Tennessee’s lawmakers recently passed a law that—according to supporters—will allow teachers to work with more academic freedom. It will encourage students, supporters insist, to explore ideas beyond the surface. Opponents argue that the new law is only a sneak-attack by creationists and intelligent designers. The law speaks in the language of academic freedom, opponents say, only to mask its true creationist intent.
The law itself claims to want to “help students develop critical thinking skills.” Since the teaching of “some scientific subjects, including, but not limited to, biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning, can cause controversy,” the law asserts that Tennessee teachers need clarification and assistance in teaching such issues. The law mandates that school districts allow and encourage teachers to teach such controversial issues. The law states that “teachers shall be permitted to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories.” Finally, the new law notes that this law “shall not be construed to promote any religious or non-religious doctrine.”
In presenting the issue as one of academic freedom, Tennessee lawmakers apparently hope to overcome constitutional objections that have overwhelmed other anti-evolution laws. The inspiration seems to have come from the Discovery Institute, a think tank dedicated to promoting the teaching of intelligent design. In 2007, the Discovery Institute offered a similar-sounding model Academic Freedom bill.
Tennessee is not the first state to enact such a law. In 2008 Louisiana lawmakers passed a similar “academic freedom” law. Even earlier, in 2001, then-Senator Rick Santorum inserted a non-binding note into the No Child Left Behind Act that recommended teaching a full range of ideas whenever “controversial issues” were taught.
The Tennessee law has attracted more than its share of journalistic attention because of the easy connection to the 1925 Scopes trial. The editors of the New York Times, for example, began their objection to the Tennessee law by intoning, “Eighty-seven years after Tennessee was nationally embarrassed for criminally prosecuting the teaching of evolution, the state government is at it again.”
Nearly all the news coverage of the new law insists on connecting it to the famous 1925 trial. Coverage in USA Today and the Huffington Post offer a sample of the way every journalist seems obliged to mention Scopes.
However, as perspicacious observers have noted, this new law represents something very different from the 1925 event. Today’s laws demonstrate a remarkable shift in the strategy and nature of anti-evolution activism. As Charles Haynes of the First Amendment Center pointed out, today “the curriculum shoe is on the other foot.”
Haynes is right. The power in public schools has shifted decisively. Anti-evolution activists today do not try to ban evolution from public schools. Rather, anti-evolutionists these days struggle to insert wedges into school curricula. They hope to create opportunities for teachers and students to question the scientific claims of evolution. At the time of the Scopes trial in 1925, anti-evolutionists had a much different agenda.
In my book Fundamentalism and Education in the Scopes Era, (coming soon in paperback edition, pre-order today!), I explore the ways so-called “anti-evolution” laws in the 1920s included much more than simply the teaching of evolution or creation. The laws themselves, including Tennessee’s 1925 Butler Act, usually preserved a special role for Protestant theology in public schools. Other bills considered “anti-evolution” made much more sweeping claims. In 1924, Representative John W. Summers of Washington successfully inserted an amendment banning “disrespect of the Holy Bible” among Washington D.C. teachers. In a similar vein, one so-called anti-evolution bill in North Carolina (1927) actually would have banned any teaching that would “contradict the fundamental truth of the Holy Bible.” A proposed bill in West Virginia cut an even broader swath. That bill would have banned the teaching of “any nefarious matter in our public schools.” In Florida, a 1927 bill hoped to prohibit teaching and textbooks that promoted “any theory that denies the existence of God, that denies the divine creation of man, or that teaches atheism or infidelity, or that contains vulgar, obscene, or indecent matter.”
These bills were about more than just prohibiting evolution. They asserted ideological and theological control over public schools. Public schools, in the vision of these bill’s supporters, ought to do more than just ban evolution. They ought to be purged of any notion that might challenge the traditional evangelical morality of students.
Today’s laws are also about more than the teaching of evolution, but in a very different way. Rick Santorum’s non-binding rider to NCLB was more about making a statement about the nature of science, culture, and education than about transforming education. It didn’t and couldn’t actually change the way teaching happened. Some observers have suggested that Tennessee’s law will also not change a thing.
But such laws do change something. For one thing, laws like the ones in Tennessee and Louisiana demonstrate the political power of anti-evolutionism. These laws show that significant numbers of voters in those states agree with this kind of cultural statement against the claims of mainstream science. Laws like these also tell us something about the ways schooling is controlled. If mainstream scientists cannot simply decide what will be the best sort of science education, then we can see that schooling is not simply a neutral institution in which knowledge is disseminated. Rather, laws like this show clearly that knowledge is political. Schools do not simply teach what is true. Schools teach what culture decides children should know.