Good news: The Oklahoma Senate’s Education Committee has defeated legislation that would have allowed classroom discussion of alternative theories of evolution. Like Creationism. And Creationism. And, of course, we can’t forget Creationism. Even if in the guise of “Intelligent Design.”
Bad news: The vote was 7-6 against.
The bill: Senator Randy Brogdon’s Scientific Education and Academic Freedom Act.
The crime: Assuming there should be freedom to fuck up the minds of schoolchildren with bullshit that is completely rejected by the academic community.
Check out a petition in favor of a similar bill from 2007 that I found, and the accompanying sample bill, apparently promoted by Discovery.org, which is the website of the Discovery Institute. According to Wikipedia, “In 2005, a federal court ruled that the Discovery Institute pursues “demonstrably religious, cultural, and legal missions”, and the institute’s manifesto, the Wedge strategy, describes a religious goal: to “reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.”:
Do you want to defend the academic freedom of teachers and students to study all of the relevant scientific information relating to evolution?
In many states teachers, students, and even college professors have faced intimidation and retaliation when they attempt to discuss scientific criticisms pertaining to evolution. This assault on academic freedom is antithetical to our traditions as a free society and to the progress of science itself, which depends on robust debate and critical inquiry. It is entirely appropriate for the government to ensure that teachers and students have the right to freely discuss the scientific debates over evolution in an appropriate manner.
Here is a sample academic freedom bill that would protect the rights of teachers and students to study the full range of scientific views on Darwinian evolution.
If you have questions please e-mail Casey Luskin, cluskin@discovery.org, program officer for public policy and legal affairs at Discovery Institute.
MODEL ACADEMIC FREEDOM STATUTE ON EVOLUTION
[version: 9/7/2007]SYNOPSIS: Existing law does not expressly provide a right nor does it expressly protect tenure and employment for a public school teacher or teacher at an institution of higher education for presenting scientific information pertaining to the full range of scientific views regarding biological and chemical evolution. In addition, students are not expressly provided a right to positions on views regarding biological and chemical evolution.
This bill would expressly provide rights and protection for teachers concerning scientific presentations on views regarding biological and chemical evolution and students concerning their positions on views regarding biological and chemical evolution.A BILL
TO BE ENTITLED
AN ACTProviding teacher rights and protection for a public school teacher or a teacher at an institution of higher education to present scientific information pertaining to the full range of scientific views regarding biological and chemical evolution in applicable curricula or in a course of learning; providing employment and tenure protection and protection against discrimination for any public school teacher or teacher at a public institution of higher education related to the presentation of such information; and providing student protection for subscribing to a particular position on views regarding biological or chemical evolution.
BE IT ENACTED BY ____________:
Section 1. This law shall be known as the “Academic Freedom Act.”
Section 2. The Legislature finds that existing law does not expressly protect the right of teachers identified by the United States Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard to present scientific critiques of prevailing scientific theories. The Legislature further finds that existing law does not expressly protect the right of students to hold a position on views regarding biological or chemical evolution. The Legislature further finds that the topic of evolution has generated intense controversy, lawsuits and threats of lawsuits, where some lower courts such as Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School Board, have created confusion about the rights of teachers and students to hold differing views about scientific controversies and express those views without fear of adverse employment or academic consequences. Finally, the Legislature finds that school districts and school administrators should not bear the primary burden of defending the academic freedom of teachers and students to discuss the topics of biological or chemical evolution. It is the intent of the Legislature that this act expressly protects those rights.
Section 3. Every K-12 public school teacher or teacher or instructor in any two-year or four-year public institution of higher education, or in any graduate or adult program thereof, in the State of ______________, shall have the affirmative right and freedom to present scientific information pertaining to the full range of scientific views regarding biological and chemical evolution.
Section 4. No K-12 public school teacher or teacher or instructor in any two-year or four-year public institution of higher education, or in any graduate or adult program thereof, in the State of ___________, shall be terminated, disciplined, denied tenure, or otherwise discriminated against for presenting scientific information pertaining to the full range of scientific views regarding biological or chemical evolution in any curricula or course of learning, provided, with respect to K-12 teachers, the [insert official title of state’s science standards] has been taught as appropriate to the grade and subject assignment.
Section 5. Students may be evaluated based upon their understanding of course materials, but no student in any public school or institution of higher education shall be penalized in any way because he or she may subscribe to a particular position on any views regarding biological or chemical evolution.
Section 6. The rights and privileges contained in this act apply when the subject of biological or chemical origins is part of the curriculum. Nothing in this act shall be construed as requiring or encouraging any change in the state curriculum standards in K-12 public schools, nor shall any provision of this act be construed as prescribing the curricular content of any course in any two-year or four-year public institution of higher education in the state.
Section 7. Nothing in this act shall be construed as promoting any religious doctrine, promoting discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promoting discrimination for or against religion or non-religion.
Section 8. This act shall become effective on the first day of the third month following its passage and approval by the Governor, or its otherwise becoming law.
This appears to be the actual bill presented:
STATE OF OKLAHOMA
1st Session of the 52nd Legislature (2009)
SENATE BILL 320 By: Brogdon
AS INTRODUCED
An Act relating to schools; creating the Scientific Education and Academic Freedom Act; providing short title; stating Legislative findings; directing State Board of Education, district boards of education, and certain administrators to create certain environment within schools; permitting teachers to help students understand certain information about scientific theories; disallowing State Board of Education, district boards of education, and certain administrators from prohibiting teachers from helping students understand certain information about scientific theories; providing for evaluation of students based on understanding of course materials; prohibiting penalizing of students for holding certain position on scientific theories; prohibiting certain construction; directing State Department of Education to provide certain notification; directing superintendents to disseminate certain information; providing for codification; providing an effective date; and declaring an emergency.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA:
SECTION 1. NEW LAW A new section of law to be codified in the Oklahoma Statutes as Section 27-101 of Title 70, unless there is created a duplication in numbering, reads as follows:
A. This act shall be known and may be cited as the “Scientific Education and Academic Freedom Act”.
B. The Oklahoma Legislature finds that an important purpose of science education is to inform students about scientific evidence and to help students develop critical thinking skills they need in order to become intelligent, productive, and scientifically informed citizens. The Legislature further finds that the teaching of some scientific subjects, such as biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning, can cause controversy, and that some teachers may be unsure of the expectations concerning how they should present information on such subjects.
C. The State Board of Education, district boards of education, district superintendents and administrators, and public school principals and administrators shall endeavor to create an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that encourages students to explore scientific questions, learn about scientific evidence, develop critical thinking skills, and respond appropriately and respectfully to differences of opinion about controversial issues. Such educational authorities in this state shall also endeavor to assist teachers to find more effective ways to present the science curriculum where it addresses scientific controversies. Toward this end, teachers shall be permitted to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories pertinent to the course being taught.
D. Neither the State Board of Education, nor any district board of education, district superintendent or administrator, or public school principal or administrator shall prohibit any teacher in a school district in this state from helping students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories pertinent to the course being taught.
E. Students may be evaluated based upon their understanding of course materials, but no student in any public school or institution shall be penalized in any way because the student may subscribe to a particular position on scientific theories.
F. This act only protects the teaching of scientific information, and this act shall not be construed to promote any religious or non-religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs or non-beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or non-religion. On the contrary, the intent is to create an environment in which both the teacher and students can openly and objectively discuss the facts and observations of science, and the assumptions that underlie their interpretation.
G. By no later than the start of the 2009-2010 school year, the State Department Education shall notify all district superintendents of the provisions of this act. Each superintendent shall then disseminate to all employees within the district a copy of the provisions of this act.
SECTION 2. This act shall become effective July 1, 2009.
SECTION 3. It being immediately necessary for the preservation of the public peace, health and safety, an emergency is hereby declared to exist, by reason whereof this act shall take effect and be in full force from and after its passage and approval.
Let’s celebrate the success of reason, but mourn the fact that it came so close, and you know someone will try to pass another of these laws every year in this and other states.
UPDATE via TUIBGuy:
State Representative Thomsen has introduced this bill:…
A Resolution opposing the invitation to Richard Dawkins to speak on campus; encouraging the University of Oklahoma to engage in a certain discussion of certain scientific theories; and directing distribution…..
WHEREAS, the University of Oklahoma, as a part of the Darwin 2009 Project, has invited as a public speaker on campus, Richard Dawkins of Oxford University, whose published opinions, as represented in his 2006 book “The God Delusion”, and public statements on the theory of evolution demonstrate an intolerance for cultural diversity and diversity of thinking and are views that are not shared and are not representative of the thinking of a majority of the citizens of Oklahoma;…
THAT the Oklahoma House of Representative strongly opposes the invitation to speak on the campus of the University of Oklahoma to Richard Dawkins of Oxford University, whose published statements on the theory of evolution and opinion about those who do not believe in the theory are contrary and offensive to the views and opinions of most citizens of Oklahoma.
THAT the Oklahoma House of Representatives encourages the University of Oklahoma to engage in an open, dignified, and fair discussion of the Darwinian theory of evolution and all other scientific theories which is the approach that a public institution should be engaged in and which represents the desire and interest of the citizens of Oklahoma.
TUIBGuy’s responds, in part,
What the legislator fails to understand that a fair discussion of the alternative theories of evolution would be something he doesn’t like at all. I hope that he is proud, though, in his quixotic quest to keep the likes of Dawkins out of Oklahoma, to show how much he values Academic Freedom.
Head on over there for the full text of the bill and the rest of the response.
It’s that season again where we indulge. And indulge. And indulge. And blame it on Jesus being born. Hey, probably not an entirely bad way to spend a cold, wet winter. I was recently endowed with a wonderful monetary gift from my mother-in-law, and tasked to go find myself something, as it’s the gift-receiving season. After days of morbid searching on various websites for common gift ideas, finding absolutely nothing that interested me except for possibly a chin-up bar (and how fun that sounds, eh?), I finally somehow recalled that as a teenager, I had always desired a radio controlled helicopter, but could never afford one. Thus, I started my search. Sifting through dozens of confusing sites dedicated to RC airplanes, helicopters, boats, cars, and the like, I found some helpful forum posts that guided me to a good beginner to intermediate RC helicopter that didn’t cost a fortune. Then, trying to be responsible with my expenditures, I began tapping retail websites in order to find the best price.
