Mr. Stein goes to Jefferson City

Upchurch

Papa Funkosophy
Upchurch
Joined
May 10, 2002
Messages
34,265
Location
St. Louis, MO
This morning on the radio, I heard a 15 second piece on the radio that sent me a searchin'.

It appears that Ben Stein has come to Jefferson City to promote Missouri HB 213 which,
Establishes the Emily Brooker Intellectual Diversity Act, which defines intellectual diversity for reporting purposes at public higher education institutions
Click to expand...

For those of you who don't frequent R&P, Stein's newest project is the latest evolution of the Creationism movement. Creationism taught in public high schools was found to be unconstitutional, so it took out the religious element and became Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design took a major blow when it was found to be "nothing less than theprogeny of creationism." This latest iteration takes the First Amendment lesson that had beaten it two times before and frames the argument as one of free speech.

I'm still looking into it, but I think this might be the most current Missouri Senate version of the bill.
SB 983 – This act establishes the Emily Brooker Higher Education Sunshine Act, which defines "intellectual diversity" and "free exchange of ideas" for purposes of reporting requirements for public institutions of higher education. The Coordinating Board for Higher Education will require each public institution of higher education to annually report to the General Assembly on steps taken to ensure intellectual diversity and the free exchange of ideas as described in the act. The report must be distributed to the General Assembly by December 31, 2009. Each public institution of higher education must post its report on its website and ensure that students are notified of measures to promote intellectual diversity and how to report alleged violations.
Click to expand...
The "intellectual diversity", of course, really means "inclusion of Intelligent Design or Creationism ideas into the curriculum."

Some highlights:
(g) Develop hiring, tenure, and promotion policies that protect individuals against viewpoint discrimination and track any reported grievances in that regard;
Click to expand...
i.e. schools can't fire a science teacher who doesn't have a basic understanding of science.
(i) Establish clear campus policies to prohibit viewpoint discrimination in the distribution of student fee funds;
Click to expand...
i.e. schools must support anti-intellectual student groups.
(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;
Click to expand...
i.e. students can pass science classes without having to do science homework.
(l) Create an institutional ombudsman on intellectual diversity or specifically charge an existing ombudsman with monitoring the state of intellectual diversity.
Click to expand...
i.e. schools must have a Creationist on staff.


eta: This is Emily Brooker's story
 
Last edited:
Could someone explain to me why on God's green earth some Nutjobs are trying to get "intelligent" design into the school system in the first place?

By that I mean that those people might think that this will improve their religion and spread "teh wandaful work of Jebus Senior", but as far I see it, it's rather damaging the church's reputation.

So what's the purpose anyway? Are these people downright stupid?
 
What always strikes me as most odd about these people is their blatant dishonest, their flat-out lying, in the name of religion. They are convinced that they are morally superior to others because of their fairy-tale beliefs, and yet their entire agenda is based on being as deceptive as possible.
 
I wrote a letter to my senator:

Senator Coleman,

I urge you to vote against "SB 983 - Requires public higher education institutions to annually report on steps taken to ensure intellectual diversity" and any related bills. This is just another evolution of the Creationist/Intelligent Design movement to wedge their way through Jefferson's wall of separation between church and state. Please do not harm Missouri students' education by forcing universities to teach them non-science.
Click to expand...
 
Oliver said:
Could someone explain to me why on God's green earth some Nutjobs are trying to get "intelligent" design into the school system in the first place?
Click to expand...
It's the first step of the wedge strategy.


Oliver said:
Are these people downright stupid?
Click to expand...
Anti-intellectual, perhaps. Anti-science, definitely. I wouldn't underestimate them by labeling them stupid.

They're learning from their mistakes and making the point of their wedge sharper and harder to see. ID took away the overt religious nature of the wedge. This new tact takes away any obvious references to the end goal. On the surface and without any context, it even sounds like a good thing.

No, this is a smart move on their part.
 
Um, this sounds to me like something similar to the Academic Bill of Rights. I suppose you could argue that it would require the teaching of ID, but the purpose of the Academic Bill of Rights is to protect students and faculty from persecution, discrimination, or retaliation for having political views that are unpopular with the school's administration and faculty, not to require certain curricula.

I don't see any language regarding ID in the OP, except in that it might be swallowed up in a general statement of allowing free inquiry into any field of study. I don't intend this to be a defense of ID, as I think it's been overwhelmingly discredited, but I also don't see how this would require its teaching. And I don't see how it would protect a science teacher from being fired for professional incompetence if he were to try to teach ID.
 
Last edited:
Should we be tolerant of a calculus professor who doesn't know how to do long division (or worse, pretends that there is no such thing as division)? Or an anatomy professor who believes that the liver is a vestigial organ?

Feh, I say!

How could anyone possibly justify treating biology as a "soft" science, open to interpretation, when we have so much objective data about how it all works?
 
Upchurch said:
...her chosen career to help people.


Yes, it is quite the irony. Perhaps one of Biblical proportions.
Click to expand...
Well, it is a violation of her religious freedom to force her to do her WHOLE job, and not just the parts she feels comfortable with.

Am I the only one who has noticed that this is a frequently used technique? Christian bigots will claim that they are being discriminated against because they are not allowed to openly practice their bigotry at work? They claim to be the victim, when they are not free to victimize others.

Bad people... all of them.
 
aggle-rithm said:
Minor nitpick: Technically, it's OK to teach students non-science, since any subject that is not science fits this description.

Should read "non-science masquerading as science".
Click to expand...
Good point. Unfortunately, it is already sent. I'll try to remember that for next time.

BPSCG said:
I don't see any language regarding ID in the OP
Click to expand...
Well, I stand by my take in my last post. The beauty of this approach is that it opens the door to ID/Creationism without looking like it's promoting ID/Creationism. I see this as the first step in a multi-part strategy.


BPSCG said:
And I don't see how it would protect a science teacher from being fired for professional incompetence if he were to try to teach ID.
Click to expand...
Here is the pdf of the full bill, btw.

Depending on the reasons a particular professor is fired, I could see any number of ways this law could be invoked. "He's not incompetent. He just has an opinion on the subject that contributes to the diversity of the university." ...or some such nonsense.
 
Upchurch said:
i.e. students can pass science classes without having to do science homework.
Click to expand...

Nope. Not "can". "Must".

(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;
Click to expand...

This puts conscience above educational objectives. The latter has to bend to accommodate the former. Belief will trump fact, always.

That means that a creationist cannot be denied a degree in biology, even if he claims that God created the Earth and all the species in 6 days, and sticks to that throughout the classes. He cannot even be asked to write a paper that explains evolution, because that will be acting against his/her conscience. He cannot even be asked to listen to lectures on evolution.

Upchurch said:
It's the first step of the wedge strategy.

Anti-intellectual, perhaps. Anti-science, definitely. I wouldn't underestimate them by labeling them stupid.

They're learning from their mistakes and making the point of their wedge sharper and harder to see. ID took away the overt religious nature of the wedge. This new tact takes away any obvious references to the end goal. On the surface and without any context, it even sounds like a good thing.

No, this is a smart move on their part.
Click to expand...

After Dover, I was wondering what the next step would be from Creationists. "Intellectual diversity" is how they'll go about doing it: Simply leave out all references to creationism, ID or even biology. Attack the very foundation of education and bang the drum of "diversity".

If you say yes to racial diversity, you can't say no to intellectual diversity....can you?

Very clever indeed.
 
CFLarsen said:
After Dover, I was wondering what the next step would be from Creationists. "Intellectual diversity" is how they'll go about doing it: Simply leave out all references to creationism, ID or even biology. Attack the very foundation of education and bang the drum of "diversity".

If you say yes to racial diversity, you can't say no to intellectual diversity....can you?

Very clever indeed.
Click to expand...
But, somehow, you can say yes to "intellectual diversity" in the name of refusing to accept as valid ANY kind of diversity whatsoever. The hypocrisy is revolting, and yet somehow magical. :rolleyes:
 
In case any of you missed it or would poo poo keeping up with what C/IDers are up to with the "they're liars so everything they say is a lie" rubric, this situation is a perfect example of why we need to keep up with what groups like DI are up to even if some of you chose not to read the B.S. propaganda pages they produce (copiusly) regarding the specifics of the Crevo debate.
 
JoeEllison said:
But, somehow, you can say yes to "intellectual diversity" in the name of refusing to accept as valid ANY kind of diversity whatsoever....
Click to expand...

...right up until the Twenty Year Goals are reached:

  • To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science.
  • To see design theory application in specific fields, including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics and cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology, ethics, politics, theology and philosophy in the humanities; to see its innuence in the fine arts.
  • To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life.
Click to expand...

After that, you can drop the pretense of this "intellectual diversity" ruse.
 
UnrepentantSinner said:
In case any of you missed it or would poo poo keeping up with what C/IDers are up to with the "they're liars so everything they say is a lie" rubric, this situation is a perfect example of why we need to keep up with what groups like DI are up to even if some of you chose not to read the B.S. propaganda pages they produce (copiusly) regarding the specifics of the Crevo debate.
Click to expand...

Huh?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom