Published by admin on 04 Jun 2010 at 11:07 pm
The South Carolina bill is dead — Louisiana . . . still . . . NUMBER ONE!!
By Barbara Forrest
As the whole world knows, we’re not having fun in Louisiana right now. The terrible, ongoing tragedy in the beautiful Gulf of Mexico threatens to wipe out a culture and way of life that have existed here for 300 years. (To help families who face the loss of everything they have worked for all their lives, please go to the Southern Mutual Help Association.) Louisiana has suffered more than its share of catastrophes in the last five years. That’s why, in the face of what is happening in the gulf — with all that this disaster portends for the future of the state — the news that South Carolina’s “academic freedom” bill has died in committee simply highlights once again the utter irresponsibility of Louisiana state officials who made our state number one in promoting creationism.
The National Center for Science Education reports that two anti-evolution bills in South Carolina, S 873 and S 875, introduced by SC Senator Mike Fair in 2009, have died in committee. Senate Bill 873 would have required the South Carolina State Board of Education to “examine all curriculum in use in this State that purports to teach students about the origins of mankind” in order to “determine whether the curriculum maintains neutrality toward religion, favoring neither one religion over other religions, nor religion over non-religion, including atheism.” If this bill had passed, South Carolina would have faced a wholesale, Texas-style assault on not only its science curriculum but, most likely, on its social studies curriculum as well.
Senate Bill 875, however, was a mostly verbatim repeat of Louisiana’s SB 561, the “Louisiana Academic Freedom Act,” which was renumbered to SB 733 and passed in revised form as the “Louisiana Science Education Act.” The South Carolina bill was the only one that remained among the variants of the Discovery Institute’s model “academic freedom” statute that were introduced around the country in 2009 and 2010.
The not-coincidental similarities between SB 561 and S 875 are striking. The table below lays them out, with the similarities in colored highlights:
| Louisiana SB 561 | South Carolina S 875 |
| The Louisiana Legislature finds and declares . . . that an important purpose of science education is to inform students about scientific evidence and to help students develop critical thinking skills that they need in order to become intelligent, productive, and scientifically informed citizens. | The General Assembly finds that an important purpose of science education is to inform students about scientific evidence and to help students develop critical thinking skills they need in order to become intelligent, productive, and scientifically informed citizens. |
| That the teaching of some scientific subjects, such as biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning, can cause controversy, and that some teachers may be unsure of the expectations concerning how they should present information on such subjects. | [T]hat the teaching of some scientific subjects, such as biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning can cause controversy and that some teachers may be unsure of the expectations concerning how they should present information on these subjects. |
| The Louisiana Department of Education, public elementary and secondary school governing authorities … shall endeavor to create an environment within public . . . schools that encourages students to explore scientific questions, learn about scientific evidence, to help students develop critical thinking skills, and respond appropriately and respectfully to differences of opinion about controversial issues. | The State Board of Education, and district and school governing authorities, shall endeavor to create an environment within all public schools of this State that encourages students to explore scientific questions, learn about scientific evidence, develop critical thinking skills, and respond appropriately and respectfully to differences of opinion about controversial issues. |
| Such educational authorities … shall also endeavor to assist teachers to find more effective ways to present the science curriculum where it addresses scientific controversies…. [T]eachers shall be permitted to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories pertinent to the course being taught. | These educational authorities also shall endeavor to assist teachers to find more effective ways to present the science curriculum that addresses scientific controversies. Teachers must be permitted to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and weaknesses of existing scientific theories pertinent to the course. |
| Neither the Louisiana Department of Education … nor any public elementary or secondary school principal or administrator shall prohibit any teacher in a public school system of this state from helping students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories pertinent to the course or courses being taught. | School governing authorities including, but not limited to, school and district superintendents, principals, and administrators, may not prohibit a teacher in a public school in this State from helping students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and weaknesses of existing scientific theories pertinent to the course. |
| This Section only protects the teaching of scientific information, and this section shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or non-religion. | This section applies only to the teaching of scientific information and may not be construed to promote any religious or nonreligious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs or nonbeliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion. |
The commonalities in these two pieces of creationist legislation are clear. But there is one glaring difference between them. In South Carolina, the legislature let Mike Fair’s bill die a well-deserved death in committee. In Louisiana, after doctoring SB 733 up with more code language and sanitizing its title, legislators fell all over themselves to pass it. The governor signed it — much to the delight of the creationist Discovery Institute, which immediately declared victory. And the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education allowed creationists to dictate the current policy that implements it.
South Carolina Creationism Bills Go Extinct « The Sensuous Curmudgeon on 05 Jun 2010 at 12:53 am #
[...] [Update: For a striking comparison of the Louisiana creationism bill, which passed, and one of the South Carolina bills, which failed, see Barbara Forrest's excellent post: The South Carolina bill is dead — Louisiana . . . still . . . NUMBER ONE!!] [...]