What happens in Texas does not stay in Texas: the state is one of the country’s biggest buyers of textbooks, and publishers are loath to produce different versions of the same material. The ideas that work their way into education here will surface in classrooms throughout the country.
And as we find out in Opponents of Evolution Adopting New Strategy in today's New York Times, those opponents are going to use the power of Texas's state-wide approval of textbooks to yet again try to undercut the teaching of evolution. Their strategy will focus on three little words: "strengths and weaknesses." The advocates of requiring inclusion of the "strengths and weaknesses" of evolutionary theory is yet the latest strategy from The Discovery Institute (and I will NOT include a link for that noxious organiation).
Those advocating requiring science books to include the "strengths and weaknesses" of evolutionary theory argue that "benign-sounding phrase"
is a reasonable effort at balance. But critics say it is a new strategy taking shape across the nation to undermine the teaching of evolution, a way for students to hear religious objections under the heading of scientific discourse.
And while Texas, because of the size of the textbook market in our nation's second largest state, is key to the forthcoming battle, the article informs us that similar battles are underway eslehwere, that legislators in half a dozen states,
Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri and South Carolina — have tried to require that classrooms be open to "views about the scientific strengths and weaknesses of Darwinian theory," according to a petition from the Discovery Institute, the Seattle-based strategic center of the intelligent design movement.
Perhaps this is not a topic of great interest on the morning aft yesterday's historic events. But it should be, if no other reason than to remember how all elections have consequences, that who holds elected offices can make a difference in how we are regulated, what is legal or illegal, and - as in this case - how our children will be educated for the future of this nation. In this case the state school board are not elected by the voters, but appointed by the Governor.
Seven of 15 members subscribe to the notion of intelligent design, and they have the blessings of Gov. Rick Perry, a Republican.
And we need to be aware of the approach such efforts take. Like much of what we have seen in the political arena (and control of educational policy is inherently political), we will see coordinated messaging, attemptin to use bland language - "strengths and weaknesses" - and phrase challenges in seemingly reasonable language, the article quotes the chair of the board, a dentist from Central Texas named Don McLeroy:
"Why in the world would anybody not want to include weaknesses?" Dr. McLeroy said.
The approach is not new:
The "strengths and weaknesses" language was slipped into the curriculum standards in Texas to appease creationists when the State Board of Education first mandated the teaching of evolution in the late 1980s. It has had little effect because evolution skeptics have not had enough power on the education board to win the argument that textbooks do not adequately cover the weaknesses of evolution.
And as we saw with the intelligent design argument - a la the complexity of the eye supposedly not being explanable by random variation - the proponents of this approach will take something scientifically observable and in an almost Rovian fashion attempt to use this scientific strength as a means of undercutting science itself. For example, to take the simple word "weakness"
The word itself is open to broad interpretation. If the teaching of weaknesses is mandated, a textbook might be forced to say that evolution has an "inability to explain the Cambrian Explosion," according to the group Texans for Better Science Education, which questions evolution.
Often we complain about the "he said, she said" approach to the coverage of issues of political import by our media. We can explain this in part because MOST Americans believe in allowing all points of view to be expressed, and those whose views perhaps lack meaningful validity take advantage of this to drive their points of view. As the article notes,
playing to the American sense of fairness, lawmakers across the country have tried to require that classrooms be open to all views. The Discovery Institute has provided a template for legislators to file "academic freedom" bills, and they have been popping up with increasing frequency in statehouses across the country. In Florida, the session ended last month before legislators could take action, while in Louisiana, an academic-freedom bill was sent to the House of Representatives after passing the House education committee and the State Senate.
In Texas these opponents of science are still one vote short of a majority. But that does not stop the chairman of the board, any more than the decision in the Dover Pennsylvania case which demolished much of the approach of the Discovery Institute seems to have entered into his thinking. Note carefully the following, how he argues
the debate as being between "two systems of science."
"You’ve got a creationist system and a naturalist system," he said.
Dr. McLeroy believes that Earth’s appearance is a recent geologic event — thousands of years old, not 4.5 billion. "I believe a lot of incredible things," he said, "The most incredible thing I believe is the Christmas story. That little baby born in the manger was the god that created the universe."
But Dr. McLeroy says his rejection of evolution — "I just don’t think it’s true or it’s ever happened" — is not based on religious grounds. Courts have clearly ruled that teachings of faith are not allowed in a science classroom, but when he considers the case for evolution, Dr. McLeroy said, "it’s just not there."
"My personal religious beliefs are going to make no difference in how well our students are going to learn science," he said.
Yet despite that disclaimer at the end, his refusal to accept what science has long accepted, the scientific correctness of evolutionary theory, is a strong current in America. And that has real consequences for American education.
First, that point of view represents the thinking of a substantial minority of Americans, mainly but not exclusively found in the South and in the greater Appalachian region where Scots-Irish have strong roots - remember that the Dover ISD was in Pennsylvania.
Next, we have an increasing movement, of which No Child Left Behind is in some ways the federal camel's nose under the tent of state control of education, to nationalize many aspects of education. We have heard well meaning people argue on behalf of national standards, and even national tests.
And in education we have already seen that "What happens in Texas does not stay in Texas" - remember, that No Child Left Behind was sold to the Congress and the press in large part based on the non-existent educational "Texas Miracle."
On the positive side, the creationists do not yet have a majority on the Texas state board. And the advisory panel of science educators appointed to review the curriculum are apparently going to recommend removing the three words which represent such a threat to studying evolutionary science. One member of that committee, quoted in the article, notes that
"When you consider evolution, there are certainly questions that have yet to be answered,"
adding that
"a question that has yet to be answered is certainly different from an alleged weakness."
We are often reminded that eternal vigilance is the price of freedom. This has often been true in education. Last evening I had a conversation with a Member of Congress who described that in one school district part of the Congressional district Orthodox Jewish parents who have advocated for vouchers for their religious schools had quietly moved to take over the local school board, which reminded me of numerous attempts more than a decade back of members of the Christian Coalition running under the radar to attempt to gain control of school boards in California and in Virginia. We have seen the turmoil that can result - in elected state boards in Kansas and Oklahoma, and locally in Dover PA. So far the damage has been limited by voting out some of the offending members. Limited, but not totally prevented.
The battles right now are on science. In the past they have been on literature - school board members in Long Island attempting to remove "offending" books from school libraries. They have been and will again be on history and government - requiring the teaching of capitalism and the free market as a superior form of economics, for example (even as our own economy is mixed and many major corporations attempt to prevent themselves from the vagaries of the market place), or prohibiting the teaching of parts of our history that offer criticisms of actions and attitudes of major historic figures on the grounds that it undercuts patriotism. We have had battles on the Pledge of Allegiance for more than half a century, and they still have not gone away.
We are all affected by how our public schools are governed, the materials that are used, the kinds of teaching allowed - pedagogically and in terms of content. At a time when we worry about wars and the economy and who will appoint Justices to the Supreme Court, it may be easy not to focus on a question like the content required in science textbooks in Texas. I would argue that at least some of us need to pay attention, even close attention, to ensure that while we are focused on what we perhaps rightly believe are major issues the foundation upon which we wish to rest those major issues is not undercut in other ways.
I teach government. I also teach Comparative Religion from time to time. Religious belief may well shape our actions, both in what we think is scientifically appropriate, and in how government acts. In government, no matter how strong our individual faith may be, we have a responsibility to address issue of public policy on the basis of a Constitution developed by people who believed in protecting religion from government and government from religion - that we needed to make our arguments not on the basis of received truth from our faith traditions but from an acceptance of a common set of values by which our already diverse young nation could prevent internecine conflicts on the basis of religious or regional differences.
And of science, whether or not one fully accepts the idea of falsifiability as an underpinning of scientific thought, merely to label a set of beliefs as "science" no more makes it so than does calling ketchup a vegetable mean that loading it on one's food will provide one with a sufficient intake of necessary dietary balance.
My school year is winding down. We are struggling with cuts of staff, elimination of some electives. In Virginia where I live we have contested primaries for several Congressional districts next Tuesday. The general election for the presidency is now officially "on" even as the Democratic party has to convince the defeated contender that the primary contest is over and that the party needs to come together. All of these issues matter.
For our future, what happens in our public schools is and will remain critical. That is why I took the time this morning to write this diary, to ensure that at least few people will pay attention to this issue, on behalf of us all.
Peace.