Our Views: Litigation is on the way
 |
 |
| Advocate Columnists |
 |
Print
Email
Save
Share
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Reddit
When the House Education Committee takes up the latest Louisiana version of “education” policy today, we hope that members will reflect on the wisdom of Joe Savoie, the state’s commissioner of higher education.
True, the so-called “Science Education Act” applies to high schools, not to colleges. But Savoie has been nationally recognized for establishing and leading programs between colleges and high schools to promote science and mathematics education. He holds a Ph.D. in education from Columbia University. His views are worthy of respect.
We believe that the bill by Sen. Ben Nevers, D-Bogalusa, is intended to pressure schools to use Bible-based theories questioning the scientifically proven knowledge about the creation of life, among other subjects. This is religious proselytizing masquerading as education policy.
But should it pass and be signed into law by Gov. Bobby Jindal — the bill is heavily promoted by religious groups who backed Jindal — Savoie said that implications of the phrase “academic freedom” should be considered.
At a university, he noted, students are older and have the base of knowledge to deal with the process of testing theories and texts. The Socratic method of questioning must be protected by a strict sense of academic freedom. Otherwise, tough questions won’t be asked and students will be shortchanged.
In a middle school or high school, Savoie noted, the process must be different in some ways, because students are still acquiring the basic knowledge and the intellectual maturity to process what they are learning. That’s not to say that students don’t benefit from the Socratic method in high school classes, but that there must be more prescription of what should be learned, so that the basics are covered.
Savoie noted that academic freedom can allow some college professors a great deal of freedom, and sometimes it is abused. A professor can teach almost anything he wants, so long as he has some basis in research in his field to say it’s a plausible statement. At the extremes, colleges may be embarrassed by neo-Nazi teachers, or radical Islamists, or ranting anti-American leftists.
Savoie did not offer advice to the Legislature, but did say that caution should be exercised about any policy discussion that casually tosses around the phrase “academic freedom.” The circumstances of what the state should direct teachers to do are significantly different in high school from college.
We believe the vague language of the Nevers bill is intended to promote religion-based teaching in public schools. But after listening to Savoie’s observations, we can’t help but wonder if the Louisiana Family Forum and others are not unwittingly establishing in the public schools a legal obligation to allow other nontraditional theories and texts — ones that they, and we, might be appalled about.
After all, if a teacher can responsibly use the book of Genesis as a supplemental text for biology or geology, it might be discriminatory under the law for a board to limit teachers’ use of other materials on only grounds of political popularity.
What the Nevers bill cannot repeal is the concept of equal protection under the law. And if a teacher or school board starts to pick and choose among “supplemental” material, what if enterprising lawyers decide to litigate the cases of extremists, whether of left or right, whose texts are rejected?
Once upon a time, religious groups pushed a federal law intended to block schools from forbidding Christian student groups on campuses. The law mandates equal treatment. It has also protected gay student groups, much to the chagrin of the law’s promoters.
It’s one thing to provide a full-time living for dozens of lawyers in the American Civil Liberties Union. They will have a field day suing taxpayer-funded schools as groups use Nevers’ language to push Bible-based texts in the schools. That’s unconstitutional, and we can see the taxpayer paying — and paying, and paying — for this policy in the future. But there could be other ways that lawyers might profit from this ill-considered proposal, in ways that the promoters do not now imagine.
True, the so-called “Science Education Act” applies to high schools, not to colleges. But Savoie has been nationally recognized for establishing and leading programs between colleges and high schools to promote science and mathematics education. He holds a Ph.D. in education from Columbia University. His views are worthy of respect.
We believe that the bill by Sen. Ben Nevers, D-Bogalusa, is intended to pressure schools to use Bible-based theories questioning the scientifically proven knowledge about the creation of life, among other subjects. This is religious proselytizing masquerading as education policy.
But should it pass and be signed into law by Gov. Bobby Jindal — the bill is heavily promoted by religious groups who backed Jindal — Savoie said that implications of the phrase “academic freedom” should be considered.
At a university, he noted, students are older and have the base of knowledge to deal with the process of testing theories and texts. The Socratic method of questioning must be protected by a strict sense of academic freedom. Otherwise, tough questions won’t be asked and students will be shortchanged.
In a middle school or high school, Savoie noted, the process must be different in some ways, because students are still acquiring the basic knowledge and the intellectual maturity to process what they are learning. That’s not to say that students don’t benefit from the Socratic method in high school classes, but that there must be more prescription of what should be learned, so that the basics are covered.
Savoie noted that academic freedom can allow some college professors a great deal of freedom, and sometimes it is abused. A professor can teach almost anything he wants, so long as he has some basis in research in his field to say it’s a plausible statement. At the extremes, colleges may be embarrassed by neo-Nazi teachers, or radical Islamists, or ranting anti-American leftists.
Savoie did not offer advice to the Legislature, but did say that caution should be exercised about any policy discussion that casually tosses around the phrase “academic freedom.” The circumstances of what the state should direct teachers to do are significantly different in high school from college.
We believe the vague language of the Nevers bill is intended to promote religion-based teaching in public schools. But after listening to Savoie’s observations, we can’t help but wonder if the Louisiana Family Forum and others are not unwittingly establishing in the public schools a legal obligation to allow other nontraditional theories and texts — ones that they, and we, might be appalled about.
After all, if a teacher can responsibly use the book of Genesis as a supplemental text for biology or geology, it might be discriminatory under the law for a board to limit teachers’ use of other materials on only grounds of political popularity.
What the Nevers bill cannot repeal is the concept of equal protection under the law. And if a teacher or school board starts to pick and choose among “supplemental” material, what if enterprising lawyers decide to litigate the cases of extremists, whether of left or right, whose texts are rejected?
Once upon a time, religious groups pushed a federal law intended to block schools from forbidding Christian student groups on campuses. The law mandates equal treatment. It has also protected gay student groups, much to the chagrin of the law’s promoters.
It’s one thing to provide a full-time living for dozens of lawyers in the American Civil Liberties Union. They will have a field day suing taxpayer-funded schools as groups use Nevers’ language to push Bible-based texts in the schools. That’s unconstitutional, and we can see the taxpayer paying — and paying, and paying — for this policy in the future. But there could be other ways that lawyers might profit from this ill-considered proposal, in ways that the promoters do not now imagine.
 | ||||
| Most Popular | Most Emailed | Hot Topics | ||
