|
Nominations and Campaigning for the 2024 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now open |
RationalWiki:Kitzmiller v. Dover annotated transcript/P036
MR. HARVEY: Your Honor, the plaintiffs call to the stand plaintiff Joel Leib.
(Joel Leib was called to testify and was sworn by the courtroom deputy.)
COURTROOM DEPUTY: State and spell your full name.
THE WITNESS: Joel A. Leib, L-E-I-B.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. HARVEY:
Q. Where do you live Mr. Leib?
A. I live in Dover.
Q. How long have you lived in Dover?
A. I was born fifty years ago, so I've lived in and around Dover all my life.
Q. Your extended family, parents and --
A. Yes. If somebody dropped a bomb in Dover that would be the end of the line.
Q. How long has your family lived in Dover?
A. We got here before this was the United States.
Q. Do you have any children, Mr. Leib?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. How many children?
A. I personally have three.
Q. Do you have any children in the Dover High School?
A. Yes. Well, in the junior high.
Q. What's the name of that child?
A. Child1.
Q. How old is Child1?
A. Child1 is 13.
Q. And what grade is he in?
A. He's in 8th grade.
Q. Is he going to attend Dover High School?
A. Yes, he is.
Q. And are you married?
A. No. I have a significant other.
Q. Tell us the name of your significant other.
A. Deb Fenimore.
Q. And is she also a plaintiff in this action?
A. Yes, she is.
Q. She is the mother of Child1, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. What do you do for a living, Mr. Leib?
A. I'm a teacher out at Bradley Academy.
Q. What do you teach?
A. What do I teach? Graphic arts, animation arts, things of that nature.
Q. Did there come a time when you learned that there was going to be a change in the Dover Area High School biology curriculum?
A. Yes.
Q. And tell us what did you learn?
A. The first time I was hit with something called intelligent design that I didn't know exactly what it was.
Q. When was this?
A. August, September somewhere around there. I don't exactly remember.
Q. Did you know that the board passed a resolution on October the 18th of 2004 changing the biology curriculum?
A. Yes.
Q. How did you learn about that?
A. Let's see, I was kind of following the newspaper articles from the first one I had read sometime in September.
MR. GILLEN: Judge, if I may just for the record, same objection we made before. Apparently the witness lacks any personal knowledge apart from what e he read in the paper, so he's not competent to testify. It's hearsay. What we're about to hear is hearsay.
THE COURT: I'll note the objection for the same reason as stated previously by the court. The objection is overruled. You may proceed.
Q. Please continue your answer, Mr. Leib.
A. Can you repeat the question for me again?
Q. Yes. You learned about the school board resolution on October 18th, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And you learned about that from reading it in the newspaper, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Was there any other source for you of information about the school board change to the curriculum?
A. Are you referring to my conversation with Jeff Brown?
Q. Yes.
A. Casey Brown?
MR. GILLEN: Objection, Your Honor. Hearsay.
MR. HARVEY: Not offered for the truth of the matter asserted, Your Honor.
MR. GILLEN: Then what's its purpose?
THE COURT: Well, let's go right to the bottom of it. There's no question that the curriculum was changed, was there?
MR. GILLEN: That's correct.
THE COURT: So let's not stand on ceremony.
MR. GILLEN: You know, I got to preserve the record, judge. If all he heard is what he heard from Jeff and Carol Brown, they were in court, they testified. But this is hearsay.
THE COURT: Well, it's not hearsay if it doesn't go to the truth, and the truth is not at issue here as to the change in curriculum. Now, it may be as to other things that he would testify to, but not on that point. Is it?
MR. GILLEN: No, you're right, Your Honor, that the evidence shows that the curriculum was changed.
THE COURT: So at this point I think we're not in a hearsay situation, or at least -- well, I don't want to belabor this today. It's late in the day. I'll overrule the objection.
MR. HARVEY: I'll try to make this easier, Your Honor.
THE COURT: I think likely you can avoid some of these objection. Why don't you do that, so go ahead and proceed.
BY MR. HARVEY:
Q. Sure. You know that the school biology curriculum was changed to include reference to supposed gaps in problems in Darwin's theory and other theories of evolution, including intelligent design. You knew that, didn't you?
A. Right.
Q. And you knew that it was included to, changed to include reference to a textbook by the name of Of Pandas and People, is that right?
A. That's correct.
Q. You knew that the school, the Dover area school district published a newsletter in February of 2005?
A. Correct.
Q. Did you know that?
A. Correct.
Q. May I approach, Your Honor?
THE COURT: You may.
A. Yes, that's the one.
Q. That in fact P-127, what I just handed you, that's the newsletter you received?
A. Correct.
Q. Mr. Leib, do you believe that you have been harmed by the Dover area school district board of directors' change to the biology curriculum and publication of the newsletter?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. How do you believe you've been harmed?
A. Two ways. Number one, I've got a child in the school. Intelligent design is not science. Every second that he's either in the class listening to it or out in the hallway objecting to it is a second he's not getting an education and he can't be functional in a world market. These kids need education. Let me handle the religious aspect of it.
Q. Do you believe that the Dover area school district board of directors' actions have affected you and the Dover community?
A. Well, it's driven and a wedge where there hasn't been a wedge before. People are afraid to talk to people for fear, and that's happened to me. They're afraid to talk to me because I'm on the wrong side of the fence.
MR. GILLEN: Well, that was my only objection, Your Honor. To the extent he's testifying about harm to the community, same objection as this morning. His own harm he's entitled to testify.
THE COURT: Well, I think he tied it up at the end of his answer, so I'll overrule the objection.
MR. HARVEY: I have no further questions, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Cross examine, Gillen?
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. GILLEN:
Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Leib.
A. Hello.
Q. Hello. We met at your deposition. A few questions about your testimony today, the basis for you being here. I believe you testified you have a son, Child1?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And I'm not sure, is he in biology class this year?
A. He's in science class. It's a general science at this point. Next year he will be in 9th grade, and that will be the biology I believe.
Q. Do you know whether you will tell your son Child1 -- let me first, I believe that Child1 is the basis of your claim in this suit, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know whether you will tell your son Child1 not to attend the biology class while the statement is being read?
A. I would prefer he didn't, but I'm also looking at him as being a relatively young adult. We're going to discuss it as we have in the past. But no, I would advise him not to be part of that.
Q. Well, and that's all I'm trying to get at. You understand that he can opt out of the statement being read if wishes, correct?
A. He can opt out, but that mean for that fifteen or twenty minutes he's not getting an education. That is one of my big objections. I teach a post-secondary educational class and I'm still asking people if they can read and write. That's wrong. We need to educate these kids so they can go into the world market and they can be productive. This doesn't do it for them.
Q. So am I understanding you correctly, Mr. Leib, that you're testimony as to harm is if Child1 steps out for however long it takes to read this statement, he's being deprived of an education?
A. He's being deprived of an education, yes.
Q. You have no, you're not advancing the claim based on your other children, correct?
A. No.
Q. You realize that the text, do you know that the text Of Pandas has been placed in the library at Dover Area High School?
A. Right.
Q. You have no objection to that?
A. No.
Q. I believe Child1 has already been instructed in both evolution and creation at St. Rose School, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And when you use the term creation, you mean the Biblical account of creation, is that correct?
A. Correct.
Q. You would have no objection to intelligent design being taught in a comparative religion class, correct?
A. No.
Q. Or a social studies class?
A. No.
Q. You just don't think it's science?
A. It's not science.
Q. You have no degree in science education, correct?
A. I have a degree, but not in science.
Q. Okay. You understand that evolution is a theory?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Do you understand that it's a theory that will probably never be fully proven?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you understand there's a controversy about evolution theory?
MR. HARVEY: Objection. Beyond the scope of direct.
MR. GILLEN: Your Honor, I'm trying to get to the nature of the harm that he's positing for his son. I'm asking a few questions about evolutionary theory and I'm going to ask him if he recognizes that it's going to be taught to his son.
MR. HARVEY: Your Honor, this is far beyond anything we discussed.
THE COURT: I'll give him some latitude. I'll overrule the objection.
THE WITNESS: Can you repeat the question for me, please?
MR. GILLEN: You know what? I'm going to ask Wes. Wes, would you be so kind as to read back the question?
(The record was read by the reporter.)
THE WITNESS: I don't see it as a controversy over the theory of evolution. I have no problem with the gaps as you said before. It may never be totally, totally proven. Fossils don't exist everywhere. We haven't found all the fossils there are to find, nor have we done all the scientific research we possibly can do. So I don't see there's a controversy as far as evolution goes.
BY MR. GILLEN:
Q. Sure. The first board meeting you attended I believe was February 2005, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Do you object to the fact that your son Child1, if he attends biology class, will be instructed in evolutionary theory?
A. Can you run that by me again? I'm sorry.
Q. I take it you have no objection to the fact that Child1 will be taught evolution theory if he attends biology class at Dover Area High School.
A. No. I have no objection to that.
Q. Do you understand that the text Miller and Levine recognized by the science faculty is the text that your son will be assigned?
A. Yes.
Q. You have no objection to that text?
A. No.
Q. But it's your testimony here today that the reading of the statement is going to undermine science education for your son?
A. Yes, this does undermine scientific education.
Q. That's because you believe intelligent design is not science, correct?
A. Creationism for me and for probably everybody in this room is a very personal thing. If you teach it in a comparative religion class, you talk about all religions, not just Christianity, not just Buddhism, not just any particular religion. You look at them, you compare them, you see how they are alike and how they are different. I have no objection to that. I just am telling you it is not a science. You're comparing apples and oranges, and there's no place in one for the other. It's like teaching science from the pulpit. There's no place for science from the pulpit.
Q. I take it from your answer it's your understanding that intelligent design theory is creationism, correct?
A. Yes.
MR. GILLEN: No further questions, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Redirect?
REDIRECT BY MR. HARVEY:
Q. Very brief, Your Honor. You testified that your son learned creationism and evolution at St. Rose's School, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Do you know what class your son learned creationism in?
A. Creationism was a religion class.
Q. St. Rose's School was a private religious school that your son previously attended before he attended the public schools, isn't that correct?
A. Correct.
MR. HARVEY: No further questions.
RECROSS BY MR. GILLEN:
Q. Given that your son learned creationism at St. Rose's School in religion class, do you believe that he'd think intelligent design is science when he was in the classroom?
MR. HARVEY: Objection, Your Honor. He's asking about what the child thinks. No foundation, and it's hearsay.
THE COURT: You opened the door. I'm going to overrule the objection. I'll let him answer the question.
A. I'm not exactly sure. We discussed it, but he's a typical 13-year-old. If it's not video games or the latest movie, he doesn't discuss too much about things like that. However, I'm sure that as he grows older he's going to have questions about both the science and the religion of things. I plan to be there, hopefully I plan to be there to answer some of those questions. I'm a fan of The Discovery Channel and The Learning Channel and various and sundry other programs that are scientific in nature. We have a religious curriculum that we go through and he learns about both. He learns basically religion from us, our ministers, so on and so forth, and hopefully my school is teaching him more science than I know.
MR. GILLEN: No further questions, Your Honor.
THE COURT: You pay your nickel and you go for a ride. That will have to be it.
MR. GILLEN: And I can say with no intention to slight this witness that both his deposition and his testimony today has been quite a ride.
THE COURT: So it ends. Sir, we thank you for your testimony. You may step down. That will complete the testimony for today, is that a fair statement?
MR. HARVEY: Yes, Your Honor. We do have some exhibits. We can do that on Monday.
THE COURT: Well, remarkably we've ended close to 4:30. I give everybody credit for that, and I can't imagine why we would torture everyone with the laborious process of attempting to admit exhibits on 4:30 on Friday afternoon. It just doesn't seem right to me.
MR. HARVEY: I second the motion.
MR. GILLEN: But think about Monday morning, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Well, it seems so far away.
MR. GILLEN: I wish.
THE COURT: We'll then recess, we'll adjourn for the day and we'll be in recess until Monday morning and we will start with the first defense witness, a bit out of turn by cooperation with counsel. I'll trust you, if I forget I'll put the onus on plaintiffs to remind me to take the exhibits on first thing before we take that witness on Monday morning. Fair enough?
MR. HARVEY: Very good, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Anything else to good of the order before we adjourn? We'll be in recess until 9:00 Monday morning.
(Court was adjourned at 4:30 p.m.)