I start teaching a course next week on misconceptions and controversies in science. One of the goals is to teach critical thinking skills. I think we'll start out by discussing the objectives of the recently passed law in Louisiana. It looks like a good description of what we should be trying to do in university and it has the added advantage that we can segue right into creationist lies, cynicism, and hypocrisy.
I ain't no lawyer but to me it looks like this is going to be a hard law to challenge in court. We all know its purpose—to promote religion—but its authors may have done a good job of phrasing it in a way that avoids a challenge.AN ACT
To enact R.S. 17:285.1, relative to curriculum and instruction; to provide relative to the teaching of scientific subjects in public elementary and secondary schools; to promote students' critical thinking skills and open discussion of scientific theories; to provide relative to support and guidance for teachers; to provide relative to textbooks and instructional materials; to provide for rules and regulations; to provide for effectiveness; and to provide for related matters.
Be it enacted by the Legislature of Louisiana:
Section 1 R.S. 17:285.1 is hereby enacted to read as follows:
285.1 Science education; development of critical thinking skills
A. This Section shall be known and may be cited as the "Louisiana Science Education Act."
B. (1) The State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, upon request of a city, parish, or other local public school board, shall allow and assist teachers, principals, and other school administrators to create and foster an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that promotes critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied including evolution, but not limited to evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning.
(2) Such assistance shall include support and guidance for teachers regarding effective ways to help students understand, analyze, critique, and objectively review scientific theories being studied, including those enumerated in Paragraph (1) of this Subsection.
C. A teacher shall teach the material presented in the standard textbook supplied by the school system and thereafter may use supplemental textbooks and other instructional materials to help students understand, analyse, critique and review scientific theories in an objective manner, as permitted by the city, parish, or other local public school board.
D. This Section shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine,promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion.
E. The State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education and each city, parish, or other local public school board shall adopt and promulgate the rules and regulations necessary to implement the provisions of this Section prior to the beginning of the 2008/2009 school year.
Any lawyers out there?
11 comments :
I doubt the law's purpose is to promote religion. I think the purpose is to pander to religious and anti-science voters, without actually doing anything concrete.
As for overturning it, I doubt it's worth the effort. It's more important to deal with individual districts and schools that permit teachers to use inappropriate material.
Of Pandas and People was unconstitutional in LA public schools before this law was passed, and it's still unconstitutional. If a district or teacher is inclined to use it anyway, overturning the law is unlikely to change their minds.
I'm actually kinda curious how they plan to sneak in ID without violating section D.
The only way I can see is the wording is a little tricky.
It seems like you can push material that doesn't promote a particular religion, but you could promote religion in general.
No idea how the US constitution would react to that.
There could also be a plan to make the law barely constitutional and leave the violations of the constitution up to the individual teachers. The law is vague enough that the teachers won't get in much trouble if they're caught pushing ID.
I hear and obey.
The law itself is probably not unconstitutional. While the motives of the legislators may be suspect, on its face, the law has a secular legislative purpose and does not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion. As I explained already, the law may actually cause difficulties for creationists. The constitutional problems will arise in the implementation of the law. The local school boards will still be liable if they approve creationist material for use in the curriculum but now the state board of education has the specific power to overrule the local boards and its failure to do so will also be a constitutional violation (though the state board is already trying to duck its duties under the law). In addition, since there is a requirement to teach the textbook materials before any supplemental materials are used, individual teachers would be subject to scrutiny for what they are teaching and the school board cannot let them just "fly under the radar" in light of the specific mandate in the law.
All in all, this legislation might best be filed under the Law of Unintended Consequences.
P.S. The law itself may be subject to challenge under the Endorsement Test, since everybody knew what its intent was but I'm not so sure we'll want to get rid of it.
What's the name of the course and when does it begin?
This Section shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine,promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion.
"It's not about religion, because we say it isn't" - sheesh
anonymous asks,
What's the name of the course and when does it begin?
HMB210H: Scientific Controversies and Misconceptions
Wednesday, Sept. 17, 2008
10-12am Sid Smith 1087
There are currently 58 students registered for the course.
IAAL [sigh].
Dr. Moran, your comment that this law looks like it would be a hard one to challenge has all the validity of me looking at a protein structure and saying it looks like it would be hard to figure out how it's synthesized.
Do you believe the courts are somehow foreclosed from inquiring into the intent of the legislature as revealed by hearing transcripts, bill sponsors' statements, etc.? Was it your understanding that no law ever struck down as an unconstitutional advancement of religion was facially neutral? If the answer to both these questions is in the negative, what makes you think this particular facially neutral law would be difficult to challenge?
While it wouldn't be impossible to challenge this law prior to implementation (I don't know how easy or difficult it would be, since I have not researched the legislative history), as a matter of legal strategy it would probably be better to wait and have the opportunity to challenge on the bases of both legislative intent and implementation.
jud says,
Dr. Moran, your comment that this law looks like it would be a hard one to challenge has all the validity of me looking at a protein structure and saying it looks like it would be hard to figure out how it's synthesized.
That's why I rely on the opinion of others who know what they're talking about. Many of the experts I've consulted think that the case against the Louisiana statute isn't going to be easy.
I even blogged about an expert who was worried that the Dover case may have been overturned by the Supreme Court [Edward Larson at Chautauqua].
Which one of the three prongs of the Lemon test have been violated, in your opinion?
Do you disagree with those who think the Supreme Court is waiting for a case like this in order to overthrow Lemon v. Kurtzman?
Larry,
From the data, Louisiana tests most of its graduates, and they rank near the bottom for overall and science scores. ("http://www.act.org/news/data/07/states.html")
It's unlikely that this legislation is going to improve the student's educational prospects. Note in the ACT scores that the entire Gulf Coast region lies at or near the bottom. Sadly, those students will be administered mega doses of religion along with empty assurances that it will fulfill their needs. The state-by-state ACT scores show an inverse correlation to state-by-state religiousness. It may not constitute sufficient data to say that religion causes poor academic performance, but it is enough to say that the presence of religion is not an aid to academic performance and its absence is not a hindrance.
Dr. Moran, pardon me for this late response to your last comment - I haven't had time to get back to this thread for the past few days.
Many of the experts I've consulted think that the case against the Louisiana statute isn't going to be easy.
* * *
Which one of the three prongs of the Lemon test have been violated, in your opinion?
I think the answer to both of the snippets quoted above is that opinions at this stage - prior to agency regulations, and implementation by local school boards, principals and teachers - are premature. It's somewhat analogous to biologists (or science writers?) giving opinions about an experiment before it's completed.
I also haven't spent time trying to research the legislative history, which is something I would want to (and anyone else worthy of the appellation "expert" should) do before giving an opinion. Continuing the biology experiment analogy, this might loosely parallel gaining knowledge of the planned experimental protocol - the "intent" of the experimenter - in order to be in a position to better evaluate its progress thus far and its eventual success or lack of same.
Do you disagree with those who think the Supreme Court is waiting for a case like this in order to overthrow Lemon v. Kurtzman?
Speaking generally, I live in trepidation of future opinions from the presently constituted Court on any number of fronts. Slightly more specifically, I agree that this Court is likely to be quite accommodating of religion if it gets an appropriate chance.
What makes an appropriate chance depends on any number of factors. For example, I would not have been tremendously concerned regarding Dover because the facts of the case were so one-sided. When the Court wants to change prior law, it looks for a set of facts that are helpful to accomplishing that purpose. Another factor that enters into the calculus is whether Congress might pass a law nullifying any changes the Court's ruling would otherwise bring about. (The Supreme Court ruled in 1973 that failing to provide insurance coverage based solely on the fact that the insured was pregnant did not constitute gender discrimination. In the wake of this utterly fantastic feat of legal legerdemain, Congress passed a law saying it damn well did constitute gender discrimination, instantly nullifying the result the conservative majority on the Court had labored so mightily to achieve.) The chances of such nullification, and thus the chances against great changes by the Court, are enhanced IMHO in the event of an Obama victory.
Post a Comment