Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Intellectual Diversity or Intellectual Insult?
(Scott Jaschik, Inside Higher Ed, April 16, 2007)

The Missouri House of Representatives passed a bill last week that would require public colleges to report regularly on how they promote and protect "intellectual diversity." While the bill still must be approved by the Senate and the governor to become law, House passage was a major victory for groups seeking legislative help to change campus climates they view as hostile to conservative ideas.

The bill outlines a series of topics on which colleges could report, and one of them has academics afraid that "intellectual diversity" means that biology professors who teach evolution as more than just a theory competing with creationism may find themselves having to defend themselves against charges brought against them by complaining students. The legislation passed by the House says that among the things colleges could include in their reports are "intellectual diversity concerns in the institution's guidelines on teaching and program development and such concerns shall include but not be limited to the protection of religious freedom including the viewpoint that the Bible is inerrant."

The phrases ?- some suggesting this as a requirement and others suggesting that it isn't ?- are confusing, but academic groups note that it is rare for public colleges to be told or even urged that they must protect the teaching that the Bible is literally true. Cary Nelson, president of the American Association of University Professors, called the bill as a result "one of the worst pieces of higher education legislation in a century."

A number of faculty and student groups have been working against the bill. But support in the House was strong, in part because of a continuing controversy over the social work program at Missouri State University. Last year, a student complained that she was being forced to express views that differed from her religious views, and this month an outside panel that reviewed the social work program at Missouri State found that students felt fearful of expressing views that differed from their professors, especially on spiritual and religious matters.

The bill passed by the House is called the "Emily Brooker Intellectual Diversity Act," in honor of the Missouri State student who raised the issue last year. (Critics of the legislation don't defend the way Brooker was treated, but say that her case is an exception. Further, they point out that her case has been resolved, and the department involved has received considerable scrutiny and faces likely changes, without legislation.)

The Missouri House vote was praised by Anne D. Neal, president of the American Council of Alumni and Trustees, which drafted versions of the bill (without calling for Biblical inerrancy) that have been introduced in a number of state legislatures this year. "For years, the academic establishment has refused to take action to protect the free exchange of ideas," Neal said. "It is no wonder that now, confronted with real problems, Missouri legislators have asked for a measure of accountability."

*************************************

Jeremy Bradley is a biology major and a senior at Lincoln University, in Missouri, where he is president of the student government. Bradley said that while he believes students should be exposed to a range of views on various issues, he does not want his biology professors telling him that evolution and intelligent design and creationism are all just a bunch of theories backed by different people. "In the science classroom, the theory of evolution should be taught. Maybe you can teach intelligent design in a philosophy classroom," Bradley said.

If his professors feel that excluding intelligent design or creationism from science classes would get them branded as opposing intellectual diversity, Bradley said he fears the impact on his degree. "People assume I know and understand certain things, including evolution," Bradley said. "If they couldn't assume that, that would really damage the credibility of my degree."

Nelson, of the AAUP, said that it was "particularly remarkable that the bill includes belief in the literal truth of the Bible under the heading of intellectual diversity." He added that "requirements for balance in the curriculum and respect for intellectual diversity, in hiring, and in public speeches on the campus ?- coupled with reporting requirements ?- effectively mean that Missouri would no longer have any system of secular public higher education. Missouri's fine universities would become religious schools if this bill were to be approved by the Senate."

Neal of the ACTA countered that view. She noted that the legislation offers a variety of ways for colleges to make reports, so no one way is necessarily a requirement. "The legislation does not dictate what the institutions must do or say. It respects institutional autonomy since it's entirely up to the institution to decide what and how to report," Neal said.

Further, she said that if colleges are upset with the legislation, they should have cleaned up their acts earlier. Said Neal: "If institutions adequately addressed these issues voluntarily, legislation of the sort proposed in Missouri and elsewhere would not be necessary."

Eorl edited that which Foxfyre wrote:

No, it is more than faith. It is knowledge obtained through experience, but it is an experience that cannot be taught to another--each person has to experience it to know it. If I was the only one professing such an experience, it could neither be verified nor falsified using any scientific principle, but it could reasonably be suspect. But when you draw in that 'cloud of witnesses', millions and millions of them, who share the same kind of experience, then a conclusion can be reasonably drawn that magic is at least a popular theory of the origins and evolution of the universe.

Again, acknowledging that millions of people believe in magic based on their individual experiences is still not a reasoned argument for teaching magic as science. And I will continue to strongly object to it being taught as science.

It is, however, a reasoned argument for allowing magic and Darwin to co-exist peacefully without getting our knickers in a twist about it. It also is a reasoned argument for accepting that magic and Darwin do not need to cancel each other out or be in conflict.

Well have to have a Department of Flying Spaghetti Monsterology, if this goes through.
They seem to equate diversity with stupidity in this legislation.

Terrible Eorl. A shite demonstration.

But obviously, if certain scientific knowledge or activity is clearly immoral or destructive, then efforts should be made to control or regulate how or if it is used.

Does this also mean all MO colleges would lose federal funds?

Protecting viewpoints that the Bible is inerrant seems to violate the establishment clause...

They seem to equate diversity with stupidity in this legislation.

cicerone imposter wrote:

Does this also mean all MO colleges would lose federal funds?

Good point, c.i. I hope someone in the Missouri Senate brings up this point in debate. The Missouri House of Representatives version states: "intellectual diversity concerns in the institution's guidelines on teaching and program development and such concerns shall include but not be limited to the protection of religious freedom including the viewpoint that the Bible is inerrant."

Protecting viewpoints that the Bible is inerrant seems to violate the establishment clause and may prevent federal funding to Missouri state schools. Furthermore, the establishment clause extends to state legislation by virtue of the fourteenth amendment.

So where does spendi go? is there even some application to all this IDism?

MISSOURI HOUSE BILL NO. 213
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the state of Missouri, as follows:
Section A. Chapter 173, RSMo, is amended by adding thereto one new section, to be known as section 173.057, to read as follows:
1. The provisions of this section shall be known and cited as the "Emily Brooker Intellectual Diversity Act". As used in this section, "intellectual diversity" is defined as the foundation of a learning environment that exposes students to a variety of political, ideological, religious, and other perspectives, when such perspectives relate to the subject matter being taught or issues being discussed.
2. The coordinating board for higher education shall require each public institution to report annually to the general assembly detailing the steps the institution is taking to ensure intellectual diversity and the free exchange of ideas.
(1) The report required in this subsection shall address the specific measures taken by the institution to ensure and promote intellectual diversity and academic freedom. The report may include steps taken by the institution to:
(a) Conduct a study to assess the current state of intellectual diversity on its campus, including diversity-related criteria used in admissions, scholarship awards, and hiring which shall include racial and gender diversity;
(b) Incorporate intellectual diversity into institution statements, grievance procedures, which may include filing a complaint directly with the governing board, and activities on diversity;
(c) Encourage a balanced variety of campus-wide panels and speakers and annually publish the names of panelists and speakers;
(d) Establish clear campus policies that ensure that hecklers or threats of violence do not prevent speakers from speaking;
(e) Include intellectual diversity concerns in the institution's guidelines on teaching and program development and such concerns shall include but not be limited to the protection of religious freedom including the viewpoint that the Bible is inerrant;
(f) Include intellectual diversity issues in student course evaluations;
(g) Develop hiring, tenure, and promotion policies that protect individuals against viewpoint discrimination and track any reported grievances in that regard;
(h) Establish clear campus policies to ensure freedom of the press for students and report any incidents of student newspaper thefts or destruction;
(i) Establish clear campus policies to prohibit viewpoint discrimination in the distribution of student fee funds;
(j) Develop methods for disseminating best practices to ensure that conflicts between personal beliefs and classroom assignments that may contradict such beliefs can be resolved in a manner that achieves educational objectives without requiring a student to act against his or her conscience;
(k) Eliminate any speech codes that restrict the freedom of speech;
(l) Hold meetings periodically with students to determine if the students believe they are receiving a sound and respectful education; or
(m) Create an institutional ombudsman on intellectual diversity.
(2) The report shall be distributed to the members of the general assembly no later than December thirty-first of each year, beginning in 2008.
(3) The report shall be posted on each public higher education institution's web site.
3. Each public higher education institution shall ensure that students are notified that measures to promote intellectual diversity are in place and how to report alleged violations of policy. When any student asks how to pursue filing a grievance about an alleged violation of policy or expresses the belief to an instructor that his or her viewpoint has been discriminated against, the instructor shall inform the student of all the options available for resolving the student's grievance.

There is indeed and I dealt with it only a day or two ago but I presume it either escaped your notice

spendi

Quote:

There is indeed and I dealt with it only a day or two ago but I presume it either escaped your notice

Whenever your posts get over 2 paragraphs of wattle, I totally ignore them so, yeh, in effect, it escaped my notice.

Hey FM, you spelled "Puerile Asinine Gibberish" incorrectly, somehow it came out looking like the word "wattle".

(e) Include intellectual diversity concerns in the institution's guidelines on teaching and program development and such concerns shall include but not be limited to the protection of religious freedom including the viewpoint that the Bible is inerrant.