Florida Bill: Right to Sue Professors

Parents Forum
21

<p>Well it will only entrench further the existing patterns of blue & red schools. I would not want my kid in college in a state that would pass this law. (Nor would I want my kid in a school where professors demeaned kids.) </p>

<p>Some of my best classes were taught in the Socratic method, and when kids got intellectually "pinned," it was a learning experience for everyone. </p>

<p>Who would judge is a kild got raked over the coals for his belief system, or whether it was indeed his <em>lack of deep insight or thoughtful scholarship</em>?</p>

22

<p>


One thing that you must realize is that Intelligent Design (ID) DOES use the "7 Days malarky." It's just that the concept of a day has been redefined by them. The argument goes this way: Without the earth initially, how is a day defined? What is the cosmic "clock" which ticks away a "day?" The ID folks have hit upon the cosmic background radiation (with a frequency associated with about four degrees Kelvin - normally used to support the theory of "The Big Bang") as "the clock." Sure, it's beating at a certain frequency now, but back at the beginning, the universe was smaller and hotter and the frequency was much faster (longer wavelengths). So using the "ticks" of this "cosmic clock," the first "day" was about two billion years of so (today's time), the second "day" was about 500 million, the third about 100 million, etc [note:not sure about the exact numbers, but you get the idea].</p>

<p>Anyway, the point is that the IDers are still literalists and the "theory" bends scientific knowledge to fit the Biblical account (or the other way around). IDers try, but cannot get away from the fact that it is Creationism in a new set of clothes.</p>

23

<p>Quoting from the article:</p>

<br>


<br>

<p>The bill is not just about evolution, creationism, intelligent design. It is far more broadly couched, about "beliefs." Suppose a student were to say "I believe that people of a certain race are inferior" or "I believe the earth is flat" or, "I believe in the spontaneous generation of lice" (as did medieval people) or "I believe the Holocaust did not happen." Would the student have the right to sue on the ground that s/he <em>thought</em> his/her beliefs were not respected? They're just beliefs, after all. You don't have to have evidence to support your beliefs; they're not subject to proof and verification or falsification.</p>

24

<p>It seems to me that the main purpose of the bill is to intimidate rather than to facilitate suits. (Although I could be wrong: my husband jokes that once "tort reform" passes and trial lawyers can't file malpractice suits anymore, this would give them something to do--they could represent students suing professors.)</p>

<p>Does anyone know how many states legislatures Horowitz has suceeded in getting to take up his "Academic Freedom Bill of Rights"? Sometimes this kind of thing can get passed under the radar--interesting that it was a college newspaper that had the story, not a regular paper.</p>

25

<p>This post seems to have developed along two branches: (1) discussion on the politics of professors and students; and (2) discussion of how stupid religious people must be for not accepting the SCIENTIFIC PROOF of evolution. My post addresses the latter topic.</p>

<p>If you are going to have a rigorous argument about evolution, creationism, intelligent design, etc., you need to recognize that ALL of these positions REQUIRE FAITH. Mardad had indicated that "The creationist student on the other hand must show respect for the prof. by admitting that much of his view is based on faith and philosophy e.g. a rejection of uniformitarianism." Uniformitarianism, in simple terms, is ASSUMING that you can extrapolate backwards into the past based on how things have been observed to be behaving recently. For example, since various physical laws appear to have been obeyed without exception during recent times (thousands of years of recorded human history), then PERHAPS these same physical laws were constant for BILLIONS of years. I understand that scientists can not only observe how things are behaving now but can also examine if an assumption that things always acted this way is fairly consistent with how the world appears to have been in the past. Nevertheless, just because a theory is CONSISTENT with observations does not make it true (because there may be another, mutually exclusive, theory that is also consistent with the observations).</p>

<p>For example, suppose a person looks at the arrangement and motion of matter in the universe and convinces himself that if everything is just extrapolated backward, moving as it currently is, then it appears to have exploded from some central location billions of years ago. Before this person could scientifically conclude that the world really evolved that way, he would require FAITH that no god exists or that any God or intelligent designer would either be unwilling or incapable of ever creating a step-change in the physical laws of the universe (for example, saying "Let there be Light!" at some intermediate point in time). It is not too hard to disprove something by ASSUMING it is false.</p>

<p>Just as it is impossible to prove scientifically that God created the world from nothing some certain number of thousand years ago, it is ALSO IMPOSSIBLE to prove scientifically that no God created the universe at some time in the past with non-zero initial conditions. In other words, however any scientist believes all matter was arranged and moving ten thousand or ten million years ago, it is impossible for the scientist to PROVE that a god did not create the entire universe at that instant of time, instantaneously moving as it would have according to his scientific theories.</p>

<p>Maybe the God you believe in could only create a world that is compressed and motionless, but mine is not so limited. The God I worship is capable of creating a DYNAMIC universe from nothing. This is clearly a violation of the known laws of physics. Therefore, uniformitarianism ASSUMES that such a god does not exist. You may smugly claim that YOUR FAITH is in science whereas mine is ONLY in religion, but you cannot honestly claim that you are not exercising any faith when trying to extrapolate back in time.</p>

<p>By the way, I certainly recognize that many creationists simply echo weak arguments. However, I have also seen many equally weak arguments presented by pseudo-intellectual atheists (for example, there "was no beginning of time, just a singularity in the time-space continuum").</p>

<p>Getting back to the comment by Mardad, that "The creationist student on the other hand must show respect for the prof. by admitting that much of his view is based on faith and philosophy e.g. a rejection of uniformitarianism." An intellectually honest, atheistic professor would also have to admit that his acceptance of uniformitarianism is also based on "faith and philosophy."</p>

<p>While I will certainly admit that the MAJORITY of college science faculty members adhere to evolution and uniformitarianism theories, it is certainly not all scientists. Furthermore, I recall my undergrad physics/mechanics professor asking for a showing of hands before he performed a particular demonstration during a lecture, asking for the students to predict the outcome. When most of the students intuition proved to be wrong, he quipped: "Unfortunately, physics is not ruled by majority opinion."</p>

26

<p>Now that i see what everyone is saying I agree with a lot of you. There is absolutly nothing wrong with a professor making you stand up in class and back up everything you say. In fact, we would be a lot better off if every Professor did that. However, if a teacher disrespects a student for a having a different point of view that is a problem. Being sent out of class because you stated you opinion and the professor didn't agree is absolutly wrong. If anything the professor should be happy that someone is actually challenging them. I don't see why most on this board are so against students believeing in creationism. I mean this is a free country, where satisticly most are religious. And there is an abundent amount of scientific evid. to back it up. Not saying that I believe in it, but if a student challenges a bio teacher with the idea of Creationism, how can this be wrong, as long as the student is respectful and engages in an intellectual debate. It seems that some on this board would rather every student be feed the same curriculm and believe in the same ideas. I for one am for diversity and I welcome all who have different opinions. That is the only way you can truely learn and define your own beliefs.</p>

27

<p>The way I read the bill though, it is about ANY belief. I believe the moon is made of cheese, specifically Roquefort. Anyone willing to diss me? :)</p>

28

<p>I beg to differ, the moon is def. made of swiss. Very stinky swiss. That is why no one lives there.</p>

29

<p>Jordana:</p>

<p>You see, you and I have different beliefs regarding the moon. So in comes to the prof who has to grade us. What basis does s/he have for doing so? Our beliefs are not subject to argument. We don't need to prove anything, merely to believe. Let's compromise, though. Half is made of roquefort, the other of swiss cheese.</p>

30

<p>Ridiculous, then how can you explain that everytime there is a full moon I suddently find everything stinky. I mean you can't agrue with a house full of stinky cheese air. That is as good a scientific proof.</p>

31

<p>Jordana, I don't need scientific proof. I just have to believe, according to this bill ;)</p>

32

<p>


</p>

<p>You are right there. The discussion SHOULD be focusing on whether this bill is a good law or not, regardless of the political or religious beliefs of the poster. But ID can be used as an EXAMPLE to show how this is a bad law. I didn't mean to dis the believers. I'm facinated by ID myself, because I love the merging of the two polar opposite beliefs into what seems to be a plausible scenario.</p>

<p>Science over the last few hundred years has developed on some basic principles. One of these is that of Occam's Razor: "Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate" or "plurality should not be posited without necessity." In basic words, the simplest explanation is probably the "correct" explanation. For example, putting the earth at the center of the solar system (Ptolemy's view - inspired by Biblical faith) led to great mathematical complexity in trying to explain how the movement of objects in the sky could be predicted. Galileo, by putting the sun at the center of our solar system, made the mathematics very simple and we now think of the earth and the planets moving about the sun versus the original belief. There was an evolution from the "religious" point of view to the "scientific" point of view. This evolution was painful and took some time, but the world eventually accepted the "scientific" version. </p>

<p>Yet doesn't Ptolemy's version also explain how the universe could work? Couldn't we teach the two "theories" side by side and let the student decide which is best? Shouldn't we make sure not to offend religious students by granting the earth-centric view equal time?</p>

<p>Other basic tenets of science are reproducibility and predictability. When two scientists announced that they had created "cold fusion" in their laboratory in Utah, the world was abuzz. Unfortunately their results could neither be explained using current knowledge and accepted theory nor could the results be reproduced by other scientists. So cold fusion is not now a part of accepted science. Using these principles, Intelligent Design also has no place in Science. It cannot be explained using the current canon of scientific knowledge. And if there is - as part of the theory - a supernatural being who has control, you lose the predictability as well.</p>

<p>Again, I'm not saying that ID is not "truth" and I'm not saying that people who believe in it are stupid and I'm not saying that it doesn't provide a somewhat elegant view of the world. What I AM saying is that it does not belong in a science class. </p>

<p>And giving people the right to sue because it's not in the science class is bad law. But this is just one example in depth, because it is used as a reason why the law is needed.</p>

33

<p>jordana-- kidding aside, the reason this bill exists is that the right wing is very annoyed that academia is largely controlled by left wingers. They don't like the liberalism that is the majority POV in collleges and universities. They want a legal basis to challenge professors who teach one slant on a subject rather than <em>all</em> slants. </p>

<p>I have a few problems with the bill.</p>

<p>Unfortunately, great intellectuals tend to research and do their theses and graduate work <em>in a certain direction and with a certain slant.</em> If they are genuine scholars (and in the top schools they all are) their slant has built upon or incorporated the worthwhile work in the field that has come before them, but theirs will take off in a unique direction. </p>

<p>I am concerned that it will take the excitement and specificity out of intellectual work when all classes are expected to be all things to all people. I think its FINE if a professor has vehement and specific beliefs, or if a professor thinks a student is DEAD WRONG in whatever way, so long as the student is graded only on his abilities and performance. For example if you have a different idea and a badly reasoned proof, you should get an F. If you have a different idea and excellent reasoning, you should get the A. If you persist in clinging to a notion that is shown to be incorrect, just because you believe it, this is anti-intellectual.</p>

<p>Positions taken on faith-- beliefs-- are not, in my view, sufficient to use as counter-arguments against positions even semi-corroborated by objective facts. Thus a student who <em>badly</em> defends her minority opinion and gets an F may think there is a biased teacher, when indeed, her perfomance is what is poor.</p>

<p>Yes, dadoftrojan, big chunks of lots of cutting edge work is theoretical, and there are certianly scientists who take minority opinions on many things.</p>

<p>However, this does not mean that unless every square inch of-- say-- physics is absolutely proven, then all theories advanced by anyone to explain the "blank" areas are equally valid, or likely, or intellectually serious. Some are better than others. Some hold more water. Some make better sense. Usually ideas can be put in some sort of rank order.</p>

<p>To be simplistic, you can sterilize a cut with alcohol, betadine, or by placing your hand in boiling water. All are valid ideas, but they are not all equally good ideas.</p>

<p>Of course, people should not be belittled for their religious beliefs or politics. Education must absolutely welcome a "marketplace of ideas" and have diverse thinkers bringing out their best notions. But the market place of ideas has a <strong>next step</strong>... sifting through the ideas, putting them up against one another, ranking them for usefulness, rejecting some and embracing others. If some notions fail the test of argument or proof, academics need to be allowed to set them aside-- whether or not some new 18 year old "believes" them. "The world is flat" fell by the wayside. "Women are to delicate to vote" was retired. "Babies can't feel pain" is long gone. </p>

<p>Professors should welcome questions-- but if we want them to teach us anything at all, they should also be allowed to articulate answers.</p>

34

<p>SBmom you have written a very articulate post. I agree with you!</p>

35

<p>thanks sempitern. </p>

<p>Or should I say, Thanks, Dude ;)</p>

36

<p>SBMom, I agree with the point you made about the motivation behind this law being specious. But like all great ill conceived laws it does contain a grain of truth. The attorneys say bad facts make bad law. (But they are still facts.) A teacher is in a more powerful position than a student and therefore the student requires some protection. This should probably be provided by a faculty grievance committee rather than a county court. The student who is a creationist or one of the more conservative Intelligent Design proponents described above deserve freedom of expression. But how do we honor that in a science classroom? I think the professor can require two things from this student without violating his rights:
1. The student must be able to articulate the line of reasoning behind the theory of Natural Selection as it is currently understood even though he disagrees. (His motivation can be that he wants to strengthen his own arguments)
2. The student must be able to articulate his own reasoning, recognizing that his logic includes a rejection of uniformitarianism or a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis or whatever.
I have many friends who are creationists, and they can articulate what I have described. Some have tried to use scientific methods to disprove evolution or at least the long chronology. Some have discovered new methods of dating. but these have only correlated with C14 and Potassium/Argon. Others have cited evidence of the biblical flood but have only improved the modern theory of evolution by adding catastrophism. In other words it has been helpful to the theory of evolution to have so many creationists around.</p>

37

<p>Well that's the marketplace of ideas in action ;)</p>

38

<p>Here is someone that has this figured out. . .<a href="http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050404&s=jacoby%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050404&s=jacoby&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

39

<p>This is simply a case of right wing beurocrats trying to control classrooms predominantly run by left leaning professors. At my school some Republican students spearheaded a markedly failed effort to bring political affirmative action into faculty hiring practices. There is no difference between these two actions.</p>

<p>Also, why is anyone even debating evolution in this thread? It has no relevance to the topic at hand.</p>

40

<p>i can see plenty of room for abuse in this law. that alone should sound some alarms</p>