RoR: Forum

Tibor,

In this case, the judge did not order the school board what to teach - he merely ruled in favor of parents who objected to their children being forcibly indoctrinated with religious bullshit (and religious bullshit disguised in "science" drag, at that.) You'd be the last person I'd have expected to be on the side of the former Dover school board, and seemingly against the judge who ruled for the parents who objected to what this government agency was doing to their children. I'm on the side of the parents, and of the judge who ruled in their favor.

Post 1

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 3:37am

Hurray, the religeous right take another swift kick in the nards. We, on the "secular" right, will win this war, one way or another. Charge forward fellow Objectivists.

Post 2

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 7:54am

Dr. Machan says: “Not until we separate education and government, as we do the press and church, will there be civility about how our kids are to be taught and will federal judges be kept out of classrooms.”

Well said, Dr. Machan, and as usual, right on the mark.

But, …

But within the context of the system as it actually exist now, I consider this particular government ruling to be a highly positive outcome; an outcome in the best interest of legitimate science and millions of children throughout our nation. For me, this ruling is far more triumph than tragedy. Personally, I look upon this ruling in the somewhat the same manner that I looked upon the Apollo missions of NASA.

Only time will tell, but Judge Jones’s ruling may very well go down as a “Clarence Darrow” moment. So just as the landing on the moon stands as a testament to the triumph of man’s mind; Judge Jones’s ruling may also end up being such a testament: a testament to reason and courage taking a stand in the face of irrationality and the religious assault against science. Judge Jones’s ruling may not have the visual grandeur of a space ship during liftoff: but grand, it is.

Given the religious assaults against our liberties and the constant barrage of negative news in this regard, I have decided to give myself the liberty of indulging myself. True, I may be guilty of overstating the importance of this ruling or what its eventual impact will be, but the way I see it, after so many intrusive and irrational rulings by the American judiciary, this ruling is a breath of fresh air.

As always, Dr. Machan, you are there to remind us of the underlying issues that we should not forget, your vigilance is necessary, and speaking for myself, highly appreciated. But I think I will put off deliberation on your observations, and for just a little while, enjoy the spectacle of reasons triumph over mysticism.

George

(Edited by George W. Cordero on 12/21, 9:00am)

Post 3

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 8:03am

Tibor,

One of your best. Thank you.

Adam and David:

You are right, you win. The mind police are alive and well. Certain ideas must not be permitted.

Post 4

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 10:17am

Mr. Cordero, I'm quite with you on this.

Dr. Machan,
What do you think should be done while public schools exist in America? As I recall, Thomas Jefferson thought we should have public schools in addition to Church schools. I'm pretty sure Americans are going to keep their public schools for the next ten generations. Do you think the religious folk should be legally allowed to teach the students in the public schools that religious beliefs are really scientific and so should be held forth as such in science courses?

Stephen

Post 5

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 11:44am

Judge rules against 'intelligent design' in class

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8493

School's still out.

Post 6

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 1:27pm

Tibor, Adam Reed and George Cordero are right on this.

The Federal Judge is -not- "dictating the content of a biology course". He is *preventing* religionists from dictating the content of a biology course.

Post 7

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 2:24pm

Phil said:

The Federal Judge is -not- "dictating the content of a biology course". He is *preventing* religionists from dictating the content of a biology course.

I disagree. The Federal Judge is overruling the decision of a local school board to include Intelligent Design in their biology course. The school board consisted of elected officials (who have since been voted out of office) and therefore can be considered to have represented the local community at the time of the decision. The Federal Judge, by his ruling, has said that a community cannot decide what they will include in the courses they teach in their classrooms.

The key issue here is not that religionists were prevented from dictating the content of a biology course. If this involved a private school, we wouldn't be discussing this. I agree with Tibor, who ended his column with this:

Not until we separate education and government, as we do the press and church, will there be civility about how our kids are to be taught and will federal judges be kept out of classrooms.

Thanks,
Glenn

Post 8

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 2:48pm

Glenn,

When it comes to objectively illegitimate force - and forcing a captive audience of children to submit to indoctrination with religious bullshit (in science classes, yet) is objectively illegitimate force - there is no reason to give any government agency, including a local school board, a longer leash than it deserves. A local tyrant is no more legitimate than a federal one; the parents who objected were in the right; and so was the judge who ruled in their favor. I am mystified as to what this has to do with "Academic Freedom," but perhaps Tibor will explain.

Post 9

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 3:57pm

Glenn: The Federal Judge is overruling the decision of a local school board to include Intelligent Design in their biology course.

A local board in control of something it should have no right to control, or any business administering, was overridden by an official of a different and higher government branch, which is also involved in something it has no business being involved in. Within the context of "public" education, there IS a peculiar logic to this, albeit an unfortunate one.

Glenn: The school board consisted of elected officials (who have since been voted out of office) and therefore can be considered to have represented the local community at the time of the decision. The Federal Judge, by his ruling, has said that a community cannot decide what they will include in the courses they teach in their classrooms.

Imagine a group of elected officials, representing a majority within their community, deciding that the black students in that community must go to “separate. but equal schools”. If someone within that community were to object, where should these cases be decided? Ah, but of course, the courts.

Since education has been elevated into a so-called “right”, and one which the state must provide and administer, and since all public schools are subsidized by federal (national) monies; no single individual or local community can possibly claim a right to decide to be the ultimate arbiter as to what will be taught in those schools. Just as in so many other issues that the governemnt should not be involved in at any level, the local government’s authority will always be subordinate to the Federal government’s authority. The degree of local autonomy, or lack of, of any local government institution which exist under the federal umbrella, will always be subject to judicial scrutiny.

It will always be the case within a society that has compromised its respect for individual rights, that government officials will be put in the position of making decisions that they should not be making at all. In the meantime, while we work towards eliminating that condition, we should applaud and appreciate those instances when a government official uses objective reasoning as his method of decision making. This is especially true when you consider that for the most part federal intervention tends to be for the worse.

You see Glenn, just as there should have been no public schools to desegregate in the first place, so too should there have been no public schools to decide creationism vs. science debates. So although related, this is a separate subject from the one at hand. Given the fact that the government is in the business of running schools, the desegregation decision was the rational decision. Within the mixed premised system in which we live, Judge Jones’s decision was also, the rational one.

This blow to those that wish to force feed disguised creationism onto America's children, is a welcome one.

George

(Edited by George W. Cordero on 12/21, 5:26pm)

Post 10

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 10:37pm

   The 'Problem' is more complex than it appears. It is, as they say, 'multi-faceted.'

   O-t-One-h, I totally sympathize with Tibor, and find his complaints compelling. An official 'judge', with the authorized compelling power of the 'State', presuming the authorized 'right' to enforcibly decide what will NOT (ergo, implicitly presuming the [to be used later on] 'right' to decide what WILL) be taught in a science (and, implicitly, any other) class, is a bit idiotic on the face of it. Ignoramusi of 'X' deciding what will (or not) be taught about it? Pure idiocy.

   O-t-Other-h, I'm extremely tempted to agree with Cordero's arguments about the 'nature-of-the-beast' we're dealing with, re the combination of school and govt-requirements (ie: 'compulsory' schooling, even if some private schools are optionable [under State-req. scrutiny], and taxed monies supporting the 'free' public ones), and thence who to root for in this messy situation.

   But, as Tyeve would add..."On the other [?] hand..."

   We're also, not pointed out so far, arguing within the controversied framework of State's-Rights vs Federal-Requirements, methinks; that is, as long as we're talking about 'compulsory schooling' being a State-requirement, and not a Federal one (Anyone please correct me if I'm wrong on this). Given that, then it's a Fed judge deciding about how a State implements its own school-policies, no? I consider this a no-no, UNLESS the question for the Federal-level judge was that the State employed 'compulsory' education. Otherwise, the Feds should stay out of it, and let the State...and local school...live with the consequences (like, many 'tax-payers' moving elsewhere?)

   Now, if it were a State judge deciding this, I'm all with Cordero. As things are, a Fed judge deciding about a State requirement in compulsory schools supported by State (granted, no doubt some Fed also) money, I'm with Tibor on the 'wrongness' of the fact that the question was even brought up to the Federal level.

J:D

Post 11

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 11:22pm

John,

One of the few benefits of federalism is that the federal judiciary can stop at least some of the ongoing violations of individual rights by states, localities, school boards etc. This is one of the few remaining restraints against absolute power at any level of government, and I am surprised that a Randian (who presumably has read "Censorship, Local and Express", etc. etc.) would seek to "free" state and local-level government from the limits imposed by the 14th Amendment.

Post 12

Thursday, December 22, 2005 - 6:22am

My concern is mainly with fundamentals--such is the professional responsibility of philosopher types. In our half-way house world I will try to keep ID out of biology if I have anything to say about it but it is necessary to recognize that keeping it out with the aid of a judge sets a bad example and could lead to scenarios such as judges determining what is taught in history or civic courses. As much as possible I would encourage a laissez-faire policy even if this means some of the government schools will lose sight of what biology is about. Maybe that will ultimately help undermine their credibility and lead to their abolition. But on what to do in our "system," there is no principled answer.

Post 13

Thursday, December 22, 2005 - 7:32am

One of the few benefits of federalism is that the federal judiciary can stop at least some of the ongoing violations of individual rights by states, localities, school boards etc.

Yah like their recent eminent domain decision. Three cheers for the 'benefits' of federalism.

Post 14

Thursday, December 22, 2005 - 11:41am

Robert D.,

As I wrote, "at least some." I too would prefer a more complete and coherent federal review of state and local actions, but the occasional failure of the federal courts to properly stop every state and local violation of individual rights is hardly an argument against the principle itself - or a valid objection against those decisions that do protect (some) individual rights.

Post 15

Sunday, October 12, 2008 - 8:24am

“Evolution and Creationism in America's Classrooms: A National Portrait”

M.B. Berkman, J.S. Pacheco, and E. Plutzer

PLoS Biology 2008

Post 16

Tuesday, February 23, 2010 - 9:43am

In #4 one statement bothered me. “I'm pretty sure Americans are going to keep their public schools for the next ten generations.” I wondered the next day if schools, whether public or private, might eventually give way to internet learning.

This is wonderful.

Post 17

Tuesday, February 23, 2010 - 3:42pm

Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Thomas Cooper, regarding establishment of University of Virginia, a secular public university.

Thomas Jefferson
November 2, 1822

In our university you know there is no Professorship of Divinity. A handle has been made of this, to disseminate an idea that this is an institution, not merely of no religion, but against all religion. Occasion was taken at the last meeting of the Visitors, to bring forward an idea that might silence this calumny, which weighed on the minds of some honest friends to the institution. In our annual report to the legislature, after stating the constitutional reasons against a public establishment of any religious instruction, we suggest the expediency of encouraging the different religious sects to establish, each for itself, a professorship of their own tenets, on the confines of the university, so near as that their students may attend the lectures there, and have the free use of our library, and every other accommodation we can give them; preserving, however, their independence of us and of each other. This fills the chasm objected to ours, as a defect in an institution professing to give instruction in all useful sciences. I think the invitation will be accepted, by some sects from candid intentions, and by others from jealousy and rivalship. And by bringing the sects together, and mixing them with the mass of other students, we shall soften their asperities, liberalize and neutralize their prejudices, and make the general religion a religion of peace, reason, and morality.

I think Prof. Machen has a point. A free nation based on free association does not need to swoop in, like paternalistic totalitarian wannabees, and declare to the Amish or anyone that they may only teach their local communities truths that comply to the forced association of majority thought.

But, the folks in Dover were being a little cute with what they were doing. It was simple repackaging and remarketing, there was no truthful disclosure of what was being proposed, it was all about finesse.

the question is, in a nation that has long tolerated, as in, religious tolerance, the finesseful repackaging and remarketing of 'social scientology' as a science, isn't the harm in precisely being selective about what we are and are not tolerant of?

Jefferson had the right idea. The more the merrier. Shine your light, one and all, and either bear up under the scrutiny, or wither.

We aren't that smart, to dismiss ideas like 'Intelligent Design' in advance. (However, in this hamfisted instance, we are plenty smart enough to detect when that is proposed as a simple deceitful repackaging of something else.)

Look at WOlfram's NKS. There is plenty of legitimate reason to ponder intelligent design as an element of and augmentor of evolution, without resorting to a beliefe in magic spirits in the sky. An honest evaluation of 'intelligent design' is more about the question, 'what is intelligence?' than it is about 'where is the magic spirit in the sky that is this intelligence?'

If only humans are intelligent in this universe, and only humans create, then what is it that created humans? It is all either just cold process -- including what we parochially call intelligence, or it is all intelligence all the way down, ala Wolfram's NKS and complex systems from simple rules, and what we call it is more a parochial political battle than anything material or meaningful.

Cold process? Intelligence? Call it what you will, we're here, we once were not. If it comforts you to call that cold process, then call it cold process.

But clearly...that isn't what the discussion in Dover was all about. But, handling it the way the tribe did created a martyr of sorts, a cause. Bettter to have let it breathe, and stand up or fail in the light of day.

Post 18

Wednesday, February 24, 2010 - 8:28am

I understand and agree with Tibor's arguments.

Intelligent design, what it pretends to be, is really a separate issue. It purports to elevate mysticism to the level of science, which is a thoroughly offensive endeavor. The fact that we already do have public schools, means that we have already undertaken an obligation to honestly provide a non-sectarian education. Therefore the judges ruling in this instance was necessary and correct.

The question of whether a judge's decision should be part of our educational system is made moot by the fact that a public school board already is part. Once you have 'public' schools', you are bound to have protections to ensure the public's trust is not abused.

jt

Post 19

Wednesday, February 24, 2010 - 10:01am