As Ed Brayton points out, the Wall Street Journal understands what creationists are up to. Bills purporting to guarantee academic freedom to high school teachers in various states are nothing of the sort.
They have spent years working school boards, with only minimal success. Now critics of evolution are turning to a higher authority: state legislators.
In a bid to shape biology lessons, they are promoting what they call "academic freedom" bills that would encourage or require public-school teachers to cast doubt on a cornerstone of modern science.
That cornerstone is, of course, evolutionary biology.
The academic-freedom bills now in circulation vary in detail. Some require teachers to critique evolution. Others let educators choose their approach -- but guarantee they won't be disciplined should they decide to build a case against Darwin.
The common goal: To expose more students to articles and videos that undercut evolution. Most of this material is produced by advocates of intelligent design or Biblical creationism, the belief that God created man in his present form.
"The common goal" shows that proponents of these bills aren't interested in academic freedom at all. They're interested in promoting a particular view. And they misunderstand what academic freedom is. Academic freedom is not the freedom of a teacher to teach whatever she wants without consequences. The scholarly community of which that teacher is a part sets the standards for what good teaching and for what subjects should be included as part of the curriculum.
A fundamental premise of academic freedom is that decisions concerning the quality of scholarship and teaching are to be made by reference to the standards of the academic profession, as interpreted and applied by the community of scholars who are qualified by expertise and training to establish such standards. (source)
A teacher who wants to teach creationism in biology is failing to meet the professional standards of the discipline. It is no more unreasonable to sanction such a teacher than it is to sanction a surgeon that doesn't use sterile technique.
Until some set of scholars convinces the professional community of biologists that creationism in one of its guises is a legitimate scientific alternative to evolutionary theory, teachers who try to teach creationism should expect to face sanctions, just as physicians who have not convinced the medical community that a particular therapy is a legitimate alternative to accepted practice should worry about keeping their license.
Leave a comment