Examples are from Oklahoma, Tennessee, Ohio
OKLAHOMA
OKLAHOMA ANTISCIENCE BILL PASSES THE HOUSE
Oklahoma's House Bill 1551 -- one of two bills attacking the teaching of evolution and of climate change active in the Oklahoma legislature during 2012 -- passed the House of Representatives on a 56-12 vote on March 15, 2012. If enacted, HB 1551 would encourage teachers to present the "scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses" of "controversial" topics such as "biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning." The bill was originally introduced in 2011 by Sally Kern (R-District 84), a persistent sponsor of antievolution legislation in the Sooner State; although it was rejected by the House Common Education Committee in 2011, it resurfaced in 2012 under the sponsorship of Gus Blackwell (R-District 61), and a slightly amended version was passed by the committee in February 2012.
In its current incarnation, HB 1551 differs only slightly from Oklahoma's Senate Bill 320 from 2009, which a member of the Senate Education Committee described to the Tulsa World (February 17, 2009) as one of the worst bills that he had ever seen. Explaining his opposition to such bills in the Oklahoman (March 16, 2012), Douglas W.
Mock, the George Lynn Cross Research Professor in the University of Oklahoma's Department of Zoology, wrote, "Wrapped in the deceptive language of promoting critical thinking, they aim to get the nose of a malodorous camel (pseudoscience) inside the tent of science. This camel has tried before, many times, and been rebuffed -- for good reason." He added, "The low scientific literacy of our citizens is a serious concern that's not helped by adding fake controversies."
For information about Oklahoma's House Bill 1551, visit:
http://www.oklegislature.gov/BillInfo.aspx?Bill=hb1551
For the story in the Tulsa World, visit:
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article. ... LAHO853574
For Douglas W. Mock's op-ed in the Oklahoman, visit:
http://newsok.com/two-bills-in-oklahoma ... le/3657912
TENNESSEE
"MONKEY BILL" ENACTED IN TENNESSEE
Governor Bill Haslam allowed Tennessee's House Bill 368 to become law without his signature on April 10, 2012, according to the Memphis Commercial Appeal (April 10, 2012). The law encourages teachers to present the "scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses" of topics that arouse "debate and disputation" such as "biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning."
In a statement, Haslam explained, “I have reviewed the final language of HB 368/SB 893 and assessed the legislation's impact. I have also evaluated the concerns that have been raised by the bill. I do not believe that this legislation changes the scientific standards that are taught in our schools or the curriculum that is used by our teachers. However, I also don't believe that it accomplishes anything that isn't already acceptable in our schools. The bill received strong bipartisan support, passing the House and Senate by a three-to-one margin, but good legislation should bring clarity and not confusion.
My concern is that this bill has not met this objective. For that reason, I will not sign the bill but will allow it to become law without my signature.”
"This is the first bill in Haslam's nearly 15 months in office that he has allowed to become law without his signature," the Commercial Appeal noted, adding, "Although the governor didn't say so, a veto would likely not have killed the bill" because the legislature can override a gubernatorial veto by a majority vote in both chambers.
NCSE's executive director Eugenie C. Scott expressed disappointment, warning, "Telling students that evolution and climate change are scientifically controversial is miseducating them. Good science teachers know that. But the Tennessee legislature has now made it significantly harder to ensure that science is taught responsibly in the state's public schools." Citing a recent article in Inside Vandy (April 8, 2012) reporting disagreement among the bill's sponsors about whether "intelligent design" creationism was covered, she argued, "if the people who are responsible for passing the law can't agree on what it covers, they shouldn't be saddling teachers and school districts with the task of figuring out what it means."
Probably contributing to Haslam's unwillingness to sign the bill were the protests from state and national civil liberties, educational, and scientific groups, the editorials against the bill from the state's major newspapers, and the petition effort organized by Larisa DeSantis of Vanderbilt University, which garnered thousands of signatures calling for a veto of HB 368.
For the story in the Memphis Commercial Appeal, visit:
http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/20 ... ppeningnow
For the story in Inside Vandy, visit:
http://www.insidevandy.com/opinion/arti ... f6878.html
OHIO (a failure on their part, so far....)
FRESHWATER APPEALS AGAIN
John Freshwater, the middle school science teacher in Mount Vernon, Ohio, who was fired over his inappropriate religious activity in the classroom -- including teaching creationism -- is now taking his case to the Ohio Supreme Court. In 2008, a local family accused Freshwater of engaging in inappropriate religious activity and sued Freshwater and the district. The Mount Vernon City School Board then voted to begin proceedings to terminate his employment. After thorough administrative hearings that proceeded over two years and involved more than eighty witnesses, the referee presiding over the hearings issued his recommendation that the board terminate Freshwater's employment with the district, and the board voted to do so in January 2011. (The lawsuit against Freshwater was settled in the meantime.)
Freshwater challenged his termination in the Knox County Court of Common Pleas in February 2011, but the court found "there is clear and convincing evidence to support the Board of Education's termination of Freshwater's contract(s) for good and just cause." Freshwater then appealed the decision to Ohio's Fifth District Court of Appeals in December 2011. NCSE filed a friend-of-the-court brief with the appellate court, arguing that Freshwater's materials and methods concerning evolution "have no basis in science and serve no pedagogical purpose." (NCSE's amicus curiae brief was prepared pro bono by attorneys from Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP and Calfee, Halter & Griswold LLP.) In March 2012, the Fifth District Court of Appeals upheld the lower court's rejection of Freshwater's challenge.
With respect to his teaching of creationism, Freshwater's latest brief alleges, "Freshwater sought to encourage his students to differentiate between facts and theories, and to identify and discuss instances where textbook statements were subject to intellectual and scientific debate," argues, "[t]he fact that one competing theory on the formation of the universe and the beginning of life is consistent with the teachings of multiple major world religions simply does not justify interference with students' and teachers' academic freedom,"
and accuses the board's action of manifesting "a clear and distinct hostility toward the major world religions whose teachings are consistent with the alternative theories discussed in Freshwater's classes ... [which] runs directly afoul of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause."
For NCSE's collection of documents from the case, visit:
http://ncse.com/creationism/legal/fresh ... on-hearing
