'Weeding Out' Does Not Mean Actual Weeds -- Unless You Work For the Discovery Institute

As usual, the Discovery Institute can't seem to keep their stories straight.  Check out: "On Controversial Science, Skepticism Is Now “Social Deviance,” Skeptics Are “Weeds”"  That isn't what the 'offending' article said, but it did say we need to 'weed out' people who would fill roles in the wrong way.  Here's the quote the DI used:

"Requiring [mandatory evolution training] it though would, for one, provide teachers “with more confidence to teach evolution forthrightly,” they write, “even in communities where public opinion is sympathetic to creationism”; and two, it would help weed out creationists who want to teach high school biology by either converting them or encouraging them to “pursue other careers.”"

The DI's talking head, davey 'klingy' klinghoffer, responds with:

"Look, I wouldn’t want my kids taught creationism either, but the idea of casting human beings as “weeds” has an unhappy history."

Where does the first quote cast anyone as a weed?  The phrase 'weed out' does not do that!  It's an expression, and if klingy was being honest he would recognize it as such.  Weeding out, as defined by Merriam-Webster is:

": to remove (people or things that are not wanted) from a group.  'They will review the applications to weed out the less qualified candidates.' "

I 'weed out' things all the time.

• Not too long ago it was a set of resumes, weeding out the ones who didn't have the required qualifications.  Sounds unfair, but when you have 100 resumes for 1 position, and most do not have any of the mandatory qualifications, you have to have some way of filtering through them because 100 interviews would be unwieldy.  Plus, why would you interview someone without a single qualification for a job?
• I also 'weeded out' companies several years ago when I was looking for a new job.  Does that mean the other companies who made me an offer were weeds?  No, just not the best fit for me at that time.  Now the ones who didn't make me an offer . . . oh never mind :-), just teasing.
•  In addition I 'weeded out' software application frameworks when we were looking for one for a new application.  There are plenty of frameworks, but only a few were serious contenders.  How much time were we supposed to waste on frameworks that can't possibly meet our needs?

Somehow I managed to do all that 'weeding out' without characterizing a single person, company, or product as a 'weed' -- something apparently beyond klingy's abilities.  So if I was looking for someone who could differentiate between an expression and a literal label, I guess I could weed out klingy!

Back to the example actually mentioned in the first quote and not klingy trying to drag us into the weeds of obfuscation, is the very idea of a Creationist teaching biology.  It's probably a bad idea if, and only if, the teacher would insist on teaching religion instead of actual biology.  Being a Creationist doesn't make you unable to do a job, but refusing to actually do the job certainly makes you unwilling to do the job and you should be held accountable -- as Abraham, Coppedge, and Freshwater, among others, found out.

Just because the article used the term 'weeding out' doesn't mean people who are skeptical of evolution are weeds.  The DI even had to stretch the story by a quote from 1924 to try and make their case.  As usual, they are quote-mining a dead horse.  There have been a number of 'weed' quotes attributed to Margaret Sanger, and according to Snopes.com, nearly all of them are crap.  They found that she may have used the term, but metaphorically, not literally.  I noticed he didn't complain that Sanger may have called American Youth 'flowers'?  Yes, Sanger was a controversial figure in her day, even today.  But this little maybe 'quote' is just another tactic, trying to tie actual science to someone controversial.  You might have noticed that klingy also brought in the Nazi's  . . . again.  Don't they get tired of this sort of nonsense?  Anyone else want to hazard a guess why no one takes klingy, or the Discovery Institute, seriously?  One reason might be writings like this.

But, as usual, the DI misses the point and tried to spin it into something it's not.  Skepticism and Denial-ism are two separate things.  People who are skeptical question, consider, and usually think about the subject at hand.  Deniers deny, regardless of the evidence in front of them.

A couple of year back, we discussed 'skepticism' before in "Skeptics vs Deniers, is there a difference?" in response to the NY Times article where they stopped using the term 'climate skeptic' and started using 'climate deniers' and we determined there is a difference, and it's not a subtle one.  A skeptic will be convinced when faced with the actual evidence of whatever they are skeptical about.  A denier will never be convinced, no matter what evidence is placed before them and if they have to go look for themselves, you know they will rarely make the effort.  It's easier to deny than face the possibility you are wrong.  You see it in anti-vaxxers, climate change deniers, and most certainly in evolution deniers.

For example, I was skeptical that 'sushi' will be something good to eat, until I actually tried a pretty wide variety of sushi -- Thanks Cathy -- and came to the conclusion I didn't like it.  The vinegar-tasting rice needed something to cut that taste, plus the texture of most raw seafood wasn't to my liking.  While the California Roll wasn't bad, if we go to any restaurants that offer sushi, I make sure it has a wider menu than just sushi or sashimi.  I was a skeptic, now I am simply not a fan.  Denial-ism doesn't work that way.

A denier, most likely, wouldn't have given sushi a try -- even if they had, they would come out of the place not being skeptical, but actively not wanting other people to have a chance to even try it.  A denier wants to make the decision for everyone!  Look at anti-vaxxers whose refusal to allow their kids to be vaccinated while ignoring the risk to hurting other children!  Evidence of the success of vaccinations means nothing to a vaccination denier.

Referring to a denier as a 'social deviant', especially within the context the term was used is entirely appropriate.  It takes an Intelligent Design proponent to cast such aspersions as comparing them to prostitute and other criminals.  But let's look at the whole Wikipedia quote:

"Social deviants"—prostitutes, vagrants, alcoholics, drug addicts, open dissidents, pacifists, draft resisters and common criminals—were also imprisoned in concentration camps. The common criminals frequently became Kapos, inmate guards of fellow prisoners."

Did klingy forget to mention this quote was at the very end of the Wikipedia page on Holocaust Victims?  Of course not, that wouldn't play well.  This example of 'social deviants' is not a denier of scientific consensus, but anyone the Nazi's didn't like as an afterthought more than anyone else.  Only an intelligent design proponent would try and equate this to science denial.

Look at the Discovery Institute, they have gone well past the idea of skepticism, they are active science deniers of the highest order.  Not only do they deny the evidence supporting real science, but they keep trying to pretend they are scientists and want to insert their religious beliefs into the science classroom.  Failing that, their most current tactic is to offer political protection to teachers who do manage to teach their religious beliefs instead of the actual science they are supposed to be teaching.  The DI is not just skeptical of evolution, they deny it over and over again while trying to hide their religious agenda.

Why is this important?  Simple, skepticism can be addressed by actually examining the evidence.  Once you face the evidence, further refusals put you in denial, and denial-ism is dangerous.  Not only are deniers of science seeking political protection for their own views, their views can cause actual harm.  The most common example are the anti-vaxxers.  Evidence, again, shows over and over again that failing to have your children vaccinated results in increasing cases of preventable diseases -- occurring not just in the un-vaccinated children, but the vaccinated who interact with them.  Vaccinated children are less likely to develop the disease, but vaccination is not immunity.

One of my favorite bloggers, and biology teachers, Allison Campbell, wrote up this just recently: "1896, and the consequences of refusing the smallpox vaccine".  It's a prime example of dealing with skeptics, deniers won't change their mind, even if they bother to read it.  They already have all the answers they need, regardless of the human consequences.  Like all deniers, the DI doesn't care about the human consequences, as long as their religion wins the day.

Denials of evolution impact the environment, medicines, and medical treatments -- all well supported by the science of evolution!  Climate denial has resulted in a significant delay of examining possible methods for dealing with a potentially catastrophic problem -- one supported by all the evidence, unless your research is funding by an oil company.  Tobacco deniers caused million of dollars in medical costs, not to mention deaths, due to denying the dangers of tobacco for decades.  Gasoline lead-additive deniers also cost countless dollars in medical costs and deaths, even if we didn't call them deniers over the 40 year fight to get the lead out!  Science denial kills real people, not nearly as much as religion has over the centuries, but that's another discussion the DI keeps trying to avoid.

Skepticism is a rational response to validate the information before adopting it, but once you have been presented with the information, you are no longer a skeptic if you continue to argue against it, you are a denier, and your actions end up affecting much more than yourself.  Education is the key to dealing with skeptics, I'm not sure what the best way to deal with deniers may be, but, if history is any example, eventually deniers as a group discover how wrong they have been.  Oh, there will always be a few whining that cigarettes aren't harmful and lead in gasoline doesn't hurt anyone, but, for the most part, they get relegated to the crackpot status, like flat-earthers.  One day we will be able to look back and laugh even harder at folks like klingy.  In the meantime, I'll just laugh my normal laugh when I see he's made another post trying to muddy the waters.

BTW, klingy, 'muddy the waters' is another expression, you might look it up.  I haven't actually been casting dirt in water and stirring it up.  

An Alabama State Representative Shows His Ignorance

Reported on the Times Daily, and a number of other sites, "Lawmaker wants intelligent design resolution".  If you read the article I think you will agree with me, Rep. Mack Butler has been taken in by the Discovery Institute marketing material.  Here's a few quotes from the article (my comments after each one):

"“In the development of critical thinking, we need to make it welcoming at least for a student or teacher to bring up another theory . . ."

Rep Butler, what 'other' theory?  Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory; therefore, it should not be presented in science class as if it was.  Didn't you hear about Dover Pa when they tried the same thing?  Or do you want one of your school districts to be the subject of an expensive and embarrassing lawsuit?

" . . .some teachers may be unsure of the expectation concerning how they should present information when controversy occurs on such subjects"

Apparently Alabama teachers are untrained in the teaching profession, at least in Rep Butler's mind.  Teachers should already know how to deal with controversy, especially within their subject specialties.  So if someone brings up any topic that might be controversial, like human trafficking, drug use, or racism -- are teachers in Alabama ill-equipped to deal with such topics?  I seriously doubt that it's a teacher issue.  Rep Butler is using teachers as a kind of scapegoat to justify his actions.  Let's not forget that this same politician tried a similar bill (which failed) and did manage to get a Student Religious Freedom bill passed just last year.  God forbid a politician be honest in his motivations. 

" . . .respond appropriately and respectfully to differences of opinion about scientific subjects required to be taught"

Really, differences of opinion, that's all this is?  So on the one hand we have over 150 years of evidence and scientific achievements . . . and on the other hand . . . we have a religious concept dressed up in an ill-fitting lab coat without a single shred scientific supporting it  . . . and this pandering politician thinks it just a matter of opinion.  I think this does indicate what his opinions are worth.

"“I’ve never minded evolution being taught, but I think the door should be open to other theories as well,” Butler said. “… I think it’s a well-rounded person who knows both sides of the argument, whether they believe what I believe or what Darwin believed.”"

Belief is not important, what matters is the evidence, what works, what has support more than conjecture and wishful thinking.  That's what counts.  Darwin didn't simply 'believe' in evolution, he spent decades studying nature and developed an explanation that matched the actual evidence.  Can any proponent of an alternate 'theory' say the same?  Not even close!

Let's take another track.  Can anyone identify a doctor who uses Intelligent Design for diagnosis and treatment?  How about an engineer who uses Intelligent Design to build a bridge?  Can anyone . . . we can play this game all day if we wanted, can't we?  While the DI would like to claim anyone using their brain is an example of Intelligent Design, that's nothing more than another tactic of misdirection.  The training, the experience, the skill did not come with any help from the DI's idea of Intelligent Design!

Why Teaching Biology may be Harder than it Needs to be!

Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal is an online comic strip that I think I don't look at nearly often enough.  To the right is an old one that was recently passed to me.  It was too good not to pass on.  Have you run into someone so entrenched in their position, nothing in the way of logic or evidence can possibly dissuade them?  I know I have! It does illustrate that it can be hard to get some points across, particularly when the person you are talking with has been indoctrinated in their view that evidence gets summarily dismissed.  I do enjoy, as odd as it might sound, driving believers to the point where they have to invoke their deity to keep their belief set in play.  Check out panel 4: "Put here by Satan to fool non-believers". Funny, I have heard two versions of that.  On the one hand it was placed by Satan to fool folks, however more often I have heard the evidence was placed by God to test people's faith.  The end result is the same, the believer denies the evidence.  But sometimes I want to put two of them in the same room and let them duke it out to determine who 'planted' the evidence.  It always amazes me the lengths people will go to to maintain their delusions! It's not just theists, but people who believe in other supernatural foolishness, homeopathy, climate-change deniers, and -- of course -- the whole anti-vaccination movement.  Evidence is only meaningful if it can be twisted to support their entrenched position! Hopefully there isn't an actual 'Creation History Foundation', but you never know.  How often have we spoken about the Discovery Institute re-writing history? Think about how their pseudo-historian Michael Flannery, for example, has been telling us how Darwin is responsible for racism and Hitler -- regardless of the fact . . . and I do mean fact . . . because Hitler claimed to have been given a divine inspiration! While many Christians hear that and get upset, claiming that Hitler wasn’t a Christian that he just used the Bible as an excuse to justify and rationalize his actions. I agree! But then why does the DI insist that Darwin’s work caused the Nazi atrocities? Sounds a little self-serving and more than a little dishonest. Here is a something from Main Kampf just to prove my point: " . . . [Jews] very existence is an incarnate denial of the beauty of God's image in His creation." (http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks02/0200601.txt) History re-writes abound, things like the whole 'The US was established as a Christian Nation' to the DI re-baptizing people who are safely dead as 'Intelligent Design' supporters.  I commented on that a few years back in "Social Studies next on the firing line?" and Laurie Lebo had an article in 2011: "Fundamentalist-led Texas History Standards get 'D' from Conservative Think Tank."  There she reports that: "Texas’ new standards are evangelical-led revisionist history" So while there may not (yet) be a 'Creation History Foundation', one may come to pass.  I will be pretty confident that it will have as much to do with history as the DI has to do with science and it will probably be based in Texas . . . sorry Texas! I hope that you enjoy SMBC as much as I do, and as much as I plan to do on a more regular basis.  I do have a link to a short list of comics I do read daily.  That list includes XKCD, Dilbert, and Jesus and Mo.  I will be adding SMBC to that list. Note to SMBC:  I did copy your comic image for inclusion here in case the image link doesn't work in the future.  I've had that problem on a couple of other sites.  If you object, please let me know and I will change it to a link.

Science Teachers Under Fire for Saying Creationists Are “Trying to Mislead” Students

A blog I had read a few times had an interesting post.  It's from the Friendly Atheist:  "Science Teachers Under Fire for Saying Creationists Are “Trying to Mislead” Students".  A middle school in Florida sent home a reading assignment that included this paragraph:

"Next time someone tries to tell you that evolution is just a theory, as a way of dismissing it, as if it’s just something someone guessed at, remember that they’re using the non-scientific meaning of the word.  If that person is a teacher, or minister, or some other figure of authority, they should know better.  In fact, they probably do, and are trying to mislead you."

Apparently some folks got uptight about the last line, angry at the implication that ministers and parents were purposely deceiving kids:

When parents such as Jennifer Flinchum first read those lines, “the hair on the back of my neck stood up,” she said.
“It’s not so much the evolution aspect of it, it’s just the way they phrased those few sentences how they were kind of taking the rights away from the parents,” said parent, Lisa McNeil.

 Three thingsome to my mind:

• Isn't that exactly what they are doing?  Deceiving children!  While some may be doing it out of ignorance, the reality is they are in fact deceiving children. 
• Do parents and ministers have the right to deceive children? I don't think so!  I guess pointing that out isn't very politically correct, regardless of how accurate it is.
• So instead of putting it in a reading assignment, parents will be up in arms when a student asks the teacher about it in class and the teacher gets to inform the child that parents and ministers who say 'evolution is only a theory' are lying.  No, the teacher won't use those words, but that is the lesson kids will pick up.  Can't you see it?  "Teacher says this, Mom says this, Teacher says that's not factual.  Mom isn't telling me the truth!"  Oh yea, that won't get anyone uptight, now would it?

The principal did send home a letter of apology and I guess they plan on re-wording the statement.  I would be curious to see the newly worded reading assignment.

Is this an issue of Academic Freedom?

Just recently University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign rescinded a job offer to Steven G. Salaita.  While I understand rescinding a job offer, especially one made after a pretty significant selection process, is pretty rare -- but my issue is whether or not this is a matter of academic freedom.  I'm confused and hope someone can help me out.

First off, I've written about Academic Freedom before and I have always separated the issue from Free Speech.  Professors, in the conduct of their work, do not have free speech.  What they have is the right and, in my mind the responsibility, to present all facets of a subject area, even the controversial ones.  Academic Freedom means the academic organization cannot take negative action when teachers are doing their jobs.  What teachers do not have is the right to bring in unrelated topics into the classroom under the guise of academic freedom.  So, in other words, bringing Intelligent Design/Creationism into the science classroom as science does not fall under academic freedom because ID/Creationism is not science and therefore not in the subject area.  I know the Discovery Institute disagrees with me on that, but then they will use any tactic no matter how dishonest or reprehensible to push their pet ideas.  Remember the DI is the place who defended John Freshwater and failed to defend Chris Comer!  One was fired for not doing his job and one was fired for doing theirs.  Their idea of academic freedom is not the one shared by:

The American Council on Education (ACE) issued a statement endorsed by a pretty impressive list of collegiate organizations. It's called "Statement on Academic Rights and Responsibilities". Here are a few highlights:

• Colleges and universities should welcome intellectual pluralism and the free exchange of ideas.
• Academic decisions, including grades, should be based solely on considerations that are intellectually relevant to the subject matter under consideration.
• The validity of academic ideas, theories, arguments and views should be measured against the intellectual standards of relevant academic and professional disciplines.
• Application of these intellectual standards does not mean that all ideas have equal merit.
• Government’s recognition and respect for the independence of colleges and universities is essential for academic and intellectual excellence.

I posted about this before here. check out the 4th one, all ideas do not have equal merit.  Certainly explains the inequalities between Scientific Theory of Evolution and Religious concept of Intelligent Design/Creationism, doesn't it?

Now Professor Salaita was the associate professor of English at Virginia Tech, he resigned his position to accept a new one, starting this fall, as a tenured professor of American Indian studies at Urbana-Champaign.  So we have basically an English teacher becoming a teacher in American Indian Studies.

After receiving the job offer last year, it did say is still had to be approved by the Board, but it also said that was usually pretty perfunctory.  It became an issue when the professor tweeted some seriously inflammatory comments about Israel and the recent things going on in the Middle East.

Here is my thing.  Is this a matter of academic freedom?  I think not!  I'm not trying to defend or attack Israel or the professor, I'm trying to focus on the actions of the professor and the University.  Professor Salaita has the right, under free speech, to tweet whatever the hell he wants.  The University has the right to hire whoever the hell they want. 

The professor wasn't being hired to teach anything about Israel or the Middle East, so how is this a matter of academic freedom?  To me it's a matter of free speech.  Tweeting, like any form of communication, comes as a right and it also comes with some responsibilities.  You are free to yell 'Fire!' is a crowded theater, but afterwards, you will be held responsible!  There had better have been a fire or you will be help accountable for your actions, including any injuries as a result or even the lost revenue from the theater.  A few years the Dixie Chicks made a few political comments about then-president George Bush at a concert in England.  While I disagreed with their comments, they had the right to make them.  The negative impact to their career is a direct response to their exercising free speech, and accountability.  Now the folks who threatened them and their children I think have serious mental health issues, but that's a different issue.  Was anyone going to tell me I HAD to purchase their music regardless of their political statements?   That if I refused to purchase their music I was violating their rights in some fashion?  Of course not.  But that seems to be what's happening here.

Maybe the underlying question is does a position as a professor of any topic automatically grant you freedom from any level of personal accountability for anything you might say in any forum on any other topic?  Put that way it sounds pretty silly, doesn't it?  But claiming that  Professor Salaita's right of academic freedom has been violated because the University rescinded a job offer because of his exercise of free speech sounds exactly like that!  He is and should be accountable for his tweets, whether the later ripples in the water are to his benefit or detriment.

Does anyone remember when William Dembski was nearly fired?  Back when he was working at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, he caused a mild stir when someone realized that he actually suggested that the Bible might be less than historically accurate.  OK, he didn't actually suggest it, he out and out stated in in his book "The End of Christianity".  He went so far as to say Noah's flood was just a Middle-Eastern phenomena and not a global deluge.  He immediately came under fire by his bosses and recants incredibly quickly.  He even came out and said he was wrong!  No relying on 'academic freedom' for him because he knew exactly what was going to happen if he tried that route . . . it's called unemployment, so said Southwestern Seminary president Paige Patterson (about halfway down the article). 

Should the University be required to hire Professor Salaita ?  Maybe, but not because of academic freedom!  We are getting into a legal issue of acts and actions concerning job offers and offer-ers and who is entitled to what and when.  Complaining about academic freedom is, to me, just foolish smoke!  Be honest, if the University doesn't want to hire him because of his tweets, address the issue as one of free speech, not academic freedom!  If I were to post on Facebook or tweet comments that brought negative publicity to my employer, I would expect to get fired!  If between my acceptance of a job offer and the start of work something came up that would cause a negative reflection on me and my soon-to-be new company, I would expect to see the job offer fade into the dust.  I might not like it and would have potentially legal actions concerning it . . . it wouldn't be an issue of academic freedom!

I wonder if anyone from my current company pays any attention to this blog?  Imagine if the company owners were hard-core Creationists.  Could this blog get me fired?  That might be interesting, but not a fight I would want to get into.  I think as long as this blog didn't detract from me doing my job, my bosses shouldn't have an issue -- just like I shouldn't have an issue of their beliefs.  After all, what does their religious beliefs have to do with my being a computer programmer?  I think that's a lesson Nathaniel Abraham learned a few years back.  Do you remember him?  He was fired from Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute for refusing to do the job he was hired to do.  He tried the discrimination route to fight it and sued for all sorts of damages because he said his religious beliefs made it impossible to be an evolutionary biologist  . . . maybe he should have tried the 'academic freedom' complaint. 

Am I off base on academic freedom?  Let me know.  You can comment here or even email me direct at tedhohio@gmail.com.

Do Teachers Have Free Speech?

I guess the underlying question is does anyone really have 'Free Speech'? Before answering, I want to tell you a story of sorts.

When I was in the USAF, we had what we called 'Free Speech with limitations'. It sounds weird, but think about it. According to the precepts of free speech I should be able to tell my commander to 'pound sand'. The reality is that sure I could do so, but I had to be willing to face the consequences -- which could have included jail time, discharge, fines . . .. So in reality I did not have free speech as a member of the US Military. And it made perfect sense to me -- and still does. While the idea of free speech is fine, you always have to be willing to accept the consequences. Even in the civilian world, you aren't allowed to walk into a theater and yell 'Fire!'. Oh you can do it, but there better be a fire or the consequences of the ensuing panic will fall heavily on your shoulders.

So let's take this argument back to teachers. Do teachers have free speech? Well outside of the classroom they have the same free speech we all share. But I am talking inside the classroom? Do they?

According to John Freshwater, the Mt Vernon Teacher who is central to a long running trial in which he was fired for a variety of things, including teaching Creationism in violation of the district standards. One of his points was that the district’s restrictions on his classroom behavior violated his free speech rights. So at a time when his trial(s) are winding down, the question remains, does a teacher in the performance of their duties have free speech?

Well as reported on one of my favorite blogs, Panda's Thumb, the answer is No! According to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals:

"The appellate panel in Cincinnati upheld a lower court’s ruling for the Tipp
City [Ohio] Exempted Village School District, writing that the right to free
speech “does not extend to the in-class speech of teachers in primary and
secondary schools made ‘pursuant to’ their official duties.”"

This ruling and the 'free speech with limitations' makes perfect sense to me. Teachers in primary and secondary schools face an audience who has not learned the detail about any subject to understand enough to actually filter out inappropriate materials. As a result, the impressionable nature of students at that level mean the teachers should not be given free reign to teach anything they want.

This is why there are standards, and why teachers should be held to them -- regardless of any other beliefs or opinions. Noted in the ruling itself

"Supreme Court's 2006 ruling in Garcetti v. Ceballos, which states that when
government employees speak "pursuant to their official duties," they are "not
speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes."

Again, this makes perfect sense to me. Outside of the classroom a teacher has the same freedom of speech as any other citizen of the US. But inside that classroom, in pursuant to their official duties, a teacher does not and should not! And if they try and assert that they do, they should be willing to accept the consequences of their actions. In Mr. Freshman's case, getting fired.

There was a little aside at the end of the ruling:

"The 6th Circuit also ruled that the "academic freedom" concept does not protect
curricular speech at the high-school level, because the notion was conceived and
applied in universities to protect teachers who are also researchers or
scholars."

This one makes me a little concerned. I've discussed 'Academic Freedom' many times in here and I believe that High School teachers should have the same rights as college professors to introduce controversial material -- as long as such material is within the curriculum guidelines set by the school boards. The way this is worded seems to remove that arrow from high school teachers quiver and can be misused to avoid presenting materials simply based on the fact they are controversial. Climate change and Creationism comes to mind. Yes, they are controversial subjects, but Climate Change should be part of every Earth Science class today. Unlike Creationism, which while socially and politically controversial, is not a scientific subject and should not be protected by academic freedom policies at any level. This little addition to the ruling might need a little more thought. Any ideas?