Science 1, Pseudoscience 0
Pardon the super-long post, but I was excited to receive the following e-mail from Robert Collins, the director of Alabama Citizens for Science Education, of which I am a member. ACSE is opposed to the teaching of 'creationism' or its by-product, 'intelligent design', in our public schools, and conducts letter-writing campaigns in order to prevent the use of classrooms as pulpits in Alabama. Robert's email addresses the so-called 'Academic Freedom Act', which through ACSE's efforts, was recently defeated in the House Education Committee. His email explains how the bill was defeated, and includes a description of his own experience with the legislators. The text of the bill follows. If you are at all interested in ACSE you can get plenty of information here. Keep church and state separate!
"
SUCCESS!
HB106, the misnamed Alabama "Academic Freedom Act", was defeated in
the House Education Committee last Wednesday. Special thanks to everyone who called, wrote or faxed. We made a difference!! Our work is not done. An identical bill in the Alabama Senate, SB45, is up for public hearing and vote next Wednesday, March 1 at 8:30 AM. I will send out a separate email Action Alert for that.
Yours for good science,
Bob Collins
Director, Alabama Citizens for Science Education
Here is a synopsis of last Wednesday's (Feb 22) defeat of HB106 (If
you don't want to read the whole thing, please scroll down to
"LESSONS LEARNED"):
The House Education Committee meeting started at 1:30 in room 602, a
conference room in the State Legislature building that was designed
to hold about 16 people, but about twice that many were in the room.
12 Committee members were present (6 Republicans and 6 Democrats -
more on that later), 3 were absent. There was one TV station there
filming, and a newspaper reporter taking notes. The meeting started
with a 30 minute discussion and vote on another bill unrelated to HB106.
The public hearing for HB106 started around 2 PM.
There were 4 speakers opposed, none in favor. The first speaker was
from an association of Alabama school superintendents; the second
represented CLAS, the "Council of Leaders of Alabama Schools". Both
felt strongly that this bill would circumvent the wishes of
principals, parents and school boards; both strongly recommended that
it be disapproved, and if it was approved that Kindergarten through
12th (K-12) grade be excluded so that it only applied to colleges.
I was the next speaker. My speech is at the bottom of this email. The
thrust of my speech was that HB106 would allow teachers at all levels
of education to present inappropriate material; for example, material
that was racist or advocated the Morning After Pill, RU-486 and even
abortion. Nor was there any requirement that this be age appropriate,
so a second grade teacher could tell his/her students all about
abortion and there would be nothing that any principal, school board
or parent could do about it. I showed them several examples from
various publications including the Physician's Desk Reference and the
Johns Hopkins Family Health Book.
Various conservative committee members asked me several questions
while I was at the podium after my speech, so there was no doubt that
they understood what I had said.
The last speaker was a PhD Biologist from Auburn who said that this
bill does an injustice to students because it distorts the idea of
what science is. He also said that Alabama universities have a huge
problem with students in their science classes that have not been
properly prepared by Alabama K-12 schools, and this bill would only
make the problem worse.
This scientist/speaker was asked a number of questions by Committee
members (about 10 minutes), and he answered them all quite well. It
was evident that some of the Committee members had some deliberate
deficits in their own scientific knowledge. Other Committee members
were quite articulate and well-informed.
I figured that we had a slam-dunk. What conservative, in an election
year, would vote for a bill that would allow teachers to promote
abortion in elementary school classrooms? Read on.
The Committee then had a lengthy discussion of the bill. Several
conservative members said they favored expressing various points of
view (they didn't mention any of the things that I brought up). There
was a lot of discussion of Section 7 (see below), several committee
members objected to its statement "this act shall not be restricted
by any metaphysical or religious implications of a view", so the
Committee voted unanimously to delete the whole section.
Several Committee members objected to this act being applied to all
age levels, so Barbara Boyd (representative from Anniston) moved that
the bill be changed to apply only to colleges and graduate schools.
After a lengthy discussion, this was defeated 6 to 6 in a party line
vote (Republicans against, Democrats for).
They also asked for some input from the Alabama State Department of
Education. The Superintendent (Joe Morton) was not there, but a
representative of the Dept of Ed said nervously that they did not
take a position on the bill, but neither did they feel that it was
necessary because this issue is already covered in the Alabama Course
of Study for Science. (Historically, the State Department of Ed had
been very nervous around this 2005 and 2004 versions of this bill,
probably because of fear of funding or other political repercussions.
Secretly, they hate it, but can't say anything.)
Somewhere in the middle of all this, the committee asked the sponsor
(Rep Beason) why no one showed up in support of this bill. (Last year
there were 2 speakers supporting it.) Mr Beason replied that he asked
them not to come as a courtesy to the committee so as to not take up
any unnecessary time. Yeah right.
By that time, this had been going on for over an hour and everyone
was pretty tired of it. So they voted and it was a 6 to 6 tie. Since
a majority was required, the bill failed in committee and is probably
dead for the rest of this year. As best I can tell, this was a party
line vote, with all Republicans voting for it and all Democrats
voting against it. (There are ways to resurrect it. So we'll have to
keep watching.)
LESSONS LEARNED:
1. The seeds we planted for the past three years were clearly
evident. In 2004, a similar bill sailed through this same committee
and the entire House on a voice vote. In 2005, we killed it. This
year, a Committee member who we called before the meeting said she
had some serious reservations about it. Another Committee member had
done quite a bit of detailed analysis of the bill before the meeting.
And it died again this year.
2. Creationists will vote to advocate creationism in science
classrooms even if it also means letting teachers advocate birth
control, the morning after pill, the abortion pill and even abortion
itself in those same classrooms. This is a great case study for
people who think you can reason with creationists.
3. Several professional associations opposed the bill. This carried
an enormous amount of weight. Whenever possible, it helps a lot to
coordinate with professional associations.
4. Calling politicians shortly before the vote is very effective.
5. The Creationists had done some advance work, lining up all 6
Republican supporters so completely that nothing anyone could say
would sway them. There may have some political dealmaking (e.g., I'll
vote for yours if you'll vote for mine) going on that was not readily
apparent.
6. The interesting thing was that everyone who voted against the
"exclude K-12" amendment voted for the bill, and vice versa. THIS
MEANS THAT EACH AND EVERY COMMITTEE MEMBER CAN HONESTLY SAY THAT THEY
VOTED FOR SOME VERSION OF THE BILL.
Here's a copy of my speech:
My name is Bob Collins. I attended public school in Alabama from
first grade all the way through college. My son attended public
middle and high school here before going to college, and my daughter
is currently a sophomore at Spain Park High School in Hoover. I and
my family attend Second Presbyterian Church in Birmingham.
I am opposed to this bill, called the “Academic Freedom Act”.
Everyone in this room knows what this bill is really about - the
purpose of this bill is to try to promote teaching creationism in the
public school classrooms. But don't take my word for it. I downloaded
this copy of this bill yesterday from Alison, the official web
Legislature site, and here on the bottom it says "creationism" and
"intelligent design". Teaching creationism in public school science
classrooms is not only unconstitutional, but does not help prepare
our children to compete in an increasingly scientific global job market.
Please believe me when I say that I respect the beliefs of
creationists. In fact, I used to be a creationist. But this bill goes
far beyond teaching creationism, and it's the non-creationist things
this bill would allow that I'd like to talk about for just another
couple of minutes.
I'd like to call this Committee's attention to the phrase "present
the full range of scientific views" in this bill. In fact, it appears
four times in this bill and is really at the heart of what this bill
is trying to do, two of those times it adds "in any curricula or
course of learning". I'd like to ask this committee to really think
about the full effects of what it means to allow teachers to "present
the full range of scientific views in any curricula or course of
learning" in elementary, middle and high school classrooms.
One of the most insidious books to be published lately is “The Bell
Curve”, which was very popular and sold hundreds of thousands of
copies. Here we see a very scientific-sounding book, complete with
graphs and scientific language, that presents the view that African
Americans are genetically programmed to be not as smart as white
Americans. These differences are substantial - 15 IQ points, that is
one and one half standard deviations below whites.
Now this bill does require that teachers present only "views" that
have not been "soundly refuted by empirical or observational
science", but it does not say who decides that, and I've never met a
prejudiced person who did not think that they had reasons, however,
wrong, for their views. We would probably have to take them to court
to disprove their views, and I think we can all agree that we would
all rather spend our money on students than spend it on lawyers.
Hopefully someday Alabama will grow out of our prejudices.
Unfortunately we haven't grown out of it yet. But even when we do,
this bill will still be fatally flawed.
The intent of this bill is to allow teachers to present alternative
theories or views. So it should be clear that if a teacher has the
right to present theories under this bill that this bill would also
permit them to present well established scientific facts. But I think
we can all agree that there are some things that are well proven by
science that still do not belong in elementary, middle and high
school classrooms.
I brought a few of them with me today.
I'm sure that most of us are familiar with the Physician's Desk
Reference. This book contains the product labeling information for
most drugs available in the United States today. Drug companies are
legally required to tell the truth in this labeling and to back up
that proof with large amounts of well-tested science that is approved
by the Federal government's Food and Drug Administration.
So let me read some of the full range of scientific views presented
in this book, (Plan B).
The PDR is not the only source of this type of information. Consumer
Reports has its own guide, again backed by lots and lots of hard
science. Here on page 1138 it says, (mifeprestone).
And then there is the Johns Hopkins Family Health Book, an official
publication of Johns Hopkins University. Certainly anything in this
book would qualify as mainstream science, would fulfil the Academic
Freedom Act's requirement that the views presented have published
"empirical" and "observational support" and be covered by the phrase
"the full range of scientific views". It says right here on page 280,
(abortion).
Certainly there are times when parents, ministers and others will
have to talk to our children about these things. But these are very
sensitive subjects, and it this bill gives any teacher the power to
discuss them without asking the permission of any parent, principal
or school board. I hope everyone can see that this is not what we
want for our school children.
Here's a copy of HB106:
HB106
By Representative Beason
RFD Education
Rd 1 10-JAN-06
SYNOPSIS:
Existing law does not expressly provide a right nor does
it expressly protect tenure and employment for a public school
teacher or a teacher at an institution of higher education for
presenting scientific information pertaining to the full range of
scientific views. In addition, students are not expressly provided a
right to positions on views.
This bill would expressly provide rights and protection for
teachers concerning scientific presentations on views and students
concerning their positions on views.
A BILL
TO BE ENTITLED
AN ACT
Providing 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 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.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF ALABAMA:
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. 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 Alabama,
shall have the affirmative right and freedom to present scientific
information pertaining to the full range of scientific views in any
curricula or course of learning.
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 Alabama,
shall be terminated, disciplined, denied tenure, or otherwise
discriminated against for presenting scientific information
pertaining to the full range of scientific views in any curricula or
course of learning, provided, with respect to K-12 teachers, the
Alabama Course of Study for Science 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.
Section 6. The rights and privileges contained in this act apply when
topics are taught that may generate controversy, such as biological
or chemical origins. 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 protecting as
scientific any view that lacks published empirical or observational
support or that has been soundly refuted by empirical or
observational science in published scientific debate. Likewise, the
protection provided by this act shall not be restricted by any
metaphysical or religious implications of a view, so long as the
views are defensible from and justified by empirical science and
observation of the natural world.
Section 8. 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 9. 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."
