What does an evangelical Christian in Federal Way, Washington have in common with the world's largest oil companies? Their influence on the public education curriculum, as demonstrated in two recent cases concerning Al Gore's Oscar-nominated documentary "An Inconvenient Truth."
The purpose of public education is to prepare the next generation of citizens, a task that requires us to offer them knowledge based on rigorous scholarship and scientific research. It is contrary to the purpose of public education when students are denied access to scientific findings because of the religious objections of a parent or because of the influence of corporate interests.
As in the case of the Kansas School Board "intelligent design" controversy, an article in today's San Francisco Chronicle demonstrates that religious objections to the teaching of science are having a chilling effect. (This case was also discussed on Daily Kos by Ciccina.) After learning that his daughter would be watching "An Inconvenient Truth" in her seventh-grade science class in Federal Way, Washington, evangelical Christian Frosty Hardison launched a campaign to stop the viewing. Mr. Hardison objects because he considers the highly regarded documentary propaganda, in conflict with his view that global warming is "one of the signs" that the return of Jesus Christ is imminent. As a result of his objections, the science teacher was reprimanded and told the film could only be shown with written permission of a principal and only in conjunction with materials that offer an alternative view of the global warming issue. Although this decision created a storm of controversy across the country, it still stands.
"An Inconvenient Truth" is also inconvenient for corporate interests, as seen in the case described in an op-ed in the Washington Post from November 2006 by Laurie David, one of the producers of the documentary. She talks about the surprising rejection by the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) of an offer of 50,000 free DVDs for use in classrooms across the country. NSTA's reasons for the rejection were less than convincing and included a curious concern that there would be "unnecessary risk upon the NSTA capital campaign, especially certain targeted supporters." It turned out the Exxon Mobil Corporation, Shell Oil, and the American Petroleum Institute (API) were among those supporters.
With public education chronically underfunded, the $6 million given NSTA by Exxon alone since 1996 is obviously a windfall that's hard to refuse. In return, the NSTA website posts materials by these donors on the science of energy, which praises the industry's environmental record and touts a pitch for oil dependence. NSTA also accepts free textbooks, classroom posters, and offers industry-sponsored teacher seminars. Free corporate lessons plans are distributed to teachers at NSTA's annual convention which challenge global warming, provide forestry instruction written by Weyerhaeuser and International Paper, and teach the benefits of genetic engineering as asserted by biotech company Monsanto.
How does invoking the frame of controversy influence the teaching of science in public schools? As we have seen from these cases, scientific agreement can be considered controversial if a single parent objects to it, or if it offends potential corporate donors. To many people, the word controversy suggests a need to present a balanced view. However, in the context of science education it makes no sense to balance overwhelming scientific agreement with corporate propaganda or with beliefs that have no basis in science.
When a school labels well-documented scientific theory as controversial, it is negating the value of the scientific method. In its place is a confusion of unsubstantiated beliefs, a "consumer choice" model where the loudest voices get a place in the curriculum. This undermines the mission and foundation of public education. We as citizens have a responsibility to act to restore its integrity and ensure our future citizens are given the tools and knowledge they will need to make informed decisions.