Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
Trial transcript: Day 19 (November 2), PM Session, Part 1
THE COURT: Good afternoon. Mr. Gillen, just to clarify, because Liz mentioned to me that we may need to just clarify, what I was saying was simply that we'll continue to roll through the testimony, if this works for everybody, and we will hopefully complete the testimony tomorrow. Worst case would be Friday morning.
At the conclusion of all the testimony, we would then argue admissibility on the remaining exhibits, which consists of the articles, I think. I don't think we have anything else. So that would be Friday, in any event. Even if you finish the testimony tomorrow, it seems like that's an argument best left for Friday.
MR. GILLEN: Okay.
THE COURT: And then have closings after that. Now, I would intend, consistent with our discussion, to alert everybody before we depart on Friday of those areas that I would like you to play some emphasis on in your submissions. I don't want to, by doing that, usurp the format that we talked about before or attempt to have you overemphasize something, but just simply have you do that.
And then it occurred to me that if, in fact, having received your submissions, we need to have further dialogue, we could even do that by telephone argument or by some other mechanism that doesn't necessarily have you come in. I'm not convinced that we'll need to do that, but we can talk about that. But in any event, that's not for today. So does that clarify what you need?
MR. GILLEN: Yes, it does. Thank you, Your Honor.
MR. ROTHSCHILD: Just a couple other loose ends. We still have to present those parts of the demonstrative exhibits that we think should be introduced into evidence as opposed to just being --
THE COURT: Yes, okay.
MR. ROTHSCHILD: And also we have the issue of whether Dr. Forrest's reports and the exhibits that she did not testify about would come into the record for the purposes of her admissibility, and that's, I think, a loose end we still have.
MR. GILLEN: Sure. And on that limited point, the Forrest materials, with the understanding I believe we've reached, that it's for the limited purpose of demonstrating her qualifications and the basis for her opinion, I have no objection to them.
THE COURT: All right. Why don't you put your heads together at the break, and, in addition to the articles and the demonstrative exhibits, make sure there's nothing else so that we don't have a surprise on one side or the other. And then you can alert me if there are other things. I'll assume that that settles the Forrest --
MR. ROTHSCHILD: Just to be clear, that's her reports and the exhibits that she refers to in her reports but did not testify about coming in solely for the admissibility issue, not as substantive evidence.
MR. GILLEN: You know what, let me take it up later.
THE COURT: I think you want to talk about that. I don't want you to concede a point that you haven't had an opportunity to talk to co-counsel about. So it seems to me then, you know, at worst, we'll have the Forrest report and the ancillary exhibits, which are really the articles that she referred to, and other publications in her report. We'll have the various York newspaper articles, and we'll have the demonstrative exhibits. We don't have an agreement on the demonstrative exhibits?
MR. GILLEN: I think we have an agreement in principle, it's just the specifics that need to be discussed, and I'm waiting for my colleague to return, who is better situated to address it.
THE COURT: Suffice it to say, though, then on Friday -- and alert me if you have other areas just so I'm prepared for those, too, and alert each other so that no one is sandbagged on that. But on Friday then, we'll take that, we'll take the evidentiary arguments in a bundle. I'll rule on those, and then we'll roll into the closings after that. Does that make sense?
MR. GILLEN: Yes.
THE COURT: And we don't have to do that before, it seems to me, Friday. So in answer to part of your question I think that you posed to Liz at the break, Mr. Gillen, you don't have to be prepared to do that tomorrow. It looks to me like tomorrow, in any event, will be all testimony.
MR. GILLEN: Okay. And, Your Honor, as I understand it, on the newspaper articles, your focus on Friday will be on the admissibility issue, leaving the effect --
THE COURT: Absolutely, absolutely. It's admissibility only. It's a limited argument. And one of the things I'm going to ask you to pay some attention to in your briefs would be the further argument, but you do not have to be ready to argue that on Friday, nor do the plaintiffs' counsel.
MR. GILLEN: Thank you, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right? Does that clarify our status at this point? Poor Mr. Baksa is on the stand for the third time. Hopefully this is it. We'll complete your testimony, and you may proceed.
MR. GILLEN: Thank you, Your Honor.
Q. Mike, I think when we left off last, we were just through the October 7th board curriculum committee meeting and were going to move forward. And with that in mind, I'd ask you to look at Exhibit 51.
A. Okay.
Q. Do you recognize that document, Mike?
A. Yes.
Q. Is it a document that you generated?
A. Yes.
Q. And why did you do that?
A. Dr. Nilsen asked that I send the board curriculum committee's biology language to the curriculum advisory council for their review.
Q. Did district policy require this?
A. No.
Q. Why did you do it?
A. Again, Dr. Nilsen wanted to make sure that we involved the curriculum advisory council and they had a chance at least to comment on the proposed changes by the board curriculum committee.
Q. And did you receive any feedback from any members of that committee?
A. Yes.
Q. And with that in mind, I'd ask you to look at Defendants' Exhibit 67.
A. Okay.
Q. Do you recognize that document?
A. Yes.
Q. What is it?
A. This is a summary of the feedback I got from the curriculum advisory committee.
Q. And how did you get that feedback?
A. The first item was a phone call and the second was an e-mail.
Q. And do you remember who gave the phone call?
A. Mrs. Callahan.
Q. And the e-mail?
A. Was from a teacher, but I don't remember which teacher.
Q. Okay. Now, as we approach this October 18th meeting, I want to walk you through a few documents that are pretty familiar and get your understanding of what was in play here on the night of October 18th, 2004. I'd ask you to look at Defendants' Exhibit 60.
MR. ROTHSCHILD: What number was that?
MR. GILLEN: 60.
THE WITNESS: Okay.
Q. Do you recognize that document?
A. Yes.
Q. And what is it?
A. It's a memo from me to the board of directors that informs them of the board curriculum committee's biology curriculum change.
Q. All right. I want you to look through that, Mike, and give me a sense for what you saw as the important elements of the board curriculum committee's version. And with that in mind, I'd ask you to look at the page with the Bates Stamp Number 18 on it.
A. The board had a number of concerns, and the language that they developed was in answer to those concerns. The language at the bottom of the unit, Content and Concepts, Students will be made aware of gaps or problems in Darwin's theory, that was one of the board's concerns, and of other theories of evolution, which is another concern, and with an example, including, but not limited to, intelligent design. In addition to that, in the materials and resources section, Of Pandas and People is listed as a reference.
Q. Okay. I'd like you to look next at Defendants' Exhibit 61.
A. Okay.
Q. Do you recognize that document?
A. Yes.
Q. What is it?
A. That's a memo from me to the board of directors that has the recommendation from the administration and the staff for the biology curriculum change.
Q. And am I correct that the board curriculum committee's version had the designation Roman XI-A?
A. Correct.
Q. This document you've just referred to has the designation Roman XI-B?
A. Yes.
Q. And if you would direct your attention to the portion of Defendants' Exhibit 1 with Bates Stamp Number 20. This is Roman XI-B, and I'd ask you to give us your understanding of the important elements of the curriculum change from the teachers' perspective.
A. In the draft from the administration and teachers, there's language that says, Students will be made aware of gaps in Darwin's theory and of other theories of evolution. There is no reference to Of Pandas and People.
Q. Looking back at the board curriculum committee version, do you have an understanding as to why Of Pandas was specifically listed in the reference portion of that recommended curriculum?
A. My understanding is that the teachers, one of the things they were worried about was liability, and Dr. Nilsen included it in there so the book would be board approved and they wouldn't be questioned or liable for having that book in the classroom.
Q. Okay. If you look at the cover memos for both of these exhibits, you'll see they're dated October 13th. We're leading up to the October 18th meeting, and I want to ask you, did you, in your capacity as assistant superintendent, take any steps that were an effort to reconcile the difference between these versions?
A. After I received the board curriculum committee's version, I did meet with the -- I did share that with the science teachers.
Q. How about, did you get any feedback from members of the board that was designed to address this tension between the versions?
A. Dr. Nilsen, my understanding was that Dr. Nilsen was in receipt of additional changes from Mr. Bonsell that specifically included language that, Note, origins of life will not -- is not taught. And I believe I received that on the 18th.
Q. All right. Let me ask you to look at Defendants' Exhibit 68.
A. Okay.
Q. Do you recognize that document, Mike?
A. Yes.
Q. What is it?
A. This is a second draft from the administration and staff that I worked out with the staff during their lunchtime on the day of the 18th.
MR. GILLEN: Excuse me, Your Honor.
Q. And I'd ask you to turn to that portion of Defendants' Exhibit 68 with the Bates Stamp Number 22 in it.
A. Okay.
Q. And looking at that, Mike, would you identify the points at which this document diverts from the two we've spoken about thus far?
A. The language included in the curriculum draft here includes, Students will be made aware of gaps or problems in Darwin's theory, so it adds problems from their original proposal, and of other theories of evolution. It includes the note, The origins of life is not taught, which was Mr. Bonsell's suggestion. And it also includes the reference Of Pandas and People in the materials and resources.
Q. Okay. You've mentioned that this document was generated in the lead-up to the October 18th meeting, and I want to talk to you about that next. Do you recall the evening of that meeting?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you provide copies of all three of these documents in connection with that meeting?
A. To the board, yes.
Q. Okay. Do you remember speaking with board members about these documents and the position of the administration in connection with that October 18th meeting?
A. Yes.
Q. What did you say?
A. I informed the board that the first recommendation from the teachers would be XI-B and that if the board was -- if that didn't answer the board's concerns, the teachers were willing to submit XI-C as a compromise for curriculum language.
Q. Do you recall conveying your understanding of teacher concerns to the board at that time?
A. Right, that the teachers were concerned about the mention of intelligent design, and no draft that would have that in would be acceptable to them. And they stressed that it was important that the teachers be on board with the curriculum language.
Q. Do you recall any concern about the requirement of teaching intelligent design that was expressed by the teachers?
A. I believe that -- my understanding is that teachers felt that the inclusion of the language in the curriculum would lead them to have to teach it. If the language is in there, then it meant they had to teach it.
Q. Do you recall a board member trying to address that concern?
A. I believe that's what Mr. Bonsell was doing by putting that note in there that the origins of life is not taught.
Q. Let's look at the board meeting and as it began, the public comment. Do you remember anyone speaking at the board meeting during the public comment session -- section of the meeting?
A. Mrs. Spahr and Mrs. Miller I remember talking.
Q. And how did you understand their position as a result of that statement?
A. I think both Bert and Jen were recommending against the board's version, XI-A, and they were recommending B or C in its place and spoke against including intelligent design being included in any curriculum change.
Q. And did you make a recommendation?
A. Yes.
Q. And what was that?
A. Our first recommendation was for B, and if that wasn't acceptable, didn't answer the board's concerns, then C would be the second administrative and staff recommendation.
Q. And why did you do that?
A. We were trying to address the board's concerns, and we felt that really C did address the concerns that the board had expressed to the teachers, and if the teachers were willing to make these compromises with the language that they included in C, that we felt that should address the board's concerns sufficiently.
Q. Okay. And in terms of the discussion, did you make that clear at the meeting?
A. Dr. Nilsen asked me to speak on behalf of the administration and give our recommendation to the board, and at the meeting I did recommend B, and if not B, C.
Q. And we're speaking about a curriculum change here. Is there a specific reason that you took the position you did at this meeting?
A. Well, being responsible for curriculum, it would be my position, along with the staff, to make any recommendations to the board.
Q. Okay. And how about follow-through on any curriculum change, did you think that your position was designed to foster that?
A. Can you ask that again?
Q. You've taken a position on versions that you think are acceptable, and I'm asking you, do you think that's one that was designed to ease implementation or not?
A. Yes.
Q. And how is that, Mike?
A. With the teachers recommending B and possibly -- and if not B, C, the teachers had to implement whatever the language is going to be. So if they had concerns about not being sure about how to implement language that included intelligent design, they were okay with the language that they proposed in C to be able to implement that in their classrooms, but they were very concerned about and didn't know how they would implement language that included intelligent design.
Q. Well, let's look at the portion of the meeting that involves the voting on the agenda item. Do you recall that portion of this meeting?
A. Yes.
Q. And tell us what you remember.
A. The proposal was made for -- well, Mr. Buckingham would have made a motion for A, and discussion followed after that. I remember Mr. Wenrich making a lot of amendments to the motion, all of which tried to exclude the language that included intelligent design and those being defeated. At one point I remember -- I think it was Mr. Bonsell that suggested the note origins of life be moved from C and attached to A, and that was done. And then I believe A with that attachment, that amendment, was passed.
Q. All right. Do you recall any discussion after the curriculum motion by Mr. Bonsell was made? I mean the motion to amend that you just described.
A. Do I recall any discussion about that?
Q. Any specific discussion about that at that time.
A. No.
Q. Am I correct that his motion provided the basis for the final curriculum change as adopted that evening?
A. Yes.
Q. So it was worked out on the night of this board meeting?
A. Yes.
Q. We've got a board curriculum change that's been voted on on October 18th. What happened next in terms of implementation of that?
A. Then Dr. Nilsen directed me to come up with a statement that we could use to implement the curriculum change.
Q. And with that in mind, I'd ask you to look at Defendants' Exhibit 65.
A. Okay.
Q. Do you recognize that?
A. Yes.
Q. What is it?
A. This is a draft of the statement that I prepared and sent to the board of directors.
Q. And you say you prepared it. What did you use as the basis for the statement?
A. The concerns that the board had expressed to me earlier and to the teachers.
Q. Okay. Let's look a little more specifically at some elements of this statement. If you look at the first indented paragraph there, you'll see it begins, Darwin's theory of evolution continues to be the dominant scientific explanation for the origins of the species. The state standards require students to learn about the theory of evolution and to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part. Did you draft that language, Mike?
A. Yes.
Q. What was your purpose in doing so?
A. My purpose was to make it clear that Darwin's theory is taught, that the state standards require it, and that students will eventually be tested on this, to make sure that Darwin is mentioned first.
Q. Okay. If you look at the second paragraph, there's language in there describing intelligent design as a theory. And I want to ask you, when you drafted this statement, Mike, did you believe that intelligent design was a religious theory?
A. No.
Q. And what was the basis for your understanding?
A. Just reading Of Pandas and People, I didn't see that making a religious argument.
Q. And then if you look at the last paragraph of the statement, it talks about the school leaving the discussion of origins of life up to individual students and their families. Did you put that language in there?
A. Yes.
Q. And why did you do that?
A. That really came from my discussions with the teachers. I remember them saying that that's what they had done in the past, so I included it in this draft.
Q. Did you understand this language to mean that they would not be teaching intelligent design?
A. Yes.
Q. What happened next relating to this statement? Did there come a time when you came to understand that teachers objected to being identified with the curriculum change?
A. Yes. The teachers sent me a request to have their names removed from the new biology -- the change that had been made to the biology curriculum.
Q. And with that in mind, Mike, I'd ask you to look at Defendants' Exhibit 81.
A. Okay.
Q. Do you recognize that?
A. Yes.
Q. And what is it?
A. That's a request from the science teachers to have their names removed.
Q. And based on this, did you have an understanding for why the teachers wanted their names removed?
A. They objected to the inclusion -- they did not agree to having intelligent design in the curriculum and then they didn't want their names on it to look like they wrote that or authored it.
Q. And did you do anything as a result of receiving this document?
A. I removed their names from the biology curriculum.
Q. And why did you do that?
A. Because they asked me to.
Q. I want to ask you a few questions about reporting on the curriculum change in this period after October 18th. Did you have any discussions with reporters about the impact of the curriculum change after the October 18th meeting?
A. Yes.
Q. And who were those reporters?
A. Heidi Bernhard-Bubb and Joe Maldonado.
Q. And what was the nature of the information you gave them? Let's start with Ms. Bubb first.
A. I remember Heidi inquiring about what the nature of the change -- you know, what does it mean now, this curriculum language has been passed and what's the nature of that. And I explained to her that we would be developing that with the teachers, but I'm envisioning that what will probably happen is there will be some mention of intelligent design at the beginning of the unit and that they'd be mentioning it and not teaching it.
And I remember Heidi, you know, laughing when I made that distinction saying, aren't you just playing semantics? I said, no, I said, there's a difference between mentioning and teaching.
Q. Did you have an opportunity to review some reporting on the curriculum change after that discussion?
A. Read articles?
Q. Yes.
A. Yes.
Q. And did it reflect the information that you had provided?
A. The articles still were reporting that we were teaching intelligent design or teaching creationism.
Q. How about Mr. Maldonado, do you recall a similar conversation with him?
A. I believe I mentioned -- with Joe I remember going more closely through the curriculum draft changes, explaining XI-A, B, and C, but I also remember talking to Joe about -- saying that, you know, I think it's going to result in maybe somewhere down the line we'll be reading a statement but not teaching it.
Q. Did you have an opportunity to review press accounts by Mr. Maldonado about the impact of the curriculum change after the discussion you've just described?
A. Yes.
Q. And did it reflect the information you had provided to him?
A. Still reported that we were teaching intelligent design.
Q. Did there come a time when it came to your attention that board members were concerned with the reporting about the curriculum change?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you have an understanding about whether board members wanted any steps to be taken to address the curriculum change?
A. Well, my understanding is that Mr. Bonsell was concerned with the reporting of teaching intelligent design, and we said we're not teaching it, you know, we'll be working out this statement about mentioning, and that he had talked to Dr. Nilsen about it and asked that, you know, we address it publicly to explain to the community exactly what we are intending and what we're not intending.
Q. With that in mind, I'd ask you to look at Defendants' Exhibit 83.
A. Okay.
Q. Do you recognize that document?
A. Yes.
Q. And what is it?
A. It's a statement, kind of a press release about what we're doing in relation to the biology curriculum change from Mr. Bonsell to Dr. Nilsen.
Q. And I'd ask you to look at Defendants' Exhibit 85.
A. Okay.
Q. Do you recognize that?
A. Yes.
Q. And what is it?
A. It's a note from me to my secretary to send I guess the latest draft of the statement to all the science teachers for their review.
Q. Since we're focused on the statement, Mike, I'd ask you to look at Defendants' Exhibit 86.
A. Okay.
Q. 87.
A. Okay.
Q. Essentially do us a favor and give us a quick run, look through 86 to 100. Do you recognize these documents, Mike?
A. Yes.
Q. And what are they?
A. These are the multiple drafts that were generated from suggestions from the teachers' review of the statement and the board's review of the statement.
Q. In this litigation, some attention has been paid to the word "theory," and I want to ask you, the word "theory," does it appear in the final version of this statement that's read to students? In the final version of statements that is read to students, does the word "theory" appear?
A. Could we go to that?
Q. Well, I guess you could go to Defendants' Exhibit 103. Do you recognize that, Mike?
A. Yes.
Q. And there's an indented portion at the bottom of the page Bates stamped 49 carrying over to the page Bates stamped 50, and I'd ask you to look at that and see if you can identify that as the final version. Do you recognize that?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. If you look at the second paragraph, the word "theory" is defined as, Theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations. And I want to ask you, do you know how that definition of theory was included?
A. During the process of the teachers' review of this, I remember Mrs. Miller sent me a note to have the definition of a theory put in there. And then I met with Mr. Linker and we went to the back of Miller and Levine and pulled the definition that was there and then placed it into the statement.
Q. Okay. Now, I'd like you to look back at Defendants' Exhibit 86 again.
A. Okay.
Q. And I direct your attention to the second paragraph of the statement language that's in this draft and to the third sentence which reads, Individuals may subscribe to other theories of evolution, including intelligent design. Now, I'd like you to look at 103 again.
A. Okay.
Q. If you look at the third paragraph of the indented statement it reads, Intelligent design is an explanation of the origins of life that differs from Darwin's view.
Can you tell me how the description of intelligent design came to be an explanation of the origin of life as opposed to a theory?
A. Well, my original -- in my original draft, I had included language that said intelligent design is a theory. And when that was returned to me from the teachers -- and I believe it was Mrs. Miller doing some of the review -- theory was changed to explanation for intelligent design.
Q. We've looked at the press release, which is Defendants' Exhibit 103. Did you play any role in drafting that press release?
A. No. Dr. Nilsen would have probably given it to me to review, but I don't remember editing it or making any changes to it.
Q. Do you recall the press release issued by Dr. Nilsen generating a response on the part of the teachers?
A. Yes.
Q. And with that in mind, I'd ask you to look at Defendants' Exhibit 106.
A. Okay.
Q. Do you recognize that?
A. Yes.
Q. What is it?
A. That's a note from the teachers, the science teachers, to Dr. Nilsen expressing their concern with the press release and the implication that the teachers were fully supportive of intelligent design.
Q. And did you see this document?
A. Yes.
Q. What was your reaction to it?
A. The language in the -- I thought the language in the press release accurately portrayed their involvement in the review of the curriculum language and in the statement. I didn't see it in the light that they were seeing it in. I thought it fairly portrayed their involvement because they were involved to an extent. They didn't agree with the intelligent design language, but they were involved in helping implement it.
Q. Did the administration do anything in response to this document?
A. We met with the teachers.
Q. And around when was that meeting?
A. November before the Thanksgiving break, I believe.
Q. And who was there?
A. The science teachers, Dr. Nilsen, myself, the association president, Sandy Bowser, association representatives Brad Neal and Bill Miller.
Q. And when you say "association," is that the teachers' union?
A. Yes.
Q. And what transpired at that meeting?
A. I believe Mr. Miller kind of took the lead for the teachers and asked Dr. -- expressed concern that the press release unfairly portrayed the teachers' involvement in the curriculum change in the statement and asked Dr. Nilsen to reissue a new press release and clarify that the teachers weren't supportive of intelligent design.
Q. Did they take any position on the nature of their involvement in either the curriculum or -- curriculum change or the statement?
A. They believed -- well, the word I heard for the first time -- during this whole process, I would draft something, give it to them for them to review and edit back to me. But I remember Brad Neal saying that I had given the statement solely to the teachers to review for scientific accuracy, which isn't language that I ever used with them. I just gave it to them to review. That may have been what they were doing, but that wasn't what I was -- you know, I hadn't specifically directed them to do that.
Q. There was some discussion of a request for a press release. Did that occur?
A. No.
Q. Did you discuss anything else at this meeting relating to the implementation of the curriculum change?
A. Yeah. This meeting actually sat on top of another meeting. I originally had a meeting set up for the teachers to discuss implementation. So after Dr. Nilsen talked about the press release, then the teachers and I moved on to talking about implementation, how we're going to distribute the books, what we'll do if students opt out, when we're going to distribute the books, and how long they might -- students might keep them, and the actual mechanics of getting them stamped and where we would place them in the classrooms.
Q. What was the tone of this meeting?
A. Well, I'd say it was strained because the teachers were very upset with the press release.
Q. Okay. You discussed opting out. How did that come up?
A. That had been -- I remember in discussions with them my understanding was that we would allow students to opt out of even other curriculum, health curriculum that might involve sex education, dissection in the sciences, and that even in the past, my understanding was that teachers, if a student objected to evolution, they'd opt out of that unit. Although they were responsible for it, they could opt out of it.
Q. Do you recall receiving expressions of concern from parents relating to the implementation of this curriculum change?
A. Yes, I did receive an e-mail.
Q. And with that in mind, I'd ask you to look back at Defendants' Exhibit 70.
A. 70?
Q. Yeah. Do you recognize that document?
A. Yes.
Q. And what is it?
A. It's an e-mail from Mrs. Kitzmiller that was forwarded to me from Mrs. Miller.
Q. And did this provide part of the basis for your decision that the opt-out would apply here?
A. Yes. Mrs. Kitzmiller was asking if parents would be able to allow their children to opt out.
Q. Now, when you reached the conclusion that the opt-out would apply, did you do that based on an opinion that intelligent design was religious?
A. No.
Q. Why did you reach the decision that it applied, the opt-out policy?
A. We had allowed students to opt out for other nonreligious reasons of the curriculum. If parents felt strongly about it, we would honor the parents' requests, and so we were going to do the same for ID.
Q. If you would, Mike, I'd ask you to look at Defendants' Exhibits 133, 134, and 135. Do you recognize those documents, Mike?
A. Yes.
Q. What are they? Let's look at 133 first. What's that?
A. 133 is a letter that I drafted that would be sent home to parents explaining what we would be doing, reading the statement and the ability to opt out of hearing it. 134 is the actual excusal form for a parent to have their son or daughter opt out. And 135 was another excusal form.
Q. And were those documents that you prepared in connection with allowing the opt-out?
A. Yes.
Q. Let's turn your attention for a minute to the reading of the statement. When you were drafting this statement, did you envision that the administration would read it?
A. No. Initially -- and I remember talking to the science teachers previously, talking to them previously when they talked about how they mentioned -- how they preceded the chapters and what they talked about with students prior to that. So initially we thought they would do what they did in the past and they would speak about it prior to beginning teaching of evolution as they had in the past.
Q. Okay. Let me ask you to look at Defendants' Exhibit 138 and 139. Do you recognize those, Mike?
A. Yes.
Q. And what are they?
A. 138 are tentative minutes that Mrs. Spahr drew up for my meeting with the teachers when we were talking about how to implement the letters and the opt-out forms. And 138 also includes suggestions from Dr. Nilsen on what changes we should make.
Q. What was the purpose of these minutes?
A. One of the things the teachers were concerned with was liability. That came up at the November meeting. So at that meeting we had agreed to put anything that involved the books or the curriculum language, the books Of Pandas and People or curriculum language, to put that in writing so that there's a clear directive from administration that the teachers were told to do this so that they wouldn't be liable. So these meetings are a written record of what we agreed to, what we decided on.
Q. I'd ask you to look at Defendants' Exhibit 139 under the heading C and the subheading Number 3.
A. Okay.
Q. And read that for the record.
A. Under C?
Q. Yeah.
A. Three reads, All students will be responsible for the material and the subject that will be assessed. Nothing discussed during the student absence will be assessed.
Q. And what was the point of that item?
A. Again, I think that's from a parent concern that if students miss something, would they be tested on it and then would they be hurt by, you know, excusing themselves from the classroom and wanted to be reassured that we agreed that we weren't going to assess that and students would not be penalized for opting out and not hearing the statement.
Q. Does that item reflect the basis for your belief that students are not being taught intelligent design?
A. Yes.
Q. And how is that?
A. Because they're not tested on it afterwards.
Q. We've talked about reading a statement and some opt-out forms. Let me ask you, what was the plan for the distribution of the letter about the opt-out and the form?
A. Well, at this meeting we had agreed that -- the teachers reviewed the forms, we edited them a little bit. I produced clean forms for everybody, and the plan was that the teachers would distribute them and collect them.
Q. Did the teachers distribute the letter and opt-out form?
A. No.
Q. How did you find out that they did not distribute those?
A. The teachers were to distribute -- I believe it was on a Friday we had agreed that they would distribute the opt-out forms to students. And previously I remember talking to a parent, either through an e-mail or phone call, and they were wondering, you know, what are we doing, where is this opt-out form and when will their child get it.
And I think I remember that same day, Friday, the parent contacting me and saying the daughter came home and didn't receive any form. So I called the building principal and asked him to check into why -- you know, if the forms were distributed.
Q. And did you learn whether they had been?
A. Yes.
Q. And what did you learn?
A. That the teachers did not distribute them.
Q. And what was your reaction to that?
A. Well, prior to that, the teachers had requested to Dr. Nilsen to not have to read the statement. And they asked for that, and Dr. Nilsen granted them that. They never informed us that they were not going to distribute the forms. So we were under the assumption that students would get the forms and be able to opt out. So I was -- I really thought that was a breakdown in communication, that they should have communicated that to us.
And then I also learned that the association had advised them against it. So what I did is, I ended up writing a letter to the association stressing how improper I thought it was that they didn't communicate and that it was a little bit reckless of them to put their teachers in a position that might be judged to be insubordinate.
Q. Let me ask you to look at Defendants' Exhibit 142.
A. Okay.
Q. Do you recognize that document?
A. Yes.
Q. What is it?
A. This is the -- Dr. Nilsen had drafted language that we would actually say to the students when we went in to read the statement.
Q. And did the teachers read the statement?
A. No.
Q. Was the statement read?
A. Yes.
Q. Who read it?
A. Dr. Nilsen and I read the statement.
Q. Well, let me tell you, why did you and Dr. Nilsen go into the class and read the statement?
A. Because the teachers didn't want to read the statement. They didn't want to have anything to do with it.
Q. Was this reading of the statement by administration what you originally contemplated when you sought to implement the curriculum change?
A. No. Originally we thought the teachers would do that.
Q. At any time did any board member tell you that they wanted the administration to read the statement?
A. No.
Q. Let me ask you, Mike, at some point did you learn that Dover had received another group of books that were related to the biology curriculum?
A. Yes.
Q. And when was that?
A. When?
Q. Yeah.
A. In spring, I believe.
Q. Sure. I'm not asking for a specific day. Sometime in the spring. How did the books come to your attention?
A. I believe Cora Kunkle, the high school librarian, sent me a notice that she had gotten all these books, here is the list of them and titles and what is she to do with them.
Q. Do you recall receiving the books?
A. Yes. She sent them over to my office.
Q. Do you know if the books were reviewed?
A. Yes.
Q. And who reviewed the books?
A. Well, I know Mrs. Harkins picked the books up from my office, and the board curriculum committee was advised that the books were available for review.
Q. Do you know where the books ended up?
A. Yes.
Q. Where?
A. In the high school library.
Q. Do you know the specific areas in the library where the books were located?
A. No. Mrs. Kunkle would have determined where the books would be placed.
Q. Did the board approve the donation of the books for placement in the library collection?
A. Yes.
Q. Based on what you know as the assistant superintendent, was the addition of those books to the library collection consistent with the purpose of the curriculum change adopted on October 18th, 2004?
A. Yes.
Q. Did there come a time when you came to know that the donation of the additional books had an impact on the statement that was read to students?
A. Yes.
Q. And what was that effect?
A. Dr. Nilsen asked me to include language in the statement when we read it in June that would mention that there are other resources in there, in the library.
Q. And did you do that?
A. Yes.
Q. And was that revised statement read to students?
A. Yes.
Q. Mike, do you know what result a student will get if they go to the catalog of the Dover High School library and do a search using the term "intelligent design"?
A. Yes.
Q. What is the result?
A. One book comes up.
Q. Do you know the author and title of that book?
A. Yes.
Q. Please tell us.
A. The author is Robert Pennock, and the title of the book is Intelligent Design: Creationism and Its Critics.
MR. GILLEN: I have no further questions Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right, Mr. Gillen. We thank you. Cross by Mr. Rothschild.
Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Baksa.
A. Good afternoon.
Q. Mr. Baksa, I took your deposition twice in this case?
A. Yes.
Q. I'm going to give you copies of each of those depositions.
MR. ROTHSCHILD: May I approach, Your Honor?
THE COURT: You may.
Q. Mr. Baksa, on the subject of the donated books, you were here when Mrs. Harkins testified. Correct?
A. Yes.
Q. She testified that those donated books had, like Pandas, been added to the curriculum, but that's not accurate. Correct?
A. Of Pandas, Of Pandas and People appears in the biology curriculum page as a reference. Those other books do not appear in any curriculum pages.
Q. And in the statement that was read to the students in June, while it refers to other books, it does not describe what those other books are. Correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And to the best of your knowledge, those books are not situated next to or near Pandas in the library. Correct?
A. Yeah, I really don't know where they are. The librarian placed them.
Q. So you have no reason to dispute the proposition that they are not located next to or near Pandas?
A. Right, I have no -- I don't know where they are.
Q. When Mr. Gillen was asking you questions a few minutes ago, he emphasized the point that the statement read to students now calls intelligent design an explanation, not a theory. Correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And that was a change from what you had originally drafted. Correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And why is that significant?
A. I'm not sure I -- that was a change Mrs. Miller made. She never explained to me why she made that change.
Q. Do you understand it to convey that intelligent design is, in fact, not a theory as defined in the statement, a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations?
A. I'm sorry, could you ask me --
Q. Why don't you look at Defendants' Exhibit 103.
A. Okay.
Q. And that's the board press release?
A. Yes.
Q. And it includes the version of the statement that was read in January?
A. Yes.
Q. And if you look at the second paragraph, it describes Darwin's theory as a theory, and then it says, A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations. Correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And you have no reason to doubt that that's a good definition of a scientific theory?
A. Yes.
Q. And then it says, Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view. Correct?
A. Yes.
Q. It does not call intelligent design a theory. Correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Which is what you had originally put in the document?
A. Right.
Q. So it was your understanding that this was to represent that intelligent design is not, in fact, a scientific theory?
A. Well, again, that's a change Mrs. Miller made, and she didn't discuss with me why she made that change.
Q. So you don't have an understanding one way or the other?
A. Right.
Q. Do you have an understanding of whether intelligent design is a theory, a scientific theory?
A. The only information I have about intelligent design is what I -- if it's a scientific theory or not is what I gleaned from reading Of Pandas and People.
Q. And do you understand it to be --
A. And I think I -- I'm sorry.
Q. Go ahead. You should finish.
A. And I think I testified in my depositions with you earlier that, you know, I don't feel qualified like Dr. Behe or the scientific community to make a determination on intelligent design, whether it's -- what its status is as a scientific theory. I would defer to science teachers and the scientific community to make that determination.
Q. And so you don't have an understanding one way or the other whether intelligent design is a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations?
A. Correct.
Q. March 26th, 2003, was the first time you had attended a retreat of the Dover Area School Board. Correct?
A. Yes.
Q. You had been hired by the board in the fall of 2002 or to start in the fall of 2002?
A. Yes.
Q. And that's a decision by the board? That was a decision by the board to hire you?
A. Yes.
Q. They decide which administrators to hire?
A. Yes.
Q. And which to fire?
A. Yes.
Q. I'm not suggesting anything. Now, March 26th, 2003, was actually the same day you attended the retreat at Messiah College. Correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And you understand that Messiah College is a religious college. Correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And the symposium you attended was on the subject of creationism?
A. Yes.
Q. You had been sent there on the recommendation of Dr. Nilsen?
A. Yes.
Q. But he never told you why he wanted you to go. Correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And you didn't ask him?
A. That's correct.
Q. This is the only conference or lecture or symposium that he ever sent you to on a specific scientific topic. Isn't that right?
A. On a specific scientific topic, yeah.
Q. And this presentation lasted several hours?
A. Yes.
Q. You took notes?
A. Yes.
Q. And what you heard was the history of creationism. Correct?
A. History of the controversy on teaching evolution and other theories alongside Darwin's evolution.
Q. And part of the history of creationism you heard included a discussion of young earth creationism. Correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And you learned that young earth creationism includes an age that -- includes the proposition that the earth is approximately 6,000 to 10,000 years old?
A. Yes.
Q. And you understand that that's at odds with the sort of standard scientific interpretation of the age of the earth based on the geologic record?
A. Yes.
Q. And the speaker in this conference on creationism mentioned Phillip Johnson. Correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And intelligent design. Correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And he indicated that Phillip Johnson, what he stood for was an attack on evolution on common descent. Correct?
A. I'd have to -- just you saying it, I don't remember.
Q. Fair enough.
A. I'd have to look at my notes for that.
MR. ROTHSCHILD: May I approach, Your Honor?
THE COURT: You may.
Q. Mr. Baksa, Exhibit 284 is a copy of your handwritten notes from the creationism conference at Messiah College?
A. Correct.
Q. And if you could turn to the second page of your notes on the page Bates stamped 4013. And, Matt, if you could blow up that very bottom underlined passage there. And could you read what's said there?
A. It says, Phil Johnson, attack on evolution, common descent.
Q. Those are your notes of what was communicated at the conference?
A. Yes.
Q. And on the page before, if you turn back, you have the term -- towards the bottom on sort of the right-hand side you have Phillip Johnson and intelligent design. Is that right?
A. Do you want me to read all that or --
Q. No. I'm just saying you do have notes here about Phillip Johnson and intelligent design, correct, down in sort of the right-hand corner?
A. The one line with Phillip Johnson says, Ten years later balanced education struck down, Phillip Johnson. And then under that I have a note out in the margin, today, and these are three alternative explanations or theories that they are putting forth that exist today, young earth creationists, common ancestry, and intelligent design.
Q. And you understand Phillip Johnson was associated with intelligent design?
A. No, actually, I didn't know that.
Q. If we could turn back to Page 2 again, you have, Note, National Science Teachers Association position on evolution. Is that what you wrote on the last line?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you ever get a copy of the National Science Teachers Association's position on evolution?
A. No.
Q. In fact, you never investigated, throughout this whole issue at Dover, starting from this retreat on forward, you never got materials or investigated the positions of any of the mainstream scientific or science education organizations on the issues of intelligent design or evolution. Correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And as far as you know, no one else from the school board or school administration did either. Correct?
A. Right, as far as I know.
Q. Safe to say you went to that retreat on the evening of March 26, 2003, with creationism on the brain?
A. I believe in my deposition I said I returned from the workshop and went to the retreat.
Q. And you had been listening to lectures about creationism all day, and I assume you were thinking about it?
A. The workshop, later learned -- because I think I misrepresented and said it was an evening. Actually, I believe it was 9:00 to 1:00. The retreat was at 6:00 or 6:30. I believe I would have been thinking of other things in between that, but certainly that would have been something that I attended that morning.
Q. Your antenna was up to the issue of creationism. Would you agree with that?
A. I don't have antennas, but --
Q. That's not what you told me at your deposition. (Laughter.)
A. I would agree that certainly I learned of creationism and evolution that day and could be thinking -- would be thinking about that.
Q. Now, at that meeting, as you discussed with Mr. Gillen, there was an opportunity for each board member to identify the issues that were important to them. Correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And while that happened, Dr. Nilsen took notes?
A. Yes.
Q. And later he circulated a typed-up version of those notes. Correct?
A. At the retreat or later?
Q. Later.
A. Later, yes.
Q. You received a copy of the typed-up version of his notes?
A. Yes.
Q. And so did board members?
A. That I don't know.
Q. Okay. And you saw those notes fairly promptly after they were created. Correct?
A. Yes.
MR. ROTHSCHILD: And, Matt, if you could put up Exhibit 25, Plaintiffs' Exhibit 25. May I approach, Your Honor?
THE COURT: You may.
Q. Mr. Baksa, these are -- Exhibit P25 is, in fact, the typed-up version of the notes Dr. Nilsen took?
A. Yes.
Q. And as you went over with Mr. Gillen, under Mr. Bonsell's name is the word "creationism." Correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And you also list the issue of American history. Correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And that is an area of the curriculum that Mr. Bonsell has expressed some interest in?
A. Yes.
Q. You've actually discussed that area with him?
A. Yes.
Q. And for this entire set of notes, you never went to Dr. Nilsen and said there's something you need to correct here?
A. That's correct.
Q. About anything on these notes?
A. That's correct.
Q. Now, after this meeting, you had a conversation with Mrs. Spahr of the science department about what a board member said about teaching evolution. Correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And that board member was Alan Bonsell. Correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And the reason you did that is, you wanted to give the science department a heads-up about what the board was saying about a topic taught in science class. Correct?
A. Correct.
Q. They deserve that. Right?
A. Yes.
Q. And you have a lot of respect for Mrs. Spahr?
A. Yes.
Q. And Mrs. Miller, the biology teacher, as well?
A. Yes.
Q. You recognize that they're the science education experts in the district?
A. Yes.
Q. You wouldn't call yourself an expert in science education?
A. Correct.
Q. Or Dr. Nilsen?
A. Correct.
Q. Or anybody on the board. Correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And you also have confidence that the teachers are acting in the best interests of these students, these science teachers. Would you agree with that?
A. Yes.
Q. And they have continued to act that way throughout this controversy. Right?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, you told Mrs. Spahr what Mr. Bonsell said at the board meeting about the teaching of evolution. Correct?
A. I told Mrs. Spahr that what I heard last night at the retreat was that Mr. Bonsell was looking for a 50/50 split with Darwin and some alternative.
Q. That's what you told her?
A. Yes.
Q. And Mr. Bonsell had actually been expressing concerns about the teaching of evolution to you since the fall of 2002. Correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Now, shortly after that conversation with Mrs. Spahr, you received the memo from Dr. Peterman. Correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And why don't we just take a look at that.
MR. ROTHSCHILD: May I approach, Your Honor?
THE COURT: You may.
Q. P26 is the memo from Dr. Peterman that you received on or around April 1st, 2003?
A. Yes.
Q. And that memo summarizes a conversation that Dr. Peterman had with Mrs. Spahr?
A. Yes.
Q. And in that conversation, according to the memo, Mrs. Spahr reported to Dr. Peterman about the conversation she had with you. Correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And what the memo says is that you told Mrs. Spahr about a board member wanting creationism taught 50/50 with evolution. Is that right?
A. That's what the memo says, right.
Q. And when you saw this memo, you didn't talk to Dr. Peterman about it. Correct?
A. No, when I saw this memo, my first reaction -- I distinctly remember this -- is, that's not what I said and she got it wrong, nobody is looking at teaching 50/50 with creationism. I remember going to Dr. Nilsen and saying, you know, here's Dr. Peterman jumping the gun again because this isn't what I talked to Bert Spahr about.
Q. But, Mr. Baksa, you didn't go to Dr. Peterman and talk to her about this. Correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. You didn't go to her and say, are you sure that's what you heard? You didn't do that. Right?
A. Right.
Q. You didn't go to Dr. Peterman and say, that's not what I told Mrs. Spahr. Right?
A. Right. I wouldn't go to Dr. Peterman because anything else I tell her, she would take or misinterpret or just do more damage with it. She's already written a memo which I think mischaracterizes my conversation with Mrs. Spahr. And I was dealing with the science teachers, and I was not dealing with Dr. Peterman on this issue.
Q. And you didn't respond to her in writing, either?
A. That's correct.
Q. Okay. Well, let's talk about the science teachers. You didn't talk to Mrs. Spahr about the memo either, did you?
A. That's correct.
Q. You didn't go to her and say, look what -- and she received this memo. Correct?
A. Yeah.
Q. And you didn't go to her and say, Bertha, is this what you told Dr. Peterman?
A. But Mrs. Spahr did believe that. I mean, Mrs. Spahr did believe that, you know, the board was looking at teaching creationism from the very moment early in the fall when I expressed -- we had board members or Mr. Bonsell had concerns about teaching evolution, and I told her about Mr. Bonsell's concerns about carbon-14 dating, species evolution. I believe from the very beginning Mrs. Spahr mentioned to me creationism many times.
So I wasn't going to convince Mrs. Spahr that she was wrong in not thinking this. So until -- and it's this whole way through. Until I get something specific that I could tackle with the teachers and say, look, this is what they want done now, how do we address that, until then, I'm just saying -- you know, before we were talking about mentioning something, now it's a 50/50 split, I don't know what that's going to look like, we just might have to do something in the future.
So, no, I did not address any of this with Mrs. Spahr. I was meeting with Mrs. Spahr all the time anyway on the issue.
Q. That's exactly right, Mr. Baksa. And I know this is difficult, but you went to Mrs. Spahr right after the retreat --
A. Right.
Q. -- and talked to her about what Mr. Bonsell's issues were with the teaching of evolution, but you didn't go back to her and say, this isn't what I said to you. It may be what you think is happening, but it's not what I said to you. You never did that. Correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And you have to admit, Mr. Baksa, it's pretty unfair to Dr. Peterman to say that Dr. Peterman is exaggerating and being untruthful if you don't know what Mrs. Spahr told her. Would you agree with that? This might be exactly what Mrs. Spahr told Dr. Peterman. Isn't that right?
A. I never thought of it. Mrs. Spahr could have told her that, yeah.
Q. So it's pretty unfair to Dr. Peterman to say that she's exaggerating or being untruthful in this memo when you don't know if this isn't exactly what Mrs. Spahr told her?
A. What I would say is fair to Dr. Peterman is whether Mrs. Spahr did this -- told her that or not, for Dr. Peterman to just fire off a memo to us to address this without ever having confirmed with me what did I really tell her, what is the real issue, what concerns did I hear from the board, you know, Mrs. -- Dr. Peterman is committing to a memo what Mrs. Spahr -- supposedly I told Mrs. Spahr.
So it's not a conversation I had with Dr. Peterman, and to me I think it's fair to characterize Dr. Peterman jumping the gun without checking to see is this really true. I think that's fair to characterize it that way.
Q. Well, Mr. Baksa, given how much uncertainty there is about what individuals in this school community have said over this issue, don't you think it's a good practice to write down what you've heard?
A. As a matter of record, not as a memo to take action without confirming it.
Q. Now, if you look at what's written here, you've got this 50/50 aspect. That part of it you agree is right?
A. Yes.
Q. Alan Bonsell did say something at that board meeting about -- at that board retreat about teaching something 50/50 with evolution. Isn't that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And creationism, the second half of this proposition, is exactly what's reflected in Dr. Nilsen's notes. Isn't that right?
A. Yes.
Q. So when you look at that all together, this may be exactly what you told Mrs. Spahr. Don't you agree? 50/50, creationism? Sort of all coming together?
A. Honestly, I really remember reacting to this thinking that Bert or Dr. Peterman, as you pointed out, that they got it wrong, that that's not what anybody was advocating. Because the other piece is, teaching creationism is a non-starter. It's not going to happen. It's not legal, so it's not -- nobody is advocating -- I hadn't heard that being advocated. And if somebody is talking about it, it's not going to happen.
Q. Well, Mr. Baksa, you're not really saying that Mr. Bonsell didn't talk about teaching creationism, you just don't remember one way or the other. Isn't that right?
A. Right, I don't remember him talking about it at the retreat.
Q. You don't remember one way or the other?
A. Correct.
Q. Now, after this retreat, you had further conversations with Mr. Bonsell about his concerns about the school's teaching of evolution?
A. I'm sorry?
Q. After this retreat, after this April 1st memo --
A. Yes.
Q. -- you had further conversations over the following months with Mr. Bonsell about his concerns about the teaching of evolution. Correct?
A. Yes.
Q. He had conveyed that he had some problems with the text and the way evolution is taught?
A. Well, he didn't -- his concerns with the text were the presentation of Darwin. Actually, after the retreat, I had met with Mr. Bonsell and heard his concerns about the treatment of Darwin in texts prior. I met with him separately after the retreat to find out what 50/50 was all about.
Q. So he had already expressed concerns about the text and how it presented Darwin's theory of evolution. Right?
A. Correct.
Q. And then you subsequently found out he had questions about the accuracy of carbon dating. Correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And he had some problems with the idea of speciation. Correct?
A. Correct.
Q. He was worried that teachers were teaching bears to whales. Correct?
A. He had simply reported to me -- my understanding is that he had seen a video that was showing the evolution of a bear into a whale, and he found that highly improbable or ludicrous to think that that could happen.
Q. Another thing he expressed to you was that he was concerned that if students were taught Darwin's theory of evolution, that might conflict with what they were being taught at home. Correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And you understand that to mean what they were taught about origins from a religious perspective, don't you, conflict with what they were taught at home about origins from a religious perspective?
A. I don't understand Mr. Bonsell's concern to mean that it conflicts with religious beliefs, just that it would be -- if anybody believed in anything other than Darwin, that it would conflict with that. But I didn't have an understanding that it was solely religious beliefs.
Q. You're not suggesting that Mr. Bonsell was talking about a conflict between the scientific account of evolution taught by Mrs. Miller in biology class and the scientific account of evolution taught by parents? That's not what Mr. Bonsell was talking about, was he?
A. I think he was just expressing that parents and students may have different beliefs. I mean, we didn't say what those are. He didn't use the word "religious beliefs," and we didn't talk about religion.
Q. But that's what you understood. Isn't that right, Mr. Baksa? That's the only thing that makes sense?
A. No, I didn't know -- I can't take away an understanding that that's what Mr. Bonsell meant from his conversation with me. Primarily it focused on his concerns with Darwin, the teaching of -- initially his concerns of the teachings of the origins of life in the classroom. And his concern there was that there might be teachings and beliefs at home that conflicted with that.
But we never talked about those being religious conflicts, and I didn't pursue, you know, that line of questioning of him to find out further. It was enough for me to take to the teachers a concern about origins of life, for us to address that.
THE COURT: Mr. Rothschild, at any place you want to take a break, since I assume you're going to be in this for a little while --
MR. ROTHSCHILD: Just a few more questions, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. That's fine.
Q. Now, whatever beliefs at home Mr. Bonsell was talking about, in this upcoming school year, his own son was going to be in biology class, right, in 2003? Is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. So this issue was particularly important to Mr. Bonsell?
A. Because of his son?
Q. Because his son would learn something in biology class that might conflict with what he learns at home.
A. Mr. Bonsell didn't say that to me.
Q. You do know his son was going to be taking the biology class?
A. Yes.
MR. ROTHSCHILD: This would be a good time for a break.
THE COURT: Let's take a recess here for about 20 minutes, and then we'll resume with the cross of Mr. Rothschild. We'll be in recess.
| Home Page | Browse | Search | Feedback | Links |
| The FAQ | Must-Read Files | Index | Creationism | Evolution | Age of the Earth | Flood Geology | Catastrophism | Debates |
