"SUCCESS!
HB106, the misnamed Alabama "Academic Freedom Act", was defeated in the House Education Committee last Wednesday. Special thanks to everyone who called, wrote or faxed. We made a difference!! Our work is not done. An identical bill in the Alabama Senate, SB45, is up for public hearing and vote next Wednesday, March 1 at 8:30 AM. I will send out a separate email Action Alert for that.
Yours for good science,
Bob Collins
Director, Alabama Citizens for Science Education
Here is a synopsis of last Wednesday's (Feb 22) defeat of HB106 (If you don't want to read the whole thing, please scroll down to "LESSONS LEARNED"):
The House Education Committee meeting started at 1:30 in room 602, a conference room in the State Legislature building that was designed to hold about 16 people, but about twice that many were in the room. 12 Committee members were present (6 Republicans and 6 Democrats - more on that later), 3 were absent. There was one TV station there filming, and a newspaper reporter taking notes. The meeting started with a 30 minute discussion and vote on another bill unrelated to HB106.
The public hearing for HB106 started around 2 PM.
There were 4 speakers opposed, none in favor. The first speaker was from an association of Alabama school superintendents; the second represented CLAS, the "Council of Leaders of Alabama Schools". Both felt strongly that this bill would circumvent the wishes of principals, parents and school boards; both strongly recommended that it be disapproved, and if it was approved that Kindergarten through 12th (K-12) grade be excluded so that it only applied to colleges.
I was the next speaker. My speech is at the bottom of this email. The thrust of my speech was that HB106 would allow teachers at all levels of education to present inappropriate material; for example, material that was racist or advocated the Morning After Pill, RU-486 and even abortion. Nor was there any requirement that this be age appropriate, so a second grade teacher could tell his/her students all about abortion and there would be nothing that any principal, school board or parent could do about it. I showed them several examples from various publications including the Physician's Desk Reference and the Johns Hopkins Family Health Book.
Various conservative committee members asked me several questions while I was at the podium after my speech, so there was no doubt that they understood what I had said.
The last speaker was a PhD Biologist from Auburn who said that this bill does an injustice to students because it distorts the idea of what science is. He also said that Alabama universities have a huge problem with students in their science classes that have not been properly prepared by Alabama K-12 schools, and this bill would only make the problem worse.
This scientist/speaker was asked a number of questions by Committee members (about 10 minutes), and he answered them all quite well. It was evident that some of the Committee members had some deliberate deficits in their own scientific knowledge. Other Committee members were quite articulate and well-informed.
I figured that we had a slam-dunk. What conservative, in an election year, would vote for a bill that would allow teachers to promote abortion in elementary school classrooms? Read on.
The Committee then had a lengthy discussion of the bill. Several conservative members said they favored expressing various points of view (they didn't mention any of the things that I brought up). There was a lot of discussion of Section 7 (see below), several committee members objected to its statement "this act shall not be restricted by any metaphysical or religious implications of a view", so the Committee voted unanimously to delete the whole section.
Several Committee members objected to this act being applied to all age levels, so Barbara Boyd (representative from Anniston) moved that the bill be changed to apply only to colleges and graduate schools. After a lengthy discussion, this was defeated 6 to 6 in a party line vote (Republicans against, Democrats for).
They also asked for some input from the Alabama State Department of Education. The Superintendent (Joe Morton) was not there, but a representative of the Dept of Ed said nervously that they did not take a position on the bill, but neither did they feel that it was necessary because this issue is already covered in the Alabama Course of Study for Science. (Historically, the State Department of Ed had been very nervous around this 2005 and 2004 versions of this bill, probably because of fear of funding or other political repercussions. Secretly, they hate it, but can't say anything.)
Somewhere in the middle of all this, the committee asked the sponsor (Rep Beason) why no one showed up in support of this bill. (Last year there were 2 speakers supporting it.) Mr Beason replied that he asked them not to come as a courtesy to the committee so as to not take up any unnecessary time. Yeah right.
By that time, this had been going on for over an hour and everyone was pretty tired of it. So they voted and it was a 6 to 6 tie. Since a majority was required, the bill failed in committee and is probably dead for the rest of this year. As best I can tell, this was a party line vote, with all Republicans voting for it and all Democrats voting against it. (There are ways to resurrect it. So we'll have to keep watching.)
LESSONS LEARNED:
1. The seeds we planted for the past three years were clearly evident. In 2004, a similar bill sailed through this same committee and the entire House on a voice vote. In 2005, we killed it. This year, a Committee member who we called before the meeting said she had some serious reservations about it. Another Committee member had done quite a bit of detailed analysis of the bill before the meeting. And it died again this year.
2. Creationists will vote to advocate creationism in science classrooms even if it also means letting teachers advocate birth control, the morning after pill, the abortion pill and even abortion itself in those same classrooms. This is a great case study for people who think you can reason with creationists.
3. Several professional associations opposed the bill. This carried an enormous amount of weight. Whenever possible, it helps a lot to coordinate with professional associations.
4. Calling politicians shortly before the vote is very effective.
5. The Creationists had done some advance work, lining up all 6 Republican supporters so completely that nothing anyone could say would sway them. There may have some political dealmaking (e.g., I'll vote for yours if you'll vote for mine) going on that was not readily apparent.
6. The interesting thing was that everyone who voted against the "exclude K-12" amendment voted for the bill, and vice versa. THIS MEANS THAT EACH AND EVERY COMMITTEE MEMBER CAN HONESTLY SAY THAT THEY VOTED FOR SOME VERSION OF THE BILL.
Here's a copy of my speech:
My name is Bob Collins. I attended public school in Alabama from first grade all the way through college. My son attended public middle and high school here before going to college, and my daughter is currently a sophomore at Spain Park High School in Hoover. I and my family attend Second Presbyterian Church in Birmingham.
I am opposed to this bill, called the “Academic Freedom Act”.
Everyone in this room knows what this bill is really about - the purpose of this bill is to try to promote teaching creationism in the public school classrooms. But don't take my word for it. I downloaded this copy of this bill yesterday from Alison, the official web Legislature site, and here on the bottom it says "creationism" and "intelligent design". Teaching creationism in public school science classrooms is not only unconstitutional, but does not help prepare our children to compete in an increasingly scientific global job market.
Please believe me when I say that I respect the beliefs of creationists. In fact, I used to be a creationist. But this bill goes far beyond teaching creationism, and it's the non-creationist things this bill would allow that I'd like to talk about for just another couple of minutes.
I'd like to call this Committee's attention to the phrase "present the full range of scientific views" in this bill. In fact, it appears four times in this bill and is really at the heart of what this bill is trying to do, two of those times it adds "in any curricula or course of learning". I'd like to ask this committee to really think about the full effects of what it means to allow teachers to "present the full range of scientific views in any curricula or course of learning" in elementary, middle and high school classrooms.
One of the most insidious books to be published lately is “The Bell Curve”, which was very popular and sold hundreds of thousands of copies. Here we see a very scientific-sounding book, complete with graphs and scientific language, that presents the view that African Americans are genetically programmed to be not as smart as white Americans. These differences are substantial - 15 IQ points, that is one and one half standard deviations below whites.
Now this bill does require that teachers present only "views" that have not been "soundly refuted by empirical or observational science", but it does not say who decides that, and I've never met a prejudiced person who did not think that they had reasons, however, wrong, for their views. We would probably have to take them to court to disprove their views, and I think we can all agree that we would all rather spend our money on students than spend it on lawyers.
Hopefully someday Alabama will grow out of our prejudices. Unfortunately we haven't grown out of it yet. But even when we do, this bill will still be fatally flawed.
The intent of this bill is to allow teachers to present alternative theories or views. So it should be clear that if a teacher has the right to present theories under this bill that this bill would also permit them to present well established scientific facts. But I think we can all agree that there are some things that are well proven by science that still do not belong in elementary, middle and high school classrooms.
I brought a few of them with me today.
I'm sure that most of us are familiar with the Physician's Desk Reference. This book contains the product labeling information for most drugs available in the United States today. Drug companies are legally required to tell the truth in this labeling and to back up that proof with large amounts of well-tested science that is approved by the Federal government's Food and Drug Administration.
So let me read some of the full range of scientific views presented in this book, (Plan B).
The PDR is not the only source of this type of information. Consumer Reports has its own guide, again backed by lots and lots of hard science. Here on page 1138 it says, (mifeprestone).
And then there is the Johns Hopkins Family Health Book, an official publication of Johns Hopkins University. Certainly anything in this book would qualify as mainstream science, would fulfil the Academic Freedom Act's requirement that the views presented have published "empirical" and "observational support" and be covered by the phrase "the full range of scientific views". It says right here on page 280, (abortion).
Certainly there are times when parents, ministers and others will have to talk to our children about these things. But these are very sensitive subjects, and it this bill gives any teacher the power to discuss them without asking the permission of any parent, principal or school board. I hope everyone can see that this is not what we want for our school children.
Here's a copy of HB106:
HB106
By Representative Beason
RFD Education
Rd 1 10-JAN-06
SYNOPSIS:
Existing law does not expressly provide a right nor does it expressly protect tenure and employment for a public school teacher or a teacher at an institution of higher education for presenting scientific information pertaining to the full range of scientific views. In addition, students are not expressly provided a right to positions on views.
This bill would expressly provide rights and protection for teachers concerning scientific presentations on views and students concerning their positions on views.
TO BE ENTITLED
AN ACT
Providing teacher rights and protection for a public school teacher or a teacher at an institution of higher education to present scientific information pertaining to the full range of scientific views in applicable curricula or in a course of learning; providing employment and tenure protection and protection against discrimination for any public school teacher or teacher at a public institution of higher education related to the presentation of such information; and providing student protection for subscribing to a particular position on views.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF ALABAMA:
Section 1. This law shall be known as the "Academic Freedom Act."
Section 2. The Legislature finds that existing law does not expressly protect the right of teachers identified by the United States Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard to present scientific critiques of prevailing scientific theories. The Legislature further finds that existing law does not expressly protect the right of students to hold a position on views. It is the intent of the Legislature that this act expressly protects those rights.
Section 3. Every K-12 public school teacher or teacher or instructor in any two-year or four-year public institution of higher education, or in any graduate or adult program thereof, in the State of Alabama, shall have the affirmative right and freedom to present scientific information pertaining to the full range of scientific views in any curricula or course of learning.
Section 4. No K-12 public school teacher or teacher or instructor in any two-year or four-year public institution of higher education, or in any graduate or adult program thereof, in the State of Alabama, shall be terminated, disciplined, denied tenure, or otherwise discriminated against for presenting scientific information pertaining to the full range of scientific views in any curricula or course of learning, provided, with respect to K-12 teachers, the Alabama Course of Study for Science has been taught as appropriate to the grade and subject assignment.
Section 5. Students may be evaluated based upon their understanding of course materials, but no student in any public school or institution of higher education, shall be penalized in any way because he or she may subscribe to a particular position on any views.
Section 6. The rights and privileges contained in this act apply when topics are taught that may generate controversy, such as biological or chemical origins. Nothing in this act shall be construed as requiring or encouraging any change in the state curriculum standards in K-12 public schools, nor shall any provision of this act be construed as prescribing the curricular content of any course in any two-year or four-year public institution of higher education in the state.
Section 7. Nothing in this act shall be construed as protecting as scientific any view that lacks published empirical or observational support or that has been soundly refuted by empirical or observational science in published scientific debate. Likewise, the protection provided by this act shall not be restricted by any metaphysical or religious implications of a view, so long as the views are defensible from and justified by empirical science and observation of the natural world.
Section 8. Nothing in this act shall be construed as promoting any religious doctrine, promoting discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promoting discrimination for or against religion or non-religion.
Section 9. This act shall become effective on the first day of the third month following its passage and approval by the Governor, or its otherwise becoming law."
