Evening star., 1925-06-02
The Supreme Court and the Schools

BY q unanimous opinion the Su-
preme Court has decided that the Ore
gon law requiring that children in
that State should be educated exclu-
sively in public schools is unconsti-
tutional. The court sets aside the law
on the ground that It unreasonably in
terferes with the liberty of parents
and guardians to direct the upbring-
ing and education Of children under
their control. 1t also holds that the
law menaces with destruction proper
ties worth large sums belonging to
parochial and secular schools amount
ing to 4 deprivation of possession with
out due process of law.
Interest Is at once aroused by this
decision in the question whether 1t
may serve as an indication of the at
titude of the Supreme Court upon the
Tennessee Law which forbids the
teaching of evolution, soon to be
brought to it's first test in that State.
There Is a difference, material one,
between the oregon and the Tennes-
see laws. The Oregon law, without
stipulating the kind of education. pre-
scribed the place and medium of edu-
cation for all the children in the state.
The Tennessee law forbids the teach
ing of a certain line of scientific
thought in the public institutions of
learning in that State.
In the decision of the Supreme
Court occurs this passage:
No question is raised concerning the
power of the State reasonably to regu-
late ali schools, to inspect, supervise
and examine them, their teachers and
pupils; to require that all children of
proper age attend some schools; that
teachers shall be of good moral char
acter and patriotic disposition: that
certain studies plainly essential to
good citizenship must be taught. and
that nothing is taught which Is mani
testify inimical to the public welfare.
This may De taken as indicative of
the courts view regarding the kind
of teaching which a State may pre-
scribe. Advocates of the teaching of
science, particularly evolution. in the
schools Of this country may see in it
a favorable attitude by the highest
court toward their contention. Oppo-
nents of evolutionary teaching may,
on the other hand, contend that that
line of instruction falls under the ban
thus pronounced against that which is
'manifestly inimical to the public well
fare
The Constitution in the first amend
ment provides that Congress shall
make no law respecting the establish.
ment of religion or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof, or abridging the
freedom of speech or Of the press"
1t does not specifically restrict the
right of the State to pass such acts
as may be construed as establishing a
religion or prohibiting its free exer-
else, or abridging the freedom of
speech or of the press. 1t has, how
ever, been contended and maintained
that in these respects a State cannot
do what the United States cannot do.
In the present decision on the Oregon
law the Supreme Court sets aside a
State statute because it is a depriva.
tion of property without due process
of law and because it is an inter
ference with the free choice of parents
and guardians in the education Of
their children by reputable teachers.
Tho question of Importance now is
whether the setting aside OF the Ore
son law on these grounds foreshadows
an annulment of the Tennessee statute
forbidding the teaching of a particu.
lar study or science on the ground of
undue interference with the process
of free education. If the Tennessee
case should reach the Supreme Court
through appeals the argument upon it
will doubtless turn upon the courts
present ruling that the States may not
interfere with the educational proc
esses so long as they are adequate to
good citizenship, and as they are not
in any way inimical to the public wei.
fare.
-.A----k-R81-S-