Teachers, experts fear chill in classroom if Alberta legislation goes ahead
(The Canadian Press, May 3, 2009)
CALGARY " Educators and human rights experts in Alberta are worried that a proposed change to human rights legislation could make it tough to teach a number of controversial subjects.
The change says parents should be notified when classes "include subject matter that deals explicitly with religion, sexuality or sexual orientation," and should have the right to ask that their child sit out that part of the class.
The term "religion" is extremely broad and could edge its way into almost anything that comes up in the classroom, said Dan Shapiro, research associate with the Calgary-based Sheldon Chumir Foundation for Ethics in Leadership.
"It'll be like a kind of Monty Python skit. You have to say: 'Well, today we have to think about the Hindu student's going to object to this and tomorrow the Jewish student to this and then the Catholic student to this,' " said Shapiro.
"It'll be madly off in all directions. (Teachers) are strapped enough for resources and time to do their job properly and help educate children."
Frank Bruseker, head of the Alberta Teachers Association, said he's also concerned about what the new rules could mean.
He's worried that some parents might think mentioning different classes of worms would constitute a reference to evolution.
And he said a discussion of ancient geologic formations can't be had without mentioning the world is billions of years old, much more than a literal reading of the Bible would suggest.
Meanwhile, history and literature from around the world are chockablock full of references to religious upheaval.
"Religion is kind of a fuzzy thing, in a sense, in that what some people see as religion others might not," Bruseker said.
Opposition parties have hammered the government on the issue, saying the province is headed back to the time of the 1925 Scopes trial, in which a high school biology teacher in Tennessee was tried for teaching Darwin's theory of evolution.
Premier Ed Stelmach conceded to reporters last week that the provision could be used to pull students out of classes dealing with evolution if parents preferred their kids be taught what's in the Bible instead.
"The parents would have the opportunity to make that choice," he told a news conference.
But Lindsay Blackett, the Tory minister responsible for human rights, said in an interview that the intention of the law is to only allow parents to pull children out when the curriculum specifically covers religions, something that only happens for a few hours each school year.
"It's talking about religion (such as) Hindu, or Muslim, or that type of religion, not ... the curriculum with respect to, for instance, evolution," he said.
"That's science and we're not arguing science."
The rule wouldn't apply to any topics that come up spontaneously in a classroom, he said.
"It's not discussion, it's curriculum. You cannot be the thought police, and we would never ever advocate that."
No other provincial human rights legislation touches on parental rights in education, said Linda McKay-Panos, a human rights law expert and head of the Alberta Civil Liberties Research Centre at the University of Calgary.
Human rights law is in place to protect against discrimination on the basis of a number of factors, such as race and gender. It's hard to figure out what type of discrimination is being targeted with the proposed change, McKay-Panos said, suggesting the issue instead falls under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
"It's kind of an odd place to put all this," she said. "They could have interpreted the charter already to include that protection if they want to exempt their children by freedom of religion."
The government chose to put the concept into human rights law because it is considered more entrenched than school policy, and the government believes it is a deeply held right, Blackett said.
The proposed bill has passed a first reading and will be debated next week in the legislature.
Blackett said if people believe the wording of the bill is unclear and could lead to complaints beyond what the law is intended to cover, the government could tighten up the language before it passes.
"If that's the main worry than we can certainly narrow that down, we're reasonable people."
Even the question of where the students who can't hear a certain lesson will go is a problem, said Bruseker.
Teachers are required to watch over the children in their care and to send a student out to the hallway alone isn't always a possibility. Libraries often aren't staffed anymore, and office staff already have their hands full.
It also raises the question of whether a child who sits out portions of the curriculum will still write a provincial exam and whether missing key pieces will be a problem.
Most importantly, it calls into question the purpose of a public education system, said Bruseker.
A zoologist by training, Bruseker said he's well aware that he's unlikely to change the mind of someone who strongly believes in creationism. But teaching kids to talk about ideas and listening to others is what matters.
"Isn't it more healthy to have that discussion and create the opportunity for kids to deal with these controversial issues and have the discussion in class?" he asked.
"Isn't that, the development of critical thinking skills, isn't that really what public education is supposed to be all about?"
Very good Ed. You really stretched yourself there.
In Professor Vitz's book Sigmund Freud's Christian Unconscious he writes of a lapsed Catholic friend of his remarking of the modern "liberal" image of God--"That's not the God I don't believe in." To which Prof Vitz says- " To be indignant is to reveal one's lack of indifference."
As science is, fundamentally, the exercise of the disinterested curiosity it follows that the indignant and those who are incapable of the exercise of disinterested curiosity know no science. Their indignation and their passionate interest are anathema to the scientific mind and could only have arisen emotionally.
Thus all posts on this thread, apart from mine, are twaddle from the scientific point of view. And it sure does show.
Such a state of mind is the very last thing to bring into a science classroom and in unburdening itself of its emotional preoccupations it burdens the kids with them. It inhibits the exercise of the disinterested curiosity which is natural in children. It not only does but is intended to bend out of shape with emotional pliars the kid's pristine minds.
Teachers, experts fear chill in classroom if Alberta legislation goes ahead
(The Canadian Press, May 3, 2009)
He's worried that some parents might think mentioning different classes of worms would constitute a reference to evolution.
Yup, it's a real can of worms they're about to open up. Good luck Canada.
0 Replies
Lightwizard
1
Reply
Mon 4 May, 2009 09:52 am
The change says parents should be notified when classes "include subject matter that deals explicitly with religion, sexuality or sexual orientation," and should have the right to ask that their child sit out that part of the class."
Ah, will the parents have the right to ask that the student avoid other students (or anyone else willing to discuss controversial subjects) which is where religion, sexuality or sexual orientation is usually first discussed? Why not send them out the front door in a bubble.
I don't know about you but I was learning about those controversial subjects in the schoolyard and in Biology, Psychology and History classes in Jr. High before my parents were willing to discuss them. Religion was also going to church with my Grandmother when I visited her and she influenced my parents to send me to Sunday School but, of course, it was only Christianity.
That's the problem I see as well. Education isn't a sterile thing. While classes can avoid mentioning specific ideas (like religion), they can't avoid providing information about the world which may be in conflict with all kinds of beliefs.
I think if you're not willing to let your kid be exposed to all the nuances of the modern world, then you simply can't let them out of the house. Home schooling is your only option. I think the Amish do this to a certain extent, don't they? Except I think their kids are still exposed to modern ideas, they just aren't allowed to bring everything into their community. Right?
0 Replies
rosborne979
1
Reply
Mon 4 May, 2009 10:23 am
It seems kind of pathetic if your religious beliefs can't even withstand a normal dose of daily reality.
People really need to learn to differentiate spiritual theology from physical reality. They really aren't the same thing.
0 Replies
cicerone imposter
1
Reply
Mon 4 May, 2009 10:29 am
@Lightwizard,
LW, Although I'm atheist, I have required our two boys to attend the buddhist church with their mother to learn morals and socialize with other Japanese-Americans until their mid-teens, and told them they are free to make their own choice after that. I also had both boys attend Japanese language school for a couple of years, but they speak no Japanese, because only English is spoken at home.
One of my best friend's Mom was Buddhist but they were not Asian. I really didn't learn that much about the religion but at the time it was more important that they he had a taste for classical music like my Dad (who had a collection of old 78's he would play.) It wasn't long before I started collection classical LP's, my first the Fritz Reiner, Chicago Symphony recording of Beethoven's 3rd Symphony.
Back to the subject, isn't what the school classes are intending on teaching students suppose to be discussed at PTA meetings and face-to-face with teachers and administrators without government participation? Should the government legislate good parenting other than the precedent of civil laws?
I didn't have to have my parents sign anything when my Jr. High Biology class teacher began to teach the basics of evolution. I didn't hear of any parents making a fuss about it being taught from any of my schoolmates and the families were mostly Catholics. I did have one close friend when in High School whose parents sent him to Catholic School -- I doubt the Nuns were teaching evolution.
Religious conservatives don't want to just stand still, they want to go backwards.
In actual fact the passionate interest and unscientific, emotional particularism, which is not all that dissimilar to that of a lady who constantly looks into a mirror to reassure herself of her charms, shown on these threads time after time by atheists is so powerful and personal that it has blinded them to my own quite obvious detachment and impartiality which I have been scrupulous to maintain throughout. I have no axe to grind. I merely seek to examine the social outcomes of the choices before us and the possible motives of those recommending them to us most of which I think are emotionally derived.
I cannot see how atheism under the present political dispensation would result in anything other than what Spengler, being coy, called herrin morale. The simple biological facts can lead to nothing else but I am prepared to listen to scenarios which will halt or reverse the trend in that direction.
This quote is Heinrich Heine's 1835 prophesy regarding the collapse of Christianity as quoted by the historian H.R. Trevor-Roper in 1979.
Quote:
The German revolution will not prove any milder or gentler because it was preceded by the "Critique" of Kant, by the "Transcendental Idealism" of Fichte, or even by the "philosophy of nature." These doctrines served to develop revolutionary forces that only await their time to break forth and to fill the world with terror and admiration.
... The philosopher of nature will be terrible in this, that he has allied himself with the primitive powers of nature, that he can conjure up the demonical forces of the Old German pantheism; and having done so, there is aroused in him that ancient German eagerness for battle which engaged in combat, not for the sake of destroying, nor even for the sake of victory, but merely for the sake of the combat itself. Christianity--and this is its fairest merit--subdued to a certain extent the brutal warrior-ardour of the Germans, but it could not entirely quench it, and when the cross, that restraining talisman, falls to pieces, then will break out again the ferocity of the old combatants, the frantic berserker rage, whereof Northern poets have said and sung so much. The Talisman has become rotten, and the day will come when it will pitifully crumble into dust. The old stone gods will then arise from the forgotten ruins and wipe from their eyes the dust of centuries, and Thor with his giant hammer will rise again, and he will shatter the Gothic cathedrals. When ye hear the trampling of feet and the clashing of arms, ye neighbor's children, ye French, be on your guard. . . . German thunder is true German character: it is not very nimble, and rumbles along somewhat slowly. But come it will, and when ye hear a crashing such as never before has been heard in the world's history, then know that at last the German thunderbolt has fallen.
Which it did.
The progress of science in the development of weapons since Heine's day makes it all the more important that the Talisman is cared for.
0 Replies
edgarblythe
1
Reply
Mon 4 May, 2009 11:32 am
@spendius,
Indignant? Me? Look in the mirror, dude. There's the face of one who feels thoroughly threatened and increasingly desperate.
I think he types all this crap sitting on the Lew while putting on Ayers.
0 Replies
spendius
1
Reply
Mon 4 May, 2009 02:04 pm
You guys have nothing to contribute except cheap and easy jibes.
I quoted a famous writer, Heine, one of Frank Harris's favourites. A top history professor and a professor of psychology at NYU.
And that's all you can bring to the table!! And some drooling over tin-pot journalists.
You're a joke. You're attacking Christianity 0n the basis of some experience of certain strange forms of it and its disapproval of some behaviours you fancy having a go at for your own satisfaction.
You need a bit more than that for discussing a nation's educational system.
You are wrong. I went 12 years too a catholic school and they did teach evolution. They also taught religion and the bible, old and new testament. When I went too school only nuns taught. And the leasons they taught were things that I have used my whole life. They instilled a recognation of right and wrong in me that many on this site could have used.
Depends on the year and the demographic I'm guessing but I could be wrong and have lost contact with that friend years ago.
0 Replies
spendius
1
Reply
Mon 4 May, 2009 02:56 pm
@spendius,
Instead of criticising a fairly settled morality built upon Christian ideals why don't you extol the virtues of atheism as the nation's creed. One only need read Brave New World to see the many benifits of such a creed coupled with very advanced science.
It's a lot easier breaking windows than repairing them. Any fool can throw stones.
Sell us your agenda. The Christian agenda has already been sold and bought.
But think of the legal fees when divorce is made easy rather than impossible. Until death us do part is bad news for the legal profession. Very bad news.
0 Replies
Lightwizard
1
Reply
Mon 4 May, 2009 03:14 pm
I'm finding online that the teaching of evolution in Roman Catholic parochial schools varies across the US but ID is rejected.
From the MinnPost.com April 15, 2009
THE COLLEGE OF ST. CATHERINE
Biologist and believer Ken Miller defends Darwin and the divine
By Mary Vitcenda
The year that marks the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth seems an appropriate time for Kenneth Miller to spend a day at St. Kate's.
Darwin, of course, is the English naturalist whose discoveries form the basis of modern evolutionary theory. Miller, a professor of biology at Brown University, is one of the country's most visible advocates of evolution -- who also happens to be Roman Catholic.
Miller discussed his 1999 book, Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground between God and Evolution, when he delivered a lecture at St. Kate's April 8. Declaring that evolution is an issue that "divides Americans," he laid out the scientific rationale for evolution while declaring its "ultimate compatibility" with religious faith.
He also talked about his 2008 book, Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul.
But didn't a federal judge's ruling in 2005 barring the Dover, Pa., school district from inserting "intelligent design" in biology curriculum put an end to the battle over teaching evolution in U.S. public schools?
"Some people like to pretend that the Dover trial settled everything, but it didn't," said Miller " who was the lead expert witness for the plaintiffs in that trial " in a recent phone interview. "What's really happened post-Dover is re-labeling and a change in strategy. There are big battles now on this issue in Florida, Louisiana and Texas."
Intelligent design, Miller explained, has become a code term for creationism " the belief that an agent or power created all life forms with their "distinctive features already intact." And yet he showed the audience of students, professors and staff how scientific discoveries of "transitional forms" of life prove that land animals evolved from primitive fish.
Fears about evolution
Miller's lecture at St. Kate's also touched on why the teaching of evolution bothers some people so much. The concern that evolution means "we aren't moral beings" or aren't created in the image of God is more prevalent in the United States, he said, than in all other developed nations, save for Turkey.
"People are afraid, and the fear is at two levels," Miller said. "There's a concern among some people that the natural history of the planet undermines the authority of Scripture and the creation story in Genesis."
A bigger fear for some religious people, Miller added, is that evolution means "we're just a mistake of nature and that our existence doesn't mean anything."
These fears are unfounded, maintains Miller, himself a man of faith. The argument that belief in evolution is antithetical to belief in God or the dignity of humankind is a "false choice," he says.
Miller's assertion that God and prayer can coexist with evolution set him apart from Darwin defenders who don't believe in a divine creator " such as atheist author Christopher Hitchens (God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything).
He's just one of many with whom Miller has squared off in his advocacy of evolution and faith.
A national profile
In 2005, Miller joined other scientists in publicly asking Pope Benedict to clarify the Church's stance on evolution following a New York Times op/ed written by Cardinal Christoph Schonbörn of Vienna that seemed to dispute previous Vatican messages that evolution is compatible with Catholic doctrine (The Vatican continues to support evolution).
Miller was launched into the national spotlight in 1997, when he appeared with three other evolutionists on the public affairs television program Firing Line hosted by the late William F. Buckley, Jr.
Since then, he has appeared on everything from the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) program Nova to Comedy Central's The Colbert Report. He's also an advisor to the science unit of The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer and was recently honored with the 2008 American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) Award for Public Understanding of Science and Technology.
Additionally, Miller has written numerous articles, essays and editorials for scientific and popular publications. And, of course, his books and current lecture series are other ways he speaks out for teaching evolution.
With all these activities on his resume, it's easy to forget that Miller is a professor of biology who spends a good deal of his life in the classroom. He's also written college textbooks on biology and is co-author, with Joe Levine, of the widely used high school biology textbook Biology, published by Prentice Hall.
The centrality of evolution in his chosen field is one reason Miller is so passionate about the subject. Another is his belief that nothing less than the future of science is at stake in the battle over teaching evolution.
"If [anti-evolutionists] prevail, we will raise a whole generation of young people who've been taught to be suspicious and hostile to science and that to enter a career in science means turning your back on your faith," he said. "Then we'll give up our leadership in science, which would be terrible for this country " and the world."
Miller contends that scientists and science educators themselves are partly to blame for the current situation.
"To the extent that the scientific community is reticent to explain to Americans in everyday language what we do and why we do it, we contribute to the climate of suspicion and hostility," he said. "We in science need to do a better job of getting out and explaining to Americans why science is important."
The lecture was co-sponsored by the President's Office, Student Senate and the College's Myser Initiative on Catholic Identity and was hosted by Endowed Professor in the Sciences Cynthia Norton, Ph.D.
*For more on this issue, visit the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life.
Mary Vitcenda is a St. Paul freelance writer-editor and communications consultant.
He's a B-list niche feeder. It's a principle of evolution that if there's a niche for an organism to get a living in it will be occupied and dislodging the occupant involves fighting.
Make enough noise and media centres will put you on a list of people to bring on to fill up the time between the ads. Media gets paid for ads and has to pay for this service. Logic does the rest.
Obviously they are known as "experts".
0 Replies
rosborne979
1
Reply
Mon 4 May, 2009 04:33 pm
Here's an entertaining little rant from Don McLeroy. At 4min 20sec into the video he comes up with this little ditty, “I disagree with these experts. Somebody’s gotta stand up to experts that are… I don’t know why they’re doing it. They’re wonderful people....”
I couldn't help but cringe at hearing poor Steven Gould being used once again to try to argue against evolution. I guess it's ok to agree with an "expert" if he's already dead and you can take his comments out of context. And the last time I looked, the Cambrian "Explosion" was understood to have taken around 80 MILLION YEARS, not *poof* here's a bunch of trilobites. Oh, and it was such a tragedy that he lost his copy of TIME magazine to back up his argument. I've heard that most reputable scientists base their papers on articles in popular media mags like TIME.
McLeroy so transparently recites Creationist propaganda that he's a walking poster child for exactly why we don't want to let this crap anywhere near a real science class.