The war over public education
by KrauzeThere is a popular myth among ID critics. According to the myth, feuds over the teaching of evolution are caused by a rapidly growing movement of Christian fundamentalists who are attempting to have Genesis taught in science classes, with the ultimate goal of instituting a theocracy in the US.
In the real world, controversies over contents of public education arise on all sorts of issues. In Miami, for example, a book that gave a rosy description of life in Fidel Castro's Cuba, was removed from school libraries after Juan Amador Rodriguez, a former political prisoner in Cuba, complained about it. Legal experts call the ban an unconstitutional violation of free speech, and the discussion has set the community ablaze:
Board member Robert Ingram voted for the ban, but only to invite the ACLU's lawsuit so the issue could be resolved by the courts, he said. In an impassioned speech, he said threats from the exile community left him thinking board members "might find a bomb under their automobiles" if they voted to keep the book.
"There's a passion of hate," Ingram said. "I can't vote my conscience without feeling threatened — that should never happen in this community any more."
Violation of free speech and a board member who is afraid to be the victim of a car bomb if he goes against public opinion! If this case involved intelligent design, it would be all over the blogosphere, but instead, you have to go to a newspaper called "The Miami Herald" to read about it.
And for those worried about creationist attempts to fill school materials with junk, here's another story:
Are you salting away a little money for your retirement? Trying to plan for your kids' education? If so, Seattle Public Schools seems to think you're a racist.
According to the district's official Web site, "having a future time orientation" (academese for having long-term goals) is among the "aspects of society that overtly and covertly attribute value and normality to white people and Whiteness, and devalue, stereotype and label people of color."
These are the kind of conflicts that arise when you have a single system to which everyone is compelled to pay: Endless bickering as everyone try to make sure that their values get taught. For those who support such a system, it will be tempting to go looking for scapegoats. And although creationists must bear their part of the blame for politicking in the education process, they aren't very novel: They're just playing the same games as so many others before them have done.
June 23rd, 2006 at 7:26 am
So attacks on public education by creationists are OK because other people are doing it as well?
And Kitzmiller v Dover was not a myth (unless you happen to be an ID supporter, all of whom are apparently busy pretending it didn't actually happen).
And also not in the myth category were McLean v Arkansas, Edwards v Aguilard, Segraves v California, Peloza v New Capistrano School District, Freiler v Tangipahoa Board of Ed and Selman v Cobb County School District.
Comment by Odd Digit — June 23, 2006 @ 7:26 am
June 23rd, 2006 at 8:34 am
Hi Odd Digit,
Where in my post do I claim that "attacks on public education by creationists are OK", or that various court cases were myths?
Comment by Krauze — June 23, 2006 @ 8:34 am
June 23rd, 2006 at 3:19 pm
If I understand William Dembski's tactics, he hopes getting people like Ann Coulter on his side will mobilize the religious and political right, to eventually get ID taught in public schools. Whether or not this is part of or will lead to a theocracy is another question. But I find the whole thing rather alarming. If I didn't think there was a case for ID, I would oppose it just because of the kind of people (Coulter) who are writing in support of it. With friends like her, who needs enemies?
Comment by Bilbo — June 23, 2006 @ 3:19 pm
June 23rd, 2006 at 3:37 pm
Without friends like Ann Coulter, the issue of getting IDism taught in public schools wouldn't have friends.
Comment by Aagcobb — June 23, 2006 @ 3:37 pm
June 23rd, 2006 at 4:21 pm
??? What in the world could Anthrax Annie have to say about science (any variety) that could possibly carry any weight with any human being (no, that's not a reference to anorexia), and why would any human being WANT her on their 'side' of any question whatsoever? Good greeblies!
Comment by Joy — June 23, 2006 @ 4:21 pm
June 23rd, 2006 at 4:33 pm
…clown…scares me…:shock:
Comment by chunkdz — June 23, 2006 @ 4:33 pm
June 23rd, 2006 at 4:47 pm
can't sleep,clowns will eat me..
Comment by Guts — June 23, 2006 @ 4:47 pm
June 24th, 2006 at 9:55 am
Let's not pretend that what Coulter is doing is unique to her. Last year, if you recall, the New York Open Center arranged the conference "Examining the Real Agenda of the Far Religious Right", in which an associate professor of comparative studies equated the zeal of the "Christian Right" with that of "suicide bombers." It's also worthwhile to note that, whereas Coulter's controversial statements have gotten her fired from every writing job she's ever held (all at conservative media outlets), this associate professor sits safely ensconced in academia.
Comment by Krauze — June 24, 2006 @ 9:55 am
June 24th, 2006 at 10:58 am
This quotation is from an article by a conservative Christian. Even if we assume that it is completely accurate, note that the professor only compared the "zeal" of the two groups. He did not say members of the Christian Right were suicide bombers. Now why is a suicide bomber a suicide bomber? Because he has no other effective way of eliminating his opposition and making a point. When abortion clinics were bombed, or doctors were targeted for assasination, much the same motive was behind it. Now that the Christian Right has one of their own in the White House, they have other means of eliminating their opposition.
Meanwhile, although it's clear to every conservative media outlet that Coulter is more of an embarrassment than an asset, Dembski continues to think otherwise. Though it doesn't make me want to be a suicide bomber, I wouldn't mind slapping him on the side of the head once or twice, and shouting, "Wake up, idiot!"
Comment by Bilbo — June 24, 2006 @ 10:58 am
June 24th, 2006 at 1:25 pm
Hi Bilbo,
"This quotation is from an article by a conservative Christian. Even if we assume that it is completely accurate,"
From the conference schedule, we learn that included were talks with such titles as: "The Real Hidden Religious Agenda: The Theocratic States of America", "Is an Unholy American Theocracy Here?", "On the Psychology and Theocracy of George W. Bush", and "Christian Jihad". I see no reason to doubt the accuracy of that quotation.
"note that the professor only compared the "zeal" of the two groups. He did not say members of the Christian Right were suicide bombers."
In the same vein, Coulter only said that the Jersey widows enjoyed their husbands deaths, not that they themselves flew the planes into the building. IOW, this is a meaningless distinction.
"When abortion clinics were bombed, or doctors were targeted for assasination, much the same motive was behind it."
Had the professor compared suicide bombers to abortion clinic bombers, I would have agreed. But the comparison was made between suicide bombers and the Christian Right. Unless you're be arguing that the Religious Right at large can be considered to be potential abortion clinic bombers, I think you're missing the point.
"Meanwhile, although it's clear to every conservative media outlet that Coulter is more of an embarrassment than an asset, Dembski continues to think otherwise. Though it doesn't make me want to be a suicide bomber, I wouldn't mind slapping him on the side of the head once or twice, and shouting, "Wake up, idiot!""
I think it's obvious that Dembski too likes controversy for the sake of controversy - making DaveScott "blog tzar" sure was a… erhm, "controversial" decision. The difference between him and Coulter is that she makes more money doing it.
Comment by Krauze — June 24, 2006 @ 1:25 pm
June 26th, 2006 at 2:40 pm
Hi Krauze,
I'm inclined to think that vouchers aren't a bad idea; I'm not sure, however, that it would end creationists' attempts to insert pseudoscience into the public schools, unless public schools were abolished entirely. And thats not a position that I think will win a majority of voters.
Comment by Aagcobb — June 26, 2006 @ 2:40 pm
June 27th, 2006 at 6:21 am
Hi Aagcobb,
"I'm inclined to think that vouchers aren't a bad idea; I'm not sure, however, that it would end creationists' attempts to insert pseudoscience into the public schools, unless public schools were abolished entirely."
Well, if most Christian are truly theocracy fans, wanting to subvert the culture through the education system, then no, vouchers won't do much to make the war go away (although it would make sure that fewer students are affected by it). But here's a different possibility: Christian parents have no more aspirations about cultural renewal than the average parent. They just want their kids to be prepared for whatever life throws at them, and are trying to instill their own values in them (you know, upbringing). With schools taking a hand in upbringing, telling students what to think about racism and homosexuality, many parents understandably want to have an influence on what is taught. Not because they want to control what other people's children are taught, but simply because they don't want others controling what their children are taught. Making it easier for these parents to send their children to a private school with values more to their liking will probably remove a lot of the incentive to influence the local public school.
Comment by Krauze — June 27, 2006 @ 6:21 am
June 27th, 2006 at 8:54 am
Hi Krauze,
But its not really about most christians; the problems are often created by people who are homeschooling their own kids but run with a hidden agenda to get elected to the school board in order to save everyone else's kids. When their agenda is revealed, the majority often vote them out of office, as occurred in Kansas and most recently in Dover.
Comment by Aagcobb — June 27, 2006 @ 8:54 am