Ed Brayton is a freelance writer and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
AP reports:
The Texas State Board of Education gave final approval Friday to establishing Bible classes in public high schools, rejecting calls to draw specific teaching guidelines and warnings that it could lead to constitutional problems in the classroom.The Legislature passed a law in 2007 allowing Bible courses to be offered as an elective. They are supposed to focus on the history and literature of the Bible without preaching or disparaging any faith.
The problem is that they didn't provide the kind of specific guidelines for these classes the way they do virtually every other class. As the Daily Texan reported:
The guidelines require that the course maintains religious neutrality and does not endorse or disfavor any religion.Educational, political and legal figures have criticized the guidelines as too general and devoid of content and testified before the committee on Thursday to develop more specific course requirements.
Hochberg said he was under the impression that the board would carry out the regular and obligatory process of creating specific guidelines as it does with other courses.
"I'm sure you're familiar that the TEKS that you picked up and placed essentially under a header, [which] said this is a course about biblical literature ... are TEKS that could just as easily be used for a course about anything in social studies," Hochberg said. "You could have it as a course on the history of 'American Idol'; you could have it as a course on the history of the medieval times."
Terri Leo, who chairs the committee, said the committee did not need to create more specific standards, such as those for a mandatory course, since the Bible courses will be taught as electives. Leo and committee member Cynthia Nolan Dunbar said creating more specific standards would put the board on a "slippery slope."
Some committee members implied that if they specify too many course guidelines, it would open the door to lawsuits.
But that is entirely backwards. Lawsuits are far more likely in the absence of such specific standards on what can and cannot be taught. Local school boards are going to approve a wide range of Bible courses, some of which will be practically begging for lawsuits. One thing I found out while I was in Texas (and I will soon have the documentation of this) is that at least one school in Texas has a Bible course that teaches Hamitic racism. That's the old claim that Ham was cursed by Noah and all black people are descended from Ham and are therefore intended by God to be slaves.
The state board is leading local school boards into a Dover trap. Lawsuits are inevitable.
Politics
Comments
too...much....stupid....head...the pain!!
The sad thing is that the school board is leaving the schools to their own devices but the worst that can happen is that they will not be re-elected next term, there is no solid method of recourse against these reckless and incredibly stupid actions. Dammit do I hate religious stupidity.
Posted by: stevogvsu | July 22, 2008 9:29 AM
I had to get home to my new puppy after my AP Bio Seminar, so I couldn't attend the meeting, but I would have liked to. Did anyone record it (video or audio)?
We did talk about this new law, the "teach the controversy" bs, and the meeting. It was refreshing to see most of the teachers interested, even if their lack of knowledge on these topics, something that will affect the worldview and their ability to teach) was a little unsettling.
Posted by: Badger3k | July 22, 2008 9:35 AM
I live in Dallas, and I am utterly appalled at what my state is doing, but I can't say I'm the least bit surprised; the forces of fundyism have gotten absurdly powerful and foolishly bold over the last few decades. I'm so glad I'm not a kid in public school nowadays -- what a minefield of pious fraud our educational system is becoming!
~David D.G.
Posted by: David D.G. | July 22, 2008 10:08 AM
I keep fearing how much of this will spill over here into Oklahoma. We barely dodged the bullet on the bogus "academic freedom" creationist bill, and we've got several politicians whose stupidity could hold its own in the ring against Texas stupidity who have been agitating for this kind of bullshit for a while.
As for Hamitic racism, I can remember hearing that kind of bullshit growing up. These kinds of ideas don't fully die. They just go underground, and then burble up to the surface every now and then.
Posted by: Wes | July 22, 2008 10:20 AM
Wow, what a wonderful plan they have here. The school board avoids lawsuits against them and the state by leaving it to the schools to completely design the course. If they set guidelines, and someone objected to them, the suit would have them as the defendant, but by being this vague, they leave it up to the schools to make the mistakes, and the towns to eat the cost of the lawsuits. Good to see state officials living up to the responsibilities of their office by passing the buck so blatantly.
I'm sure they're also thinking that by doing it this way, those small homogeneous communities spread all over the state (most of which are already producing sub-par students anyway) will be allowed to teach the subject directly as a course in religious instruction, without fear of someone calling for administrative action on it.
David D.G.: I'm right there with you. Of course, administrative hypocrisy has never been in short supply in Texas schools.
Posted by: Julian | July 22, 2008 10:51 AM
I'm with Julian. Specifying guidelines would probably make it less likely for lawsuits in general, but this way the board can plausibly argue that they're not responsible when the local boards put together an unconstitutional class.
Posted by: mcmillan | July 22, 2008 11:18 AM
I think I've finally found the answer
All bible classes must be taught by lifelong atheists
That way there's zero chance of anything non-secular being taught
Problem solved
Posted by: Bickle | July 22, 2008 12:16 PM
This does seem like a way for the state to disclaim everything and lay the cost on the local school boards when the lawsuits come, particularly when they come from religious groups who feel marginalized.
Posted by: Skepoet | July 22, 2008 12:20 PM
Terri Leo, who chairs the committee, said the committee did not need to create more specific standards, such as those for a mandatory course, since the Bible courses will be taught as electives.
Oh, that must be "no transitional species" and "theories presented as facts" Terri Leo. Yeah, I'm sure she doesn't want to evangelise anybody or anything like that.
Posted by: 386sx | July 22, 2008 12:52 PM
Posted by: James Hanley | July 22, 2008 1:00 PM
yes, other elective courses are given standards to follow. courses such as rotc, dance, aerobics, and "fruit, nut and vegetable production" (wtf takes that as an elective in school?) are given specific guidelines that need to be followed, even though there's no testing by the state in those subjects.
the legislature passed the buck on this to the board of education. the board of education is passing the buck to the local school districts. local school districts will bear the brunt of any lawsuits that occur; however, there will be districts in which there is no lawsuit and the right will consider those a victory. ~somewhere~ at least, students will be receiving the word of god and, by golly, that's what school's all about... ... ...
Posted by: arin | July 22, 2008 2:01 PM
"Leo and committee member Cynthia Nolan Dunbar said creating more specific standards would put the board on a "slippery slope."
Some committee members implied that if they specify too many course guidelines, it would open the door to lawsuits."
Could be that I read this page too often, but the above quoted material really sounds to me like they *know* that someone somewhere is going to be interpreting this incorrectly and they want to give that person a little cover (by not providing clear guidance) while maintaining deniability if/when a lawsuit is brought (and consider, there's always the possibility that it will take years to bring a lawsuit as the people taking the class might not be the kind to object to sectarian views being taught, which leaves years of kids being ill-informed and raised with the RR's sectarian ideals being taught as truth).
Posted by: kodiak | July 22, 2008 3:38 PM
Does anyone know if Texas requires teachers to be qualified to particular subjects? If so, what qualifications are required for a teacher to teach the Bible? Will it depend on whether the course is "The Bible as History" or "The Bible as Literature"? Will teachers be required to have taken courses in subjects such as History of the Ancient Near East and Comparative Religion?
Posted by: Bill Poser | July 22, 2008 4:26 PM
Is it impossible to sue the board for negligence?
Posted by: twincats | July 22, 2008 5:33 PM
Twincats: In Texas? This is the state, after all, that gave us No Child Left (With an Education) Behind (Him).
Posted by: MMOToole | July 22, 2008 8:00 PM
Bill Poser: Unfortunately, no, schools don't require actual knowledge of your subject to teach it in Texas(at least, not when I was in school). In fact, up until 2 years ago, schools couldn't even hire you unless you had a teaching certificate-teaching degree (which is hilarious because the certificate course is a complete walk which most people could pass without even going to half the classes). In fact, schools do little personnel checking at all in Texas. I live in Bryan, a centrally located small metropolitan area which prides itself on high college acceptance rates and a successful education system made possible by its ability to easily recruit/replace teaching staff, and my 8th grade algebra teacher was certifiably insane (I mean that literally; she was institutionalized after the admins finally looked into parent complains about her class, near the end of the school year :/). I hate to imagine what the thousands of little hamlets, who don't really have much choice when it comes to teacher hiring, must face.
That isn't to say that there aren't good, knowledgeable teachers in Texas, there are and they do a bang up job (though my opinion of school administrators is less rosy), but we also have 3 of the largest and fastest growing metropolitan areas in the U.S.(Houston, Dallas and San Antonio), two medium-sized, fast growing metropolitan areas (Austin, El Paso-Juarez), and an endless rural hinterland. Add to those very large possible cracks invasive, ideological politicians of both the local and state variety, and you have a significant educational challenge to meet. That's why this infuriates me so much, most school districts are not going to have the resources to handle the court cases on this that they will face if they establish such courses.
Posted by: Julian | July 22, 2008 11:52 PM
Could this be how the Right is going to do away with public education in Texas? Financially ruin public schools one school at a time?
Posted by: Gene Goldring | July 23, 2008 3:10 AM
I'm seeing this just like the Louisiana science standards. If the state set the curriculum, the state will get sued.
So instead, they leave it up to the localities, along with the very same disclaimer, "this is not meant to support religious indoctrination", and then let the locals fend for themselves with money they don't have.
The nearest I can think is that it's letting some hang so others can live - the resources of the ACLU and other groups might handle one Dover, but would have trouble managing 15-20 Dovers all showing up, and all different, at once. So the counties could get picked off one by one, but in the meantime they get points for making the ACLU continue to seem "anti-religion" and the counties that don't get sued continue their indoctrination.
Sick way to look at it, but its the only one that makes sense.
Posted by: Joe Shelby | July 23, 2008 7:40 AM