<p>By the way, I apparently provided outdated information. At least according to another article on the web, the Texas Tech biology professor changed his policy. "Professor Michael Dini eliminated the evolution belief requirement in his recommendation policy and replaced it with a requirement that students be able to explain the theory of evolution."</p>
<p>I find it interesting that the Texas Tech professor talked about above was a teacher at Justin-Siena High School in Napa, California, which is a Catholic college-prep high school. He taught biology. But he also taught another course: Freshman Religion.</p>
<p>How about this for creepy paralellism?
(from Newsweek and billmon.org)</p>
<p>PURE SCIENCE:</p>
<p>Conservatives seem little interested in exploring the political orientation of engineering professors or biogeneticists. The more important the field, in terms of money, resources and political clout, the less conservatives seem exercised by it.
Russell Jacoby
Crybaby Conservatives
March 16, 2005</p>
<p>Outside the hard sciences, there is no bottom line for bad ideas or discredited perspectives. Ideological prejudice is a self-perpetuating phenomenon.
David Horowitz
The Campus Blacklist
April 18, 2003</p>
<p>As regards scientists, technicians and ordinary members of working staffs, as long as they are patriotic, work energetically, are not against the party and socialism, and maintain no illicit relation with any foreign country, we should in the present movement continue to apply the policy of "unity, criticism, unity." Special care should be taken of those scientists and scientific and technical personnel who have made contributions.
Central Committee of the
Communist Party of China
Resolutions of the Eleventh Plenum
August 1966</p>
<p>Modern day Catholics do not have a problem with evolutionary theory, as far as I know. I'm not Catholic, but my kids go to a Catholic high school.</p>
<p>If I have a bacterial infection, I want to see a doctor who believes that the best treatment is antibiotics, not one who believes that the best treatment is prayer. No offense to Christian Scientists, but I feel that if you want to be a doctor that means you're signing on to a scientific approach to medicine, not a Bible-based one. I have no problem with a science professor declining to give a recommendation for a would-be scientist unless that that person approaches a major aspect of the science in question from a scientific viewpoint, even if that viewpoint fails to coincide with the dominant religious belief in the country.
And as to the first issue, what about the academic freedom of the rest of the students in the class? The ones who want to learn, you know - biology. Are they required to sit back while the creationist repeats what he was taught in Sunday school, or are they allowed to demand that a science class study science?</p>
<p>kluge,</p>
<p>I do not know why you think a Bible-based approach to medicine is in any way contrary to a scientific approach to medicine. The Bible certainly commands people to pray, but not INSTEAD of acting rationally (e.g. using apropriate antibiotics for a particular infection) but rather in addition to it. Could you please cite some Bible verses which command Christians to reject science or medicine? You could try looking first in Luke or Acts, which were both written by a physician.</p>
<p>Furthermore, hopefully it will not happen, but just in case you or someone you know ever ends up with some medical condition for which medical science offers no hope (e.g. some type of inoperable cancer), you may want to consider prayer. Some people have experienced miraculous recoveries that defy medical or scientific explanations. It may be that scientists simply do not yet completely understand the relevant medical science, but perhaps there is something to this religion thing.</p>
<p>By the way, I do not intend for this to be in any way be a personal attack. I only like to poke fun when people criticize the Bible, because I ordinarily discover that someone who criticizes the Bible has never read or studied it.</p>
<p>One of my problems with the doctrinaire Christian approach is that its a "my way or the highway" approach. There is no pluralism. The conservative Christian position is that all the other mythologies of all the other religions are wrong; only the Christian bible gets it "right," that the Bible is the infallible word of God. If you aren't on board hook line & sinker, you burn eternally.</p>
<p>It seems funny to me that, given this position, there could be Christian students suing to make sure <em>their</em> POV was included in the curriculum of an academic course... </p>
<p>A little inconsistent, it seems to me-- saying <em>we</em> get to deem everyone else's religion "dead wrong," but others must deem our approach equally valid?</p>
<p>Back to the Florida bill, the issue seems to be whether any "problems" that arise in the classroom need to be addressed by the legislature or the courts. One of the bill's opponents points out (from the article):</p>
<p>"...universities and the state Board of Governors already have policies in place to protect academic freedom. Moreover, a state law outlining how professors are supposed to teach would encroach on the board's authority to manage state schools."</p>
<p>(Beyond the evolution/creationism debate, I wonder how the bill's sponsor would expect a history professor to handle the views of a Holocaust denier--how much respect would be enough?)</p>
<p>On the somewhat related Columbia brouhaha on the limits of academic freedom that another posted mentioned, Lee Bollinger made a similar argument about the appropriate role of outsiders:</p>
<p>"When there are lines to be drawn...we must and will be the ones to do it. Not outside actors. Not politicians, not pressure groups, not the media. Ours is and must remain a system of self-government."</p>
<p>SB MOM-the my way or the highway approach is just as dominant in leftist circles. There is only one acceptable view on abortion rights, Iraq, gay rights, drilling for oil, logging and a host of other issues. Run contrary to lefty dogma in any of these areas and you won't be welcome back.</p>
<p>umm, not really, because liberals actually are open to new ideas about how to improve quality of life. For example, take Hillary Clinton's stance on abortion. She updated democratic dogma of "its a womans choice" to, "we all agree that abortion isnt a good thing but instead of outlawing it, lets just give alternatives(such as contraceptives, morning after pills, etc, which conservatives oppose) so that it doesnt come to an abortion. An interesting note is that during Bush's years abortion rates have increased even(and probably due to) increased abstinence education and lack of access to contraceptives. During clinton's years teen pregnancy rates declined to histrorically low levels and abortions were at a lower level than that of bush</p>
<p>btw, Sbmom, I consider myself a button down hippie :) so yes, dude would be very appropriate :D</p>
<p>Barrons, you did not get my point. </p>
<p>I am saying that right wing Christians have a <em>religious</em> intolerance that you do not see from left wing Christians. The left wing in Christianity (and in other faiths) is not taking the position that those who disagree with them are damned. It is the <em>right</em> wings in Christianity & Islam that take that position.</p>
<p>So it is the pot calling the kettle black to say that liberals are intolerant.</p>
<p>Left & right may vehemently disagree on a host of worldly and temporal issues... (I don't think there much respect among evangelicals for pro choicers either.) But the left is willing to grant the right the sanctity of personal religious beliefs and not say that just "because you don't share our beliefs you deserve eternal punishment."</p>
<p>DadofTrojan, the fun thing about the Bible is that anyone can claim to find practically anything in it. Your opinion about the Bible and medicine is not universally shared. Just one testimonial from the Cristian Science Monitor:</p>
<p>"I was raised knowing both the medical method of treatment and Christian Science treatment. So when I was having trouble with one of my feet a couple of years ago, I decided to get an X-ray.</p>
<p>"The X-ray showed that Id broken my foot. But it showed something else, tooa tumor that might be cancerous. The doctor I visited was concerned, and insisted that I take the medication he prescribed. The difference, he said, could be between life and death.</p>
<p>"As strange as it sounds, I wasnt scared. Actually, the moment when I got the diagnosis was also the moment when I had a very clear message that I know came from God. I thought, This just isnt true about me.</p>
<p>"I wasnt in denial or trying to ignore what was going on. Instead, I saw clearly that the medical diagnosis didnt coincide with the view of myself Id been learning about in Christian Science.</p>
<p>"From reading the Bible and Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures, Id learned to think of myself in spiritual termsas the likeness of a God of Spirit who never created His children to suffer or be sick. So the thought that this diagnosis wasnt true stemmed from my understanding of who I am as Gods childwhole, healthy, and loved by my divine Parent. I felt so confident of this that I didnt feel the need to take the medicine the doctor had prescribed. In fact, I didnt even have the prescription filled."
<etc.></etc.></p>
<p>Brilliant! I think that doctor should be burned as a heretic...who does he think he is, telling a citizen of Jesusland to use modern medicine?</p>
<p>kluge,</p>
<p>"DadofTrojan, the fun thing about the Bible is that anyone can claim to find practically anything in it." I would completely agree. People can CLAIM to find practically anything in ANY book. However, just because someone CLAIMS they came to some position by reading the Bible does not mean the Bible actually supports that position. I still challenge you to find specific Bible verses which command Christians to reject science or medicine.</p>
<p>If you are looking for opinions of evangelical (Bible-believing) Christians, just try looking directly at the Bible. Or, if you must use opinions from a particular church or denomination as an interpretation of the Bible, then make sure to get the specific scripture references and look them up to see if the verses are really saying what they are purported to say. If a particular denomination has beliefs that are antithetical to the Bible, then it is obviously not a Bible-believing religion.</p>
<p>Some insight into how the bill might play out in practice may be afforded by a recent dust-up at C-Span. C-Span was planning to cover Deborah Lipstadt's new book on the Holocaust, HISTORY ON TRIAL, but wanted her to debate the well known Holocaust denier David Irving. She refused. As she writes in a letter to the editor in the New York Times today:</p>
<p>"Debating deniers is like debating flat-earth theorists. How can one debate someone, on any topic, who deliberately lies and falsifies history?"</p>
<p>Lipstadt is a professor at Emory, though, so I guess she's safe from suits for now.</p>
<p>I support Lipstadt. </p>
<p>It would be intellectually dishonest to debate this guy. To do so would dignify the denier's position, because "debate" implies there are two sides to the story.</p>
<p>Sometimes minority opinions are emergent, innovative, & potentially right. Other times they are just some hard-headed kook's ignorant fantasies. There's a difference, and a professor should be trusted to discern between the two, and to respect only the former.</p>
<p>Repeated mentioning of holocaust deniers is SILLY (the most polite word I could think of). No reasonable person has suggested that holocaust deniers should be guaranteed to have equal time in a classroom. This bill, as described in the article, does not appear to be well-written, but I have not read the original bill. If you could point to a location on the web where it can be viewed, I would appreciate it.</p>
<p>Even if one admits that this particular piece of legislation is poorly-conceived and written, the issue of whether ANY legislation is needed to guarantee more fair and open discussion in at least SOME courses (OK, go ahead and exempt science courses) can still be addressed. Whereas SBMom states that a "professor should be trusted to discern the difference between" an "emergent, innovative" "minority opinion" and "ignorant fantasy", what if the professor CLEARLY VIOLATES THIS? Should anything happen? That is, in my opinion, the primary question to be addressed by the original post.</p>
<p>Similarly, one might state that a professor should be trusted to not denigrate a student's gender, race, nationality, etc. during a lecture. But there are definite consequences to a professor who violates this. Many colleges have HATE SPEECH guidelines, that for example depend on a person's PERCEPTION of their race/gender/nationality/etc. being ridiculed or being a source of intimidation by a faculty member or student. I could easily provide examples in this arena that are just as SILLY as a holocaust denier demanding equal time, but that would just be a waste of time.</p>
<p>Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? </p>
<p>Professors should have carte blanche to treat students' ideas with any behavior or ridicule as they see fit, including disallowing particular students from participating in class discussions, even if the student's ideas are relevant to the class discussion and presented in a professional and well-argued manner.</p>
<p>I believe it is possible for a professor to go over the line, so I do not agree with the statement as I have written it. Then the question is whether grievances should be handled by some internal college committee or whether a student should be able to have some legal proceeding outside of the university, at least in SOME situations. I can think of some situations, including some in which a student appears to have received an unfair internal hearing on a matter, that would be best resolved outside of the university.</p>
<p>I agree, dadoftrojan, that the underlying issue is real-- professors could cross the line on suppressing legitimate minority views/ ridicule, just like they could cross the line on sexual harrassment or racial bias. </p>
<p>IMO, all of this belongs in front of a university grievance committee, not a in a court of law. In a university classroom setting there will always be lots of witnesses to inappropriate treatment. If something beyond the pale occurs, other kids present would defend the student. If it is a grey area, it clearly does not belong in court.</p>
<p>If a professor politely and without ridicule moves the discussion on from a fruitless tangent, the student may be aggrieved-- but nothing untoward has taken place. This is the scenario that concerns me: a prof being tentative academically because of a fear of lawsuit in a case like this where the kid is wasting others' time with "beliefs" that don't hold water.</p>
<p>Dadoftrojan--I think the prof should be able to decide whether or not the students ideas are relevant to the class discussion (if it is a discussion type of class and not a lecture). I have been very thankful for the profs that have been able to keep discussions on topic, for example, instead of allowing one (usually it's one student) to monopolize the discussion and keep turning it to that student's agenda. I personally do not recall ever having been in a college class where a student was shown the door, or treated disrespectfully. Well, if you can call an exasperated look on a professors face disrespect, I HAVE seen that! I do understand that there are some nuts out there, however (profs and students). But can't a student sue under the current system if the behaviour is extreme enough to warrant such? I don't think, generally, the inability of a student to push his/her particular agenda in a college class warrants a suit.</p>
<p>The motive behind the "academic freedom" bill seems to me to be one of getting a particular viewpoint/agenda (Christian fundamentalist viewpoint/agenda) into more college classes and trying to stifle people (profs) who disagree with it and feel it has no place in their classroom. Am I wrong?</p>