What Clarence Darrow’s Dayton Statue Stands For

Apparently about a third of the population of Tennessee still doesn’t buy Darwin’s Theory of Evolution (according to a 2015 Pew Research Center study) so it should not be too much of a surprise that in Dayton, Tennessee,  site of the famous 1925 Scopes Trial, a newly erected statue of Clarence Darrow in front of the historic red brick courthouse where the trial took place was met with some protests. At a County Commission meeting in the town,  resident Ruth Ann Wilson suggested that bronze Darrow might unleash a plague or a curse. “I rise in opposition to this atheist statue, all right?” she said. “This is very serious, folks.”

No, that isn’t serious, but the persistence of ignorance both generally and about the issues battled over in 1925 are.  Another resident, Brad Putt, is quoted by the New York Times as saying,  “People around here know that if you have a court case, you have to have two sides,” referring to the fact that there has been a Williams Jennings Bryan statue standing in front of the courthouse  since 2005. “You can’t have Optimus Prime unless you have Megatron. You’ve got to have a yin to the yang.” Well, that’s not quite right either, depending on what Bryan and Darrow symbolize. If the idea is to have the most famous opposing counsel in U.S. legal history facing off, okay, that’s fair. If he is saying, as I think he is, that science and religion must counter and balance each other, that’s nonsense.

It is true that Clarence Darrow was an outspoken agnostic, and delighted in ridiculing literal readings of the Bible. It is also true that once the judge in the Scopes trial disallowed his experts on evolution, geology, astronomy and other sciences, Darrow had the brilliant idea of impeaching Bryan as the prosecution’s “expert” on the Bible and Creationism, knowing that the trial was being broadcast live and that Bryan would be trapped—forced to play to a fundamentalist audience in the courthouse while trying not to sound like a loon to the less-fundamentalist Democrats in the radio audience outside of Tennessee that Bryan knew he  had to impress if he was to have any chance at the  fourth nomination for President be craved. But Darrow was not trying to declare that science was a new god, or prove that religion was worthless. Clarence Darrow was fighting for freedom of thought and speech, which is what the Tennessee law prohibiting the teaching of evolution threatened. (It was the ACLU, not any scientific group, that hired him to defend Scopes.) The New York Times article about the opposition to the Darrow statue abets public ignorance by never clarifying what Darrow’s position was. He argued that a law making all knowledge subordinate to the Bible was a ticket back to the Dark Ages:

“Along comes somebody who says “we have got to believe it as I believe it. It is a crime to know more than I know.” And they publish a law to inhibit learning. This law says that it shall be a criminal offense to teach in the public schools any account of the origin of man that is in conflict with the divine account in the Bible. It makes the Bible the yardstick to measure every man’s intellect, to measure every man’s intelligence and to measure every man’s learning. Are your mathematics good? Turn to Elijah 1:2. Is your philosophy good? See II Samuel 3. Is your astronomy good? See Genesis 2:7. Is your chemistry good? See – well, chemistry, see Deuteronomy 3:6, or anything that tells about brimstone. Every bit of knowledge that the mind has must be submitted to a religious test. It is a travesty upon language, it is a travesty upon justice, it is a travesty upon the constitution to say that any citizen of Tennessee can be deprived of his rights by a legislative body in the face of the constitution…

Of course, I used to hear when I was a boy you could lead a horse to water, but you could not make him drink water. I could lead a man to water, but I could not make him drink, either. And you can close your eyes and you won’t see, cannot see, refuse to open your eyes – stick your fingers in your ears and you cannot hear – if you want to. But your life and my life and the life of every American citizen depends after all upon the tolerance and forbearance of his fellow man. If men are not tolerant, if men cannot respect each other’s opinions, if men cannot live and let live, then no man’s life is safe, no man’s life is safe…

Here is a country made up of Englishmen, Irishmen, Scotch, German, Europeans, Asiatics, Africans, men of every sort and men of every creed and men of every scientific belief. Who is going to begin this sorting out and say, “I shall measure you; I know you are a fool, or worse; I know and I have read a creed telling what I know and I will make people go to Heaven even if they don’t want to go with me. I will make them do it.” Where is the man that is wise enough to do this?

If today you can take a thing like evolution and make it a crime to teach it in the public school, tomorrow you can make it a crime to teach it in the private school, and the next year you can make it a crime to teach it from the hustings or in the church. At the next session you may ban books and the newspapers. Soon you may set Catholic against Protestant and Protestant against Protestant, and try to foist your own religion upon the minds of men. If you can do one you can do the other. Ignorance and fanaticism are ever busy and need feeding. Always they are feeding and gloating for more. Today it is the public school teachers, tomorrow the private. The next day the preachers and the lecturers, the magazines, the books, the newspapers. After a while, Your Honor, it is the setting of man against man and creed against creed until, with flying banners and beating drums, we are marching backward to the glorious ages of the sixteenth century when bigots lighted torches to burn the men who dared to bring any intelligence and enlightenment and culture to the human mind.”

That was Darrow, in part, beginning the defense of John Scopes case with his opening argument to the jury.

The great trial lawyer lost the case (as he intended to), but won the argument, as he had to. That’s what his statue should stand for, because that is what Darrow stood for: freedom of thought, freedom of speech, and the banishment of ignorance. If you want yin to that yang, put his image opposite a statue of Stalin.

Or maybe Howard Dean.


16 thoughts on “What Clarence Darrow’s Dayton Statue Stands For

  1. Your ending gave hope that somewhere in our great land there was a statue of Howard Dean. Quite a disappointment – I suppose that we’ll have to remain satisfied with his portrait:

  2. Just for Mister Putts’s edification, you most certainly can have an Optimus Prime without a Megatron. And using a Transformers movie ti illustrate his point is a little ridiculous. Ruth Ann Wilson, on the other hand, is just flat bat-shit crazy.

  3. That was a great beginning of arrows defense. Still relevant today.

    I do not understand the sentence, “The great trial lawyer lost the case (as he intended to), but won the argument, as he had to.”, specifically the part, “as he intended to”.
    Why would he intend to lose a case? And is that, for a trial lawyer, ethical to intend?

    • “Intended” as in “realistically expected” and strategically planned for. His client broke the law, so he needed to set up grounds for appeal.

  4. This is why I don’t like the statue:

    “If the idea is to have the most famous opposing counsel in U.S. legal history facing off, okay, that’s fair.”

    Darrow has no connection to this Courthouse (I believe), except for this case.

    And, he lost it.

    What next? Are they going to put Johnny Cochran’s statue outside the LA Courthouse? No, but, at least, he WON his case

    Are they commemorating the trial?

    It was a “Trial of the Century” as much because of Darrow AND Bryan than it was about Scopes and Darwin. If that is what they want to commemorate, Bryan should be included.

    Or, better yet, why not a statue of Scopes? He was the one risking jail-time (the devious scofflaw!).

    It appears they are trying to commemorate Darrow’s message.

    But what message?

    Was it the quasi-legal message that religious doctrine cannot set the limits of public policy? (That IS a “legal” message. I should probably say “quasi-judicial” as policy is generally set by the legislature. Maybe THAT is where his statue should be.)

    That MIGHT be the appropriate basis for a statue outside a Courthouse, but odd for the parenthetical remarks just made..

    Or, is it the scientific message: Evolution is true and Creationism is not?

    That does not seem to me to be a proper basis for a statue outside a Courthouse, as it is not a legal or judicial matter.

    Bottom line: I don’t like the statue.


    • 1) Bryan IS included….you missed the part where I pointed out he had his statute erected by the Courthouse in 2005. You: “Never mind!”
      2) Darrow was hired to LOSE, and get the case to SCOTUS on appeal. He was foiled in that later, because the Tennessee appellate court reversed the Scopes decision on a technicality. So Darrow actually won, but since a victory was to lose, he lost.
      3) You phrased the question so weirdly that it undermines understanding. Darrow’s message is that the government cannot restrain thought, speech and education by forcing it to conform to community beliefs.
      4). As I said, Darrow was not asserting that evolution was fact and religion was not. He was asserting that both had an unassailable right to be heard and taught.
      5) Who said made your statue rules? The most important thing that ever happened in that locale, and in that town, are commemorated by two statues of the two most prominent figures involved. Makes perfect sense.

      • 2) Darrow was hired to LOSE, and get the case to SCOTUS on appeal. He was foiled in that later, because the Tennessee appellate court reversed the Scopes decision on a technicality. So Darrow actually won, but since a victory was to lose, he lost.

        I too am curious about the ethics of intentionally losing a case in order to get to SCOTUS. I’m nearly done watching The Good Wife for the first time, and there was an episode about just this sort of thing–a lawyer sabotaging a case involving a gay married couple in order to make it a test case for SCOTUS (this was prior to Obergefell). The show made this look shady. You may have already written about this, but I’m avoiding reading your Good Wife posts until I finish the series to avoid spoilers.

        • Chris, I included this question in a legal ethics seminar as recently as two weeks ago. It’s an ethics conflict: a fraud on the court of sorts, but also serving a clients’ legitimate ends. There’s a great story that goes with this, and a Scopes related one. I’ll have to do a whole post on it.

          A quick summary: trials done for show are in Bizarro Ethics territory. Everything is backwards, and the rules don’t, can’t make sense. If the Scopes Trial can be justified from Darrow and the ACLU’s perspective, it is only through pure utilitarianism.

  5. The question is which side would Darrow be on now? Would he have kept standing for free speech, however unpopular it might have been, or only for free speech as he saw being good? I think, had he been set a bit later in time (I won’t say if he had lived, since he lived to the ripe old age of 80), he could have easily crossed the line from civil libertarian into religion-hater (though he always identified as an agnostic, not an atheist) that he could easily have become a straight-up religion hater, traveling the nation suing over crosses on war memorials in small towns and prayers at podunk council meetings.

    • I don’t think so. At heart, Darrow wanted something to believe in. He always extolled the spirit of mankind, while taking the side in public debate that there was no free will and life was pointless. He was a romantic and a cynic, an idealist and an anti-sentimentalist. He consistently opposed the law’s over-reach and abuses. (“My job is to protect my clients FROM the law!” he once thundered in court.)

      Darrow was a true progressive as well as a near libertarian. Who knows where THAT contradiction would have led today, but I am confident that he would still be standing for freedom of expression.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.