSCS. But the new board accepted a likely stinging defeat in court, with painful legal bills attached.
It is now three months following the Dover Area School District's courtroom defeat and the ACLU, AUSCS, and the new board members have some tough questions to answer.
With all the reporting that the national and local media did on this controversy one might think that someone in the media besides Manzari and Cooper would have asked the Dover Board why they didn't rescind the policy before the judge ordered them to, but as far as I'm aware no one has. This is especially puzzling given that the present board ran on the promise to husband Dover's financial resources more responsibly than did their predecessors.
