Yesterday, the Minnesota legislature introduced H.F. No. 3922, another of those “Academic Freedom” bills that are actually attempts to infringe on academic freedom. It’s full of high-minded language, but 1) they have not demonstrated that there is a problem, 2) they simply restate principles academics already hold, but 3) they turn those principles into opportunities for meddling legislators to police our campuses. It’s sponsored by Olson (R, 16B), Heidgerken (R, 13A), Drazkowksi (R, 28B), Erickson (R, 16A), and Emmer (R, 19B). I think you can see the common link in their party affiliation; these are conservatives who want a way to sneak their crude and stupid views into our universities. If they’re your representatives, blast them with email. If they’re not your representatives, write to the ones who are and tell them that this bill must die.
Pharyngula
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
These are all in the House right?
People should also contact the DFL leadership–particularly on the Higher Education Committee. Send it to the depths where it won’t even get a hearing.
Kill the fucker dead.
I hope they pass my proposed Bill, the RELIGIOUS FREEDOM AND FREE SPEECH BILL OF RIGHTS. Here’s a sample:
Tim Mahoney, DFL 67A is one that will give it a “fair” hearing. (Meaning give it all the attention it is worth.)
I volunteer as his treasurer for good reason.
It won’t make it out of the House.
* Students must be graded solely on the basis of reasoned answers and appropriate knowledge of the subjects and disciplines studied.
* Faculty are free to pursue and discuss their findings and perspectives in presenting views, but shall make students aware of the existence of serious scholarly viewpoints other than their own through classroom discussion or dissemination of written materials, and shall encourage civil debate and the critical analysis of ideas in the pursuit of knowledge and truth..
Ha, it looks like they’ve worded the bill a little too well – even if it came in you’d be under no obligation to acknowledge Creationism ;) Or is a serious scholarly viewpoint just one that’s made by someone with a doctorate and a beard?
Brownian: (g) Clergy are free to pursue and discuss their beliefs in presenting views, but shall make congregations aware of the existence of serious theological viewpoints other than their own through sermons or dissemination of written materials, and shall encourage civil debate and the critical analysis of ideas in the pursuit of knowledge and truth.
All those in favor say “aye”!
I always wondered about the sort of people who made such attacks on academic freedom;
You’d think that someone with an omnipotent god on their side wouldn’t needom.
No, PZ, your REAL birthday present is here:
Homeschooling Families Threatened by Court Ruling
Tens of thousands of parents could be subject to criminal sanctions after a California appeals court ruled parents do not have a constitutional right to homeschool their children.
[…]
The court ruled last week that minor children must attend a public school unless the child attends a private school or is taught by a teacher with a valid state teaching license. And religious convictions of families do not guarantee a right to homeschool their children.
Parents must have teaching credentials to educate their kids at home.
[…]
The ruling stems from a case involving Phillip and Mary Long, parents of eight children. One of the children reported “physical and emotional mistreatment by the children’s father.”
All of the children had been enrolled in Sunland Christian School, an institution that coordinates independent study programs for homeschooling families. They were educated by their mother at home and occasionally took tests at the school.
An attorney for Children and Family Services requested to a juvenile court that it require the children to physically attend a public or private school. The trial court refused, citing the parents’ right under the California Constitution to homeschool their children.
The children’s lawyer, however, appealed to the 2nd District Court of Appeal. Although the parents told the court that their religious beliefs for homeschooling “are based on biblical teachings and principles,” the appellate panel ruled that the family is violating state laws since Mary Long does not have a teaching credential.
“I have sincerely held religious beliefs,” said Phillip Long. “Public schools conflict with that. I have to go with what my conscience requires me.”
Long said he doesn’t believe in evolution, among other topics, that are taught at public schools.
Did any (or all) of the bill’s sponsors have any contact with the Discovery Institute prior to drafting this? This spate of similar legislation has DI wedge strategy written all over it, particularly evident in items (g) through (k) of this bill. The language seems to crack open the door for ID in the schools, and had similar legislation been in place in Iowa last year it might have saved Gonzales his tenure (I doubt it, but at least he would have better grounds for appeal).
Cuttlefish, you’re stretching a bit ;)
#8,
It’s more likely that this is a continuation of the nonsense started by David Horowitz; but let’s not pretend that there isn’t coordination among right-wing fuckwits. Horowitz has been pushing this “Academic Bill of Rights” legislation all over the place for a few years now. It’s received hearings, but, to the best of my knowledge, it hasn’t been enacted anywhere.
Michelle Bachman used to sponsor it in the MN Senate.
If this bill passes, we should start discussing evolution in church on Sundays. So everyone, everywhere, gets every single kind of information possible.
Don’t pray in my school, and I won’t think in your church.
What in the HELL is this supposed to mean?
“The institution and its professional societies shall maintain a posture of organizational neutrality with respect to methods, facts, and theories which have been
validated by proven research.”
You poor guys in Minnesota having to put up with all that. I’m sure glad I live here in Texas where…oh, never mind.
What in the HELL is this supposed to mean?
“The institution and its professional societies shall maintain a posture of organizational neutrality with respect to methods, facts, and theories which have been
validated by proven research.”
Oooh! Oooh! I know!
“Validated by proven research” means “We cobbled up a study and paid some hack journal to publish it and hope nobody notices that it never went through actual peer review done by actual scientists whose specialities lie in this area.”
No, no – “validated by proven research” means that established good theories won’t get endorsement officially. You can no longer say “evolution is the best theory” – you can only say it is “a” theory among many. This is, after all, an attempt to legislate academic correctness.
Pat: A-yep. Funny how the magic words “peer review” never show up in these bills, yanno?
Anybody can get something published in a pay-to-publish vanity rag. They’re much beloved by the anti-vax movement.
Not too surprising. Cuttlefish are naturally stretchy.
Pat & Phoenix: Thanks for the clarification. Here I was thinking “organizational neutrality” meant that they could only take a stand on things that weren’t validated by proven research.
Wait, that is what it says.
They’re doing that crap in Australia now. Personally, I think if you’re such a pansy that hearing an idea that challenges your dogma is so upsetting, you should just go live in a cave somewhere. You’re too fragile for modern civilization.
Looks like a bill proposed by Michele Bachmann back in 2005.
You guys over the pond have my deepest sympathies. Nobody in an educated democracy should have to spend any time dealing with crap like this.
I think it’s part of a last-gasp before most of the hard line religious right are swept from power, or at least have their majority or oversight status challenged. Last ditch effort to cram something in while the courts are stacked and daddy in the oval office is nodding approvingly.
Another little nugget of information on the Longs and their passion for home schooling. What would Mrs. Long’s qualifications be for “teaching”? She dropped out of school in the 11th grade.
Two years ago, I tried to get some interest in Minnesota for a bill similar to one inroduced by Therese Berceau in Wisconsin. It died in committee there, but the idea was that the science standards needed to conform to NAAS standards.
No takers here. Why is that?
A teaching credential doesn’t prevent fundamentalism. I just means they jumped through some hoops so they can get paid by the government for teaching YOUR kids as well as their own.
I’m sure my rep. Mary Liz Holberg is lurking in the background on this legislation, too. I’ll have to pay her a little visit!
Another little nugget of information on the Longs and their passion for home schooling. What would Mrs. Long’s qualifications be for “teaching”? She dropped out of school in the 11th grade.
And that, my friends, is the madly giggling psychedelic cherry on this bullshit sundae.
MN:
Looks like the intent is to make the universities safe for Jesus. Expect the nutters to attempt domination of everything owned or supported by the state. These people really mean to take power and this is an ominous move in that direction; but, we all knew–or should have known–that it was coming–it’s the way of power grabs by fanatical mass movements.
CA:
The ruling may seem ok now but it means the state domination of education–even in your own home. This reminds me of what Christopher Hitchens had to say in a Toronto speech about instituting hate speech laws. As I recall: “In potensia, you’re making a rod for your own back.” I’ll also borrow and rework a quote he gave from Robert Bolt’s play “A Man For All Seasons”: “where are you going to go when all the rights protecting your children’s education in your own home or private school are cut down?” If anyone thinks the nutters won’t eventually attempt to use this power now given to the state, they are, IMO, very naive.
I also will note that the exercise of rights may well have negative consequences. I will demand the right to read any damn thing I want, but, what if some screwball reads Nazi literature and decides to shoot someone. If you want to curtail speech, then, as Hitchens (in the same speech) eloquently asked: (approximately): “Who do you want deciding FOR YOU what YOU can read? Any nominations for the job.” So, who do you want controlling education in your home? Any nominations? Who do you want to wield the rod?
Soory, i’m late but better late than never, he. Happy Birthay Dr. Myers