Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
A school district in Iowa is wading into troubled legal waters on religious issues by issuing an ill-advised "religious liberties" policy that includes teaching a course against evolution. You can view the proposed policy as a Word document here. Most of it is pretty mundane stuff that is already required legally, like declaring that the school "will not discriminate against private religious expression" and will "allow for student and employee religious expression within the law."
Even the provisions for graduation ceremonies isn't particularly bothersome to me. The policy first says:
Content of speeches by private individuals will not regulated on religious content.
And that's okay by me, as long as they don't select someone to speak specifically because they will speak about religion. But if it's a valedictory speech or a speech by the student body president and the school makes clear that the content of the speech is up to them and not subject to school approval, I have no problem with allowing them to speak about their religious views if they'd like.
The second provision for graduation is more problematic:
School will permit the graduating class to choose whether to have an invocation and or benediction to be given by student volunteer in a non-proselytizing and nonsectarian manner.
But that might well pass constitutional muster as long as the prayer is sufficiently generic. The real problem comes when they get to proposing specific classes to be taught at the school. The first one:
2. Electives to be offered at Spencer High School:a. The Bible in History and Literature
That is the name of the curriculum offered by the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools, which is a blatantly unconstitutional curriculum. It is about as far from being a scholarly and objective text as you can find. It's little more than a hastily thrown together collection of religious right myths and lies, including invented quotes from the founding fathers and some egregiously idiotic claims about science.
The second is even worse:
b. Critic of Darwinism, a scientific approach. (provide a balanced review of evidence for and against the theory of evolution, using texts which include "Darwin's Black Box" by M. Behe)
Say hello to the ACLU and a major lawsuit, folks. And you're gonna lose.
Politics
Comments
b. for science credit?
Posted by: rpsms | July 10, 2009 9:50 AM
Why don't they just call b. "Lying about science for Jesus" and be honest about it? Oh yeah, because then they would be sued from all directions.
Posted by: chris | July 10, 2009 10:16 AM
That they come right out and refer to "Darwinism," in the title of the bloody course, shows just how clueless these people are. Yeah, the word "Darwinism" isn't going to be a giant neon sign to anyone paying attention to the educational travisty that is the anti-evolution movement.
Yep. Very tactical there, Spencer High. Nicely done.
Posted by: Josh | July 10, 2009 10:26 AM
Chris,
They are gonna get sued regardless of what they call it.
Ooh, ooh, where's the popcorn?
Posted by: MikeMa | July 10, 2009 10:30 AM
Wow, if you read some of the comments by the co-sponsor, this isn't going to go well...
- School officials in Odessa, Texas, agreed to eliminate an elective Bible class as part of a 2008 lawsuit settlement with the ACLU, which said the curriculum reflected a conservative Protestant bias.
The same Bible curriculum has been used legally by nearly 500 school districts in 38 states, according to the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools, which wrote it.
I wonder where they get the "legally used" claim, what have the courts ruled on the curriculum and at what level?
6. Employee Expression of Personal Religious Beliefs
a. Official neutrality – Teachers will maintain an officially neutral positions
on religious issues while performing official duties.
b. Answering questions from students about faith. Teachers may choose to answer questions from students about personal faith issues.
How the hell can they do both?
1. Curriculum areas that overlap religious faith shall demonstrate respect for affected religious convictions.
So, according to this, does evolution in biology class "overlap religious faith?" If so, do the science classes have to "respect" religious convictions that the earth was poofed into existence 6000 years ago?
Posted by: dogmeatIB | July 10, 2009 10:37 AM
Of course- with the addition of electives like that, how hard would it be to ensure that the Valedictorian *will* want to discuss his (or her) personal religious beliefs? Especially if it's the same science teacher for both AP Biology and (2b).
If the selection for who is going to speak is such that you guarantee they are going to talk specifically about their christianity, I would argue that you are no longer viewpoint neutral, as you point out: "as long as they don't select someone to speak specifically because they will speak about religion", but as the school chooses the valedictorian, might they be choosing the valedictorian, not on their scholoarship, but on their religious views? And that could be a very difficult thing to prove...
ex animo-
Jo
Posted by: Jo | July 10, 2009 11:19 AM
dogmeatIB:
My guess would be that, in a discussion that wasn't on class time, i.e., they weren't "performing official duties," but talking to a smaller group of students as mentors or friends, they would be allowed to talk about their personal faith issues. Any other context would be troublesome, of course.
Posted by: Shawn Smith | July 10, 2009 11:25 AM
"Critic of Darwinism" -- do you think they mean "Critique"?
Maybe they should just teach writing? And maybe the ninnies who wrote this policy should be forced to sit in on the class?
Posted by: xebecs | July 10, 2009 11:32 AM
Anyone guessing this school district is in Iowa'a fundiebelt in its northwest corner, and helped send Crazy Steven King to Congress, would not be going out on a limb.
Posted by: Foggg | July 10, 2009 11:33 AM
My guess would be that, in a discussion that wasn't on class time, i.e., they weren't "performing official duties," but talking to a smaller group of students as mentors or friends, they would be allowed to talk about their personal faith issues. Any other context would be troublesome, of course.
Except any time I am on campus and in contact with students it is considered part of my "official duties." Personally, even when off campus, I am very conscious of my role as an educator when I happen to run into students, etc.
IMO what this is going to do is create an opening for religious teachers to go ahead and "share" with their students their faith while, for the most part, agnostic and atheist teachers will likely not do so. This will be especially true given that the area is a rather conservative one.
It creates an uneven, at best questionable, forum that really shouldn't exist. As a teacher, a representative of the state, my position on my own personal beliefs should be, "none of your damn business."
Posted by: dogmeatIB | July 10, 2009 12:08 PM
Yes, this is Steve King's district. It is also my original hometown. I find it all depressing to see this. It's easy to see why none of my father's 10 siblings or any of their families still live there.
Posted by: wesuilmo | July 10, 2009 12:09 PM
The comments on the thread for that article are mind numbing, look at this little gem:
Since you understand Evolution more than anyone, can you explain why some animals decided to evolve while others didn't?
It was the mental equivalent of having my wind knocked out reading that one...
Posted by: dogmeatIB | July 10, 2009 12:11 PM
That could very well happen, but if past experience is any guide, people who try to push religion into public schools tend strongly to carry around a whopping mound of self-righteousness. Given a chance most of them will crow from the rooftops about how they're fighting the ACLU in Jesus' name.
Posted by: DaveL | July 10, 2009 12:39 PM
I don't really see how course b has anything to do with protecting religion anyway. Many denominations of Christians and other religions accept evolution by natural selection. Creationism and evolution denial have nothing to do with religion, but some people try to hide behind their religion as an excuse for pushing pseudo-science.
Posted by: catgirl | July 10, 2009 12:58 PM
Slightly off-topic. While I've accepted and studied evolution for years (I'm a layman), I've never read a book that comprehensively argues for the validity of the theory within the framework of creationist arguments or the books I read were ones I enjoyed but I felt were over the head of scientific illiterates. I admit I have not read Ken Miller's books on this topic, mainly because I've found his speeches somewhat weasly though still enjoyable, and not as devastating in their arguments relative to evidence at hand.
I am currently reading Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution is True. I'm about 2/3 of the way through, so far so great. Coyne does hold back in many areas, but also pounds many points home with more vigor than I've seen out of Miller.
I do think Coyne's a tad above the average fundie minister's head in some parts, but most is comprehensible. If he nails the findings we now understand through both evo devo and molecular biology, I'm very tempted to buy Coyne's book in bulk and distribute to my town's conservative ministers; I live in a small town so a bulk purchase won't be an enormous investment, hundreds of dollars, not thousands to disteribute several books per church.
Input on Coyne's effort relative to other authors efforts is most appreciated.
I post here regularly under my own name but if I do this, want it to be an anonymous exercise. I posted my named email so Ed will know who I am.
Posted by: Helpful but devious | July 10, 2009 12:58 PM
dogmeatIB:
Yeah, I see and agree with your points. I was just remembering back to my own high school days and how I would hang out in the classroom of my Bio II teacher with him and a few other students and we would all shoot the breeze before school started. Only rarely did the topics cover actual Biology class work, so that was the kind of circumstance I was thinking of. Then again, I don't remember religion (or lack thereof) coming up either, so it sounds like my memories aren't good examples.
Posted by: Shawn Smith | July 10, 2009 1:33 PM
If 6b is done outside of official class time, I think it is possible to do both. I do not think there is any problem with a student approaching a teacher after class and initiating a conversation about faith issues.
Of course, I don't think that's what they meant... but it is vague enough that they could probably make a case that's what they meant.
Posted by: James Sweet | July 10, 2009 1:36 PM
@Helpful but Devious: I applaud your effort! I have not read Coyne's book so I can't really comment directly on your question... but I was going to point out that you might consider waiting until Dawkins' new book comes out, "The Greatest Show on Earth", which as I understand it is intended to be exactly what you describe in the opening words to your post. Who knows to what extent it will accomplish that... but yeah, that's his exact intent, is to lay out the case for evolution simply and comprehensively in a way that anybody can understand, making sure to address all of the common objections.
Posted by: James Sweet | July 10, 2009 1:39 PM
Shawn and James,
I have conversations with students all the time, and I agree that there can be situations where such conversations can touch upon matters entirely outside of academic pursuits. The vast majority of those conversations lean towards sports, because of my content area I also get a lot of questions or comments about politics and government.
Also because of my content area I have had students come to me to talk about evolution and we discuss the evidence for evolution and asked me to respond to (refute) "evidence" against evolution. One of those students later brought me a book that he had to complete for his church, he had problems with it and wanted me to, really, go through and debunk it. I looked at it, unbelievable crap, it read like a Poe, in the end I told the student that it would be entirely inappropriate for me to evaluate the book for its veracity of claims, content, viability of argument, etc. I did tell him that his comments in the book already suggested that he had his own opinions regarding the information and that he needed to sit down and figure out what they were without me or anyone else telling him what to think.
Unfortunately, as James pointed out, such a conversation is not the intended result of 6b.
Posted by: dogmeatIB | July 10, 2009 1:50 PM
Between living in Iowa City and the Iowa State Supreme Court setting Iowa apart as progress from the rest of Middle America, sometimes I forget about eastern Iowa's evil twin.
Posted by: Joe B | July 10, 2009 1:57 PM
Posted by: FishyFred | July 10, 2009 2:41 PM
I am an Iowan and I am appalled by this story. I was raised by fundamentalist parents and if not for the public school science classes my head would be filled with the creationist science nonsense my father spouted every day at home as "the real truth" instead of the "lies made up by scientists trying to prove the bible wrong" that was taught in school. Religion has no place in the public schools, this sounds like a way to teach creationisim and Christian nation propaganda to me.
Posted by: Tony L. | July 10, 2009 2:48 PM
A small point -- courses titled "The Bible in History and Literature" were offered long before the NCBC's "canned" curriculum by that name existed. When designed by independent, fair-minded teachers without a religous "agenda" such a course can be quite sound academically.
Posted by: chrissl | July 10, 2009 2:56 PM
Content of speeches by private individuals will not regulated on religious content.
That will change with the first Hindu or Wiccan valedictorian.
Posted by: Shay | July 10, 2009 3:15 PM
Such a letdown. Iowa goes and distinguishes itself with its support of gay marriage and then we get this crap. Should have been a clean sweep. Just say no to stupid. Oh, well.
Posted by: MikeMa | July 10, 2009 3:28 PM
Oh, JoeB...you've missed the whole point!
You see, this is really to get back at all the rest of us for earlier letting those strange gay people and thier icky lifestyle have, you know, the same rights and responsibilities as everyone else.
Being in Des Moines, I'm safely removed from this kind of ignorance. Of course my apartment complex is across from the Governor's mansion, so I have to deal with an entirely different kind of mule-headed, cow-eyed, blank-stare stupidity...
But I digress.
Hey, can we force all the religious extremists to...I don't know, follow the law of the fucking land? Public money funds public education (duh, that's why it's public!) so...if you want to study the Bible as is proposed in this "class" and to study anti-science Critiques of Darwinism *rolls eyes* pony up some money and PAY to send your ape-derived hominid (and there's a 1 in 3 chance that one of your sons is gay now, up from one in 100 at this time before gay people could marry each other; at least according to the last church service I went to) offspring to a parochial school.
Posted by: Kate | July 10, 2009 5:41 PM
This is a good opportunity to see how the parents and taxpayers of this district react. How will they rate on the spine index? As citizens of the republic they are the ones in whom power resides.
Will they realize their responsibilities in time? Can they save >1 generations of our children from the horrors of undogly instruction?
Stay tuned. This is going somewhere.
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | July 10, 2009 8:05 PM
@Foggg:
Ding! You win a prize!My uncle is from Spencer. He's an Obama "birther." 'Nuff said.
Posted by: Paul Lundgren | July 10, 2009 8:52 PM
Can we reroute the river and put Northwestern Iowa in Nebraska where it belongs?
Posted by: Ace of Sevens | July 11, 2009 1:48 AM
“Even the provisions for graduation ceremonies isn't particularly bothersome to me. The policy first says:
Content of speeches by private individuals will not regulated on religious content.”
So I suppose that if the valadictorian is Wiccan and she wishes for her shaman or priestess to give the invocation, which includes gratitude for all of the blessings provided by the Goddess, that would be just fine?
We might see:
Angry Iowa Mob Seizes and Burns Two as Witches
Posted by: NJOsprey03 | July 11, 2009 8:42 AM
/i“Even the provisions for graduation ceremonies isn't particularly bothersome to me. The policy first says:
Content of speeches by private individuals will not regulated on religious content.”i/
So I suppose that if the valadictorian is Wiccan and she wishes for hershaman or priestess to give the invocation, which includes gratitude for all of the blessings provide by the Goddess, that would be just fine?
We might see:
Angry Iowa Mob Seizes and Burns Two as Witches
Posted by: NJOsprey03 | July 11, 2009 8:43 AM