From the Archives: Conservatives, Historical Knowledge, and the Political Process

Guest Post by Kevin B. Johnson

How could American History bother conservatives?

Most people probably believe that sex education and evolutionary biology are the most contentious subjects taught in school.

But conservative activists have also targeted American history.  Why?  Because as historians such as Jon Zimmerman and David Blight have argued, America teeters on a culture-war divide in its understanding of its own history; a culture-war divide no less contentious than questions about sex and God.

Nowhere has this battle over the nation’s history been more bitter or grueling than in Mississippi.

A look at the record of conservative activism in the Magnolia State may shed some light on the continuing battle over the nature of history.  It also demonstrates the ways conservatives have scored their greatest successes.  In Mississippi, at least, conservatives managed to win by promoting one central idea: historical knowledge, properly understood, is static and unchanging.

As the Cold War split nations into the Free, Unfree, and Third Worlds, Americans began scrutinizing their communities in search of suspected communists and subversives. In Mississippi, these searches involved the content in state-approved social studies textbooks. Civic-patriotic organizations such as the American Legion, the Sons of the American Revolution (SAR), the Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR), and the Mississippi Farm Bureau Federation led the charge in exposing objectionable historical knowledge presented in social studies texts.

The civic organizations were not alone in controlling textbook content. In the 1940s Mississippi began providing students with schoolbooks; lawmakers also set up the State Textbook Purchasing Board charged with governing the screening and selection of all texts. In the Cold War context, however, many civic organization leaders believed the state’s education professionals were ill-suited for this job and challenged their role in screening school materials.

A few key figures spearheaded the effort to guard historical knowledge. Mississippi State College education professor Cyril E. Cain, for example, found reading and “doing” history to be a mystical-spiritual experience. In 1949, Cain learned about the California SAR calling for removal from that state’s schools the Building America textbook series. America and its democratic system was not part of a process, the SAR argued. Rather, American democracy had been built and perfected in comparison to rival governments.

Through the Mississippi Patriotic Education Committee, Cain called upon other conservatives guard against the historical knowledge contained in schoolbooks. He wrote to the state regent of the Mississippi DAR—Edna Whitfield Alexander, asking for collaboration between their two organizations “for the common cause of defending America” from textbook authors who espoused “alien ideologies.”

For the next twenty years, Alexander became the South’s preeminent textbook activist. She developed her organizational skills through the Mississippi DAR, which held significant power in the 1950s and 1960s. Many DAR members’ husbands served in state government or were the state’s business leaders; the DAR owned numerous radio stations throughout Mississippi. A segregationist society like other civic clubs, its members naturally opposed perceived egalitarian messages in textbook treatments of history, civics, and economics. History was the DAR’s domain and it held what they believed was magnificent power to order present-day society.

Gaining the attention of Mississippi’s leaders, especially Mississippi House Speaker Walter Sillers, Jr, by 1958, Alexander and DAR activists officially recorded their objection to the content in dozens of state-approved books.

The following are just a few examples:

“Laconic treatment of the South…did not mention Fielding Wright as Vice-Presidential nominee of the States Right party…praises Federal aid to education…Booker T. Washington picture is much later than Thomas Jefferson [sic]” –review of United States History, American Book Company, 1955 reprint.

“This slanted-against-the-South book makes no mention of the fact that Russia offered to help the North [during the American Civil War]” –review of The Making of Modern America, Houghton-Mifflin, 1953.

“…records a good bit of history—some of which we are not too proud, and conspicuously omits some of which we are very proud like religious freedom!” –review of Your Country and the World, Ginn & Company, 1955.

“…advocates creation of a state of social equality…” –review of Economic Problems of Today, Lyons and Carnahan, 1955.

“Formerly history was largely concerned with kings, monarchies, laws, diplomacy, and wars…Today history deals with the entire life of a people. So now were are told that history must change along with this changing world and George Washington, Valley Forge, and the U.S. Constitution are no longer worthy of recognition to be ignored so far as our children’s history books are concerned.” – wrote a DAR reviewer of The Record of Mankind, published by D. C. Heath, 1952.

The DAR, in addition, opposed books citing renowned scholars such as Henry Steele Commager, Charles Beard, Allen Nevins, Gunnar Myrdal, Arthur Schlesinger, John Hersey, in addition to Mississippi writers like Hodding Carter, Ida B. Wells, and William Faulkner.

These comments sent to Sillers demonstrate the DAR’s view of History.  In the DAR vision, History should be dominated by pro-South, segregationist, and patriotic biases. The reason for teaching history in the Cold War context, the DAR and others agreed, was to instill in school children loyalty to state and country.

The DAR, under Alexander’s leadership, began a concerted lobbying effort. In 1959, Alexander informed the Mississippi Superintendent of Education and head of the State Textbook Purchasing Board, Jackson McWhirter “Jack” Tubb, that “youth must be taught Americanism in its purest form if this Republic is to survive.”

The American Legion and the Mississippi Farm Bureau Federation became important DAR allies. These civic clubs conducted official studies of Mississippi’s approved books and found that many “cater to alien ideologies contrary to the Mississippi way of life.” Boswell Stevens, a Legionnaire and president of the state’s Farm Bureau, believed social studies curricula should cultivate among students adoration of quintessential American values like Jeffersonian individualism, capitalism, and patriotism.

During state elections in 1959, the lobbyist coalition collaborated by staging exhibits of objectionable texts in the lobby of the Robert E. Lee hotel in Jackson. After Sillers intervened the DAR moved the exhibit to the lobby of the state capitol in time for the 1960 legislative session.

Lawmaker-members of American Legion and the Farm Bureau dominated the Legislature, passing amendments to state laws pertaining to textbook screening and adoption. The amendment gave the governor, recently elected Ross Barnett, appointment power over the state’s education professionals on these important textbook screening committees.

These conservative victories were not unopposed, however.  Newspapers editorials considered the DAR efforts as a “witch-hunt” and the state’s teachers association believed that textbook reviews were best left to education professionals.

But politics—in this case, staunchly conservative politics—trumped the claims of journalists and teachers.  Conservative activists also managed to stymie complaints from academic historians. In 1975, for example, James W. Loewen and several co-authors of the history text Mississippi: Conflict and Change had to file a federal lawsuit against Mississippi for adoption of their revolutionary new textbook. Loewen even commented at the time that most of the state-approved books were merely “didactic chronologies.”

Loewen’s lawsuit demonstrated the deeply entrenched nature of conservative visions of History in Mississippi.  For decades, conservative activists had succeeded in establishing state sanction for their vision of History: a static, unchanging field of facts, uniquely useful for promoting patriotism and instilling a love for traditional Americanism.

 

Kevin Boland Johnson is a doctoral candidate in American history at Mississippi State University and a dissertation fellow with the Spencer Foundation. His dissertation, “The Guardians of Historical Knowledge: Textbook Politics, Conservative Activism, and School Reform in Mississippi, 1928-1988,” explores numerous education reform efforts designed either to constrain or improve public school social studies curricula. You can reach Kevin at kbj41@msstate.edu.

 

 

Evolution: Beyond Science and Religion

Outsiders are telling public school families that we must follow the rich man’s elitist religion of evolution, that we no longer have what the Kentucky Constitution says is the right to worship Almighty God.  Instead, this fascist method teaches that our children are the property of the state.

–Matt Singleton, Frankfort, Kentucky, July 2013

Why do so many Americans oppose the teaching of evolution in schools?

The knee-jerk answer is that people fight against mainstream science for religious reasons.

A news story out of Kentucky reminds us that we need to say, “Yes, but…”

Opposition to evolution education in the United States incorporates ideas about religion and science, but we can’t stop there.  If we hope to understand creationism, we need to unpick the tangled skein of ideas that can make up anti-evolution ideology.

This is something that science pundits such as PZ Myers and Jerry Coyne seem unwilling to acknowledge.  America does not face a clear-cut battle between “Science” and “Religion,” between “Knowledge” and “Ignorance,” but a much more stubborn conflict between convoluted collections of ideas, ideas that have grown together over time.  Some science advocates limit themselves to berating creationists for ignorance of evolution, to ridiculing creationists for reactionary adherence to religion.  Such attacks may satisfy our sympathizers, but by willfully mischaracterizing anti-evolutionism, these pro-“science” bloggers only compound the difficulties of healing culture-war divisions.

And those divisions are indeed more complex than activists on either side tend to admit.

Case in point: a notice recently in the Huffington Post drew our attention to this story from Kentucky’s Courier-Journal.  Reporter Mike Wynn described a public meeting over Kentucky’s adoption of the Next Generation Science Standards.  As Wynn reports, opponents of evolution offered comments to the state board of education.  Those comments offer a window into the complicated thinking of anti-evolution activists.

Matt Singleton, for instance, read a statement to the board describing his opposition to the new evolution-friendly science standards.

“Outsiders,” Singleton read,

Are telling public school families that we must follow the rich man’s elitist religion of evolution, that we no longer have what the Kentucky Constitution says is the right to worship Almighty God.  Instead, this fascist method teaches that our children are the property of the state.

As I argued in my 1920s book, anti-evolution activists have always made this sort of intellectual scattershot attack on evolution.  This kind of anti-evolutionism can’t be reduced to merely a theological or scientific argument.  If we hope to understand it, we need to understand the broad intellectual and cultural implications of the argument.  If we want to make sense of it, we must see it for what it is: an “anti-evolution” argument that moves far beyond the boundaries of religion or science.

Some evolution proponents might dismiss The Reverend Singleton’s rant as merely ignorant.  I admit, my first response when someone howls about “outsiders” and “fascist[s]” is to assume we have reached the territory of sea-monsters and sandwich-sign prophets.

But that sort of glib dismissal misses the point.  It does not help us understand why this bundle of anti-evolution ideas remains so politically potent.  Whatever we may think of the connections Singleton makes between region, religion, and rights, those connections make sense to significant numbers of Americans.  It is worth our time to try to understand them.

As a start, let’s try to list all the different reasons for opposing mainstream science education that Singleton packs into this paragraph.

1.) Evolution comes from somewhere else.  (“Outsiders”)

1a.) As an import, evolution is illegitimate.

2.) Evolution is for the rich. (“rich man’s . . . elitist”)

2a.) This elitism calls for popular opposition.

3.) Evolution is a religion. (“religion of evolution”)

3a.) As a religion, it can’t be taught in public schools.

4.) Evolution destroys traditional Baptist religion. (“we no longer have . . . the right to worship Almighty God.”)

4a.) As an attack on religion, it can’t be taught in public schools.

5.) Traditional religion is a Constitutional right. (“the Kentucky Constitution says is the right to worship”)

6.) Evolution is dictatorial. (“fascist method”)

7.) Evolution imposes illegitimate government control over children. (“teaches that our children are property of the state.”)

The Reverend Singleton does not want Kentucky schoolchildren to learn evolution.  But we woefully misunderstand his anti-evolutionism if we simply label him an opponent of “science” and move on.  We also miss the boat if we say too simply that Singleton’s opposition is due to “religious” reasons.  Singleton’s fight against evolution combines a complex bundle of ideas.  That bundle implies certain attitudes toward science and religion.  But it is misleading to say that Singleton is motivated only by “anti-science” attitudes.  Nowhere in his statement—at least in the part published by the Courier-Journal—does Singleton attack science.  And nowhere does Singleton argue that true Biblical faith demands belief in six literal days of creation.

In the American context, we might assume that Singleton believes such things.  But his political argument here includes a much broader bundle of ideas and slogans.

Anyone who hopes to improve evolution education in the United States must start by understanding the complexity of that bundle.  It is not enough to dismiss such arguments as “ignorant” or “irrelevant.”  They make sense to people such as The Reverend Singleton.  They also make sense to the politically powerful voting populace who continue to support the teaching of creationism in America’s science classrooms.

 

 

 

Atheist Creationists

Why do people believe that the world was created in pretty much its present form within the past 10,000 years or so?  Because the Bible tells them so?

Not necessarily.

A new YouGov poll reports that significant percentages of non-Bible-believing religious folks adhere to creationist beliefs, too.  Even more puzzling, many non-religious folks agree.

As reported by the National Center for Science Education, the new poll offers some minor changes to the traditional “sticky” number of around 45% of American adults who choose a young-earth creationist explanation of the origins of humanity.  In this poll, conducted earlier this month, only 37% of respondents agreed that “God created human beings in their present form within the last ten thousand years.”

But more interesting than the minor fluctuations in the total number were the breakouts by religious belief.  A whopping 59% of Protestant respondents chose the creationist answer.  30% of Catholics; 17% of Jewish respondents.

But here’s the kicker: 2% of atheist respondents also thought creationism offered the best explanation of humanity’s origin.  That’s a small percentage, of course, but a stumper nonetheless.  Did they not understand the question?

Even more puzzling, just under a quarter of “nones” chose a creationist answer, too.  That is, of those who identified their religion as “nothing in particular,” 24% selected a creationist explanation of humanity.  24%!

These numbers baffle me.  If a small but significant number of atheists can be creationists, and a large percentage of nones can be, then our notion of creationism as the province of a diehard subculture of “fundamentalist” Protestants doesn’t make sense.

We could add, of course, that in this survey the largest percentage of creationist respondents did not come from Christianity at all.  64% of Muslim respondents selected the creationist explanation.  Significant numbers of other non-Christians agreed: 35% of Hindus opted for creationism.

Who are America’s creationists?  Perhaps our image of a Bible-wielding tent evangelist needs to be updated.

 

Does Reading the Bible Make Children Violent?

Does reading the Bible lead to violent crime?  That’s the question nobody is asking these days.

Here at ILYBYGTH, we have to ask: Why not?

After all, it seems violent crime has been falling in the past few decades.  Those have been the decades in which American children no longer prayed or read the Bible in their public schools, officially at least.

Religious conservatives have long bemoaned the social dangers of kicking God out of public schools.  Is it only fair, then, to blame God for all the rapes, burglaries, and assaults that haven’t been happening lately?

That doesn’t seem like a comfortable suggestion for most religious conservatives.  Yet thoughtful conservatives must recognize that they have long warned about the dangers of removing traditional religion from public schools.  Some of those warnings, at least, seem to have been flipped on their heads.  Without mandatory Bible-reading in public schools, American society has grown noticeably less violent.

This is not what religious conservatives have predicted.

In 1942, for example, Bible activist W. S. Fleming insisted that more states must pass mandatory Bible laws for their public schools.  As I noted in my 1920s book, these mandatory Bible laws were a prominent but little-noticed element of 1920s educational culture wars.  Fleming, a former Chicago pastor and full-time activist for the National Reform Association, claimed that Bible laws for public schools would enable society to maintain basic morality.  Fleming pointed out that most states gave Bibles to prison inmates.  Why not skip the middle man, he asked, and deliver the Bibles to the schools?  If Ohio had followed this suggestion in 1925, he recalled, “as her neighbor, Pennsylvania, did, with the same result, more than half of her present 9,310 convicts would now be law-abiding citizens.”[*]

Two decades later, just after the Schempp decision by the US Supreme Court seemed to eliminate Bible reading from public schools, William Culbertson of Chicago’s Moody Bible Institute warned that the decision did not bode well for America’s public safety.  “No nation can turn its back on God without tragic consequences,” Culbertson cautioned.  “We have traveled a sorry road of unbelief in the less than two hundred years of our country’s history.  The Supreme Court decision—and our willingness in many cases to justify it—say plainly that a sorrier road may lie yet ahead!”[†]

Similarly, in the early 1980s, Donald Howard, creator of the Accelerated Christian Education curriculum and an energetic supporter of independent evangelical schools, preached a fiery jeremiad about the dangers of removing Bibles from public schools.  Because “the Bible by judicial review [had been] legislated out of the schools,” Howard warned, schools in the 1970s suffered from an array of terrible problems, including “X-rated textbooks,” 70,000 assaults on teachers in one year, violence, vandalism, alcohol and drug abuse, a profusion of “witchcraft and the occult,” and rampant deviant sexuality.  This lamentable situation, in Howard’s opinion, underscored the need for independent evangelical schools.  Only there, he argued, could students be safe from the perils of the now-Godless schools.[‡]

In the 1990s, prominent conservative intellectual William J. Bennett published his blockbuster Index of Leading Cultural Indicators.  This collection of worrisome statistics demonstrated, Bennett claimed, what happened when a society abandoned its traditional moral teachings.  Crime soared, despair ruled.  Though Bennett noted a dip in crime during the 1990s, he argued that since 1960 the trend was clear: less traditional morality meant more violent crime.

Less prominent conservatives, too, warned that schools without prayer and Bibles led directly to a wave of violent crime.  By “kicking God out of public schools,” Americans traipsed foolishly down the path to Sodom and Gomorrah.

Without prayer and the Bible, religious conservatives have insisted, public schools had turned into sin factories.  Young people did not learn to check their carnal instincts.  They killed and fornicated with abandon.

So what does it mean about Bibles in schools if violent crime has dropped precipitously in recent decades?

As reviewed in a fascinating article in this week’s Economist, violent crime has plunged in industrialized nations around the globe in the past twenty-five years.  As the article describes, talking heads have ascribed this happy circumstance to an array of possible causes: more abortions, fewer young men, better policing, even better violent video games.

Back in the 1950s, when the US Supreme Court had not yet “kicked God out of public schools,” violent crime skyrocketed.  To be consistent, we must ask: Did all that violent crime result from students reading the Bible?  Saying the Lord’s Prayer?  If conservatives predicted that removing Bibles from schools would cause more violent crimes, must they now acknowledge that the USA is a safer place without all that school Bible-reading?

 


[*] W. S. Fleming. God in Our Public Schools. 3rd ed. (1942; repr., Pittsburgh: National Reform Association, 1947), 90.

[†] William Culbertson, “Is the Supreme Court Right?” Moody Monthly 63 (July-August 1963): 16.

[‡] Donald Howard, “Rebirth of a Nation,” Facts About A.C.E. (Lewisville, TX: Accelerated Christian Education, n.d. [1982?]), 25.

 

A Strange Sort of “Lion’s Den:” AiG at NEA

If I ever get thrown into a lion’s den, I want it to be the sort leading creationists complained about recently.

America’s leading young-earth creationist calls the National Education Association the “Lion’s Den,” “one of the most humanistic, pro-abortion, pro-“gay” marriage, anti-creation organizations in the USA.”

If so, why are creationists associated with Answers In Genesis spending time, effort, and money to make an appearance at the NEA convention?

Image Source: Creation Science Educators' Caucus

Image Source: Creation Science Educators’ Caucus

In leader Ken Ham’s words, the teachers and administrators affiliated with the NEA are “in dire need of the creation-gospel message (though we praise God for the Christian teachers who are something like “missionaries” in the public school systems).”

In order to reach those wayward teachers, Answers In Genesis supported a booth at this year’s convention.  As ever, as intrepid creationist Jobe Martin reported, the main goal is to spread their version of evangelical Christianity.  The topic of creation, Martin said, “is a great platform from which to spring off into the gospel.”

How did the creation ministry fare at NEA?

Results were mixed.  As young-earth creationists might have predicted, the booth provoked a lot of animosity.  In Dr. Martin’s words,

This year a man walked all the way around the booth, saying in a loud voice with a determined look on his face: “Lies! Lies! Lies!” A woman (who called herself a Christian) came by yelling that she was going to have us “kicked out” of the NEA convention. Many teachers passed by us with a comment that they seemed to think is original with them, but we hear this smug remark every year:  “No thank you, I teach science.”

As regular ILYBYGTH readers know, I’m no creationist.  But I try hard to be open-minded and sympathetic to creationists’ claims.  In other essays, I’ve defended Ken Ham’s right to his ministry, and encouraged my fellow non-creationists to reach across the culture-war trenches.

In this case, however, Ken Ham and his colleagues sound like the boys who cried lion’s den.

Full disclosure: I am a proud NEA member myself.  But I don’t think I’m offering here a knee-jerk defense of my union.  Based solely on the reporting from the young-earth creationists themselves, they seem to have been welcomed to the NEA convention.  According to Dr. Martin, the NEA has even offered official status to a caucus of creation scientists.  What’s more, though the creation booth attracted hostile attention, according to Dr. Martin, it also welcomed several creationist teachers who thanked them for their presence and took home bagloads of free curricular materials.

Is that life in a lion’s den?  It sounds to me more like life in a vibrant pluralistic organization, one that welcomes all kinds of people into its ranks, even when the leaders of the organization disagree vehemently with some of those people.

 

 

“I Hope You Rot in Hell:” Greetings from a Liberal Fundamentalist

Are there “fundamentalists” of every political and cultural persuasion?  That is, do some people cling to such extreme and unbending worldviews—from the political and cultural left as well as the right—that they lash out at any dissent?  People—religious or not—who cannot tolerate any deviation from the Truth As They Know It?

It seems we have an example of such a thing from the cornfields of Iowa today.

The Sioux City Journal reported recently on a simmering conflict between an evangelical pastor and a gay politician.

Pastor Cary Gordon of Cornerstone World Outreach complained that Human Rights Commissioner Scott Raasch had made hateful and threatening comments a few years back.  At issue, apparently, was The Reverend Gordon’s opposition to Iowa Supreme Court judges who had supported gay marriage.

A few years ago, according to the Sioux City Journal, their disagreement degraded into the following Facebook exchange:

In one comment, Raasch wrote: “You are haters and bigots and you will get what’s coming to you sooner or later. I hope you rot in hell.”

Gordon replied, “I hope you repent of your sins and accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior. I wouldn’t want you or anyone else to go to hell.”

Raasch wrote, “I know Christ and don’t need a snake oil salesman like you to tell me about him. I guess that’s the difference between us because I think there are many people that deserve to burn in hell … including you and your entire family.”

Ouch.

The Reverend Gordon called for Raasch’s removal from the Human Rights Commission.  Someone with such extreme views, Gordon argued, should not be in charge of making rulings on discrimination cases that involve religious issues, as well as issues of race, creed, gender, and sexual orientation.

Raasch has admitted that he made the comments, and apologized for any stress caused.

Is this an example of what we might call “liberal fundamentalism?”  A case where someone feels so morally assured of his own righteousness that he lashes out at dissenters in such an angry way?

 

Creation, Too

People don’t have anything against evolution.  But they all want us to teach creationism, too.

I don’t get out much.  But this past weekend I was able to attend a summer cook-out with some interesting people.  One of the guests was a school principal.[*]

Now, in the best of times, my social skills aren’t much.  But this past weekend, I was worse than usual.  This poor guy wanted to have a few beers by the pool, eat a burger, watch the kids swim, and wonder if the guacamole had been sitting out in the sun too long.

Once I found out he was a school principal, however, I couldn’t help myself.

I awkwardly steered the conversation toward the issues of conservatism and schooling.  This guy runs a high school in a semi-rural area of New England.  I was itching to know if he fielded lots of complaints or disagreements about the content of the curriculum, the style of teaching, etc.  Did they argue about sex ed?  Prayer?  Evolution?

When I asked him if he ever heard complaints from parents about the teaching of evolution, he offered an intriguing comment.  “No,” he said, desperately looking over my shoulder to see if someone could rescue him from this conversation.  “People don’t have anything against evolution.”

Rats, I thought.  I felt sure a rural school high school, even in the liberal heartland of New England, would field some anti-evolution pressure.  I was hoping to hear about it from the ground level.

“But,” the principal continued, “they all want us to teach creationism, too.”

Zoiks.

For this well-educated, experienced educator, the desire to teach creationism in science classes did not, on first blush, count as opposition to evolution.  Rather, he considered the desire to include creationism as an obvious and eternal part of public opinion.

How did he handle it?  He did not seem too concerned.

“We try to keep everyone happy,” he said, before he mumbled something about his kid drowning and scurried away.

This principal’s experience fits with the national-level perspective.  According to poll data, large majorities of Americans would like to have both evolution and creationism taught in public-school science classes.

As the experience of my new friend demonstrates, the idea of teaching both is often seen as uncontroversial.

Of course, this is in stark contrast with Official Policy, as seen in court decisions such as Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) and Kitzmiller v. Dover (2005).  In 1987, the US Supreme Court decided that teaching creationism alongside evolution counted as unconstitutional government support for religion.  They also ruled, however, that scientific alternatives to evolution could be part of public-school lessons if it were done for purely secular reasons.  In Kitzmiller, Judge Jones decided that intelligent-design advocates had not made the case that intelligent design was taught for secular reasons.

Such decisions, however, in practice amount to a hill of beans.  As political scientists Michael Berkman and Eric Plutzer have argued, teachers teach what they want.  If they work in an area that supports creationism, they will tend to include creationism in their classes, or creation-friendly ideas.

My conversation this weekend gave me one small example of the ways this reaches beyond teachers’ decisions.  My principal friend did not consider it controversial to include creationism alongside evolution, despite the fact that such things have been ruled unconstitutional.  He knew what would work in his district.  He knew what would work in his school.  And in his corner of the world of public education, that meant including creationism alongside evolution.

 


[*] In the US, a principal is the administrator in charge with running a school.  He or she makes hiring decisions and is supposed to implement state and district policy.

Fundamentalists Go to School

Homeschool, fundamentalist colleges, mainstream law school.

That’s the educational career described movingly this morning by “Georgia” at Defeating the Dragons.

Georgia describes her parents’ decision to pull her out of public schools.  Though her parents were indeed staunchly conservative religious folks, the decision, as she remembered, was more about academic rigor than about Jesus.

When it came time for college, she first attended Pensacola Christian College.  As I’ve written elsewhere, the founders of this school chastised the leaders of Bob Jones University for not being strict enough.

From there, she moved to the relatively liberal Liberty University, “relatively” being the key word here.  With that degree under her belt, she attended Vanderbilt University Law School.

For those of us outsiders who are trying to understand conservative thinking about education, her story can tell us a great deal about one family’s attitudes.  As she remembers it, there was (and is) a good deal of bitterness and disagreement within her own family about the contours of proper education for conservative Christians.

 

Evolution Down Under

Every once in a while, we hear an intelligent but deluded science pundit tell us that the United States is the only industrialized country with a significant creationist population.

It’s just not true.

A survey released recently by the Australian Academy of Science gives us some clues about the prevalence of anti-evolution thought Down Under.

Thanks to the National Center for Science Education’s blog, we hear about this survey of just over 1500 Australians.

The survey is not quite what we would hope for.  We would like to hear more specific questions about Australians’ beliefs about evolution.  This survey asked respondents if they thought evolution was occurring today.  Nine percent answered that they did not believe in evolution.  Another ten percent answered that evolution is not occurring today.  Twelve percent said they were not sure, and seventy percent thought evolution was occurring today.

These answers don’t tell us all we would like to know.  For instance, it is entirely possible—likely, even—that an informed young-earth creationist would answer that evolution was occurring today, in many ways.  Creationists often distinguish between “macro-“ and “micro-“ evolution (a distinction that drives mainstream scientists bonkers).  Such folks can happily agree that evolution is occurring today without agreeing that the earth is older than 10,000 years.  They can agree that evolution is going on now without agreeing that God did not create humanity in a literal week roughly 6,000 years ago.

In addition, other sorts of creationists could also agree that evolution went on today.  There’s no reason why intelligent-design mavens, believers in old-earth creationism, or “evolutionary creationists” would disagree that evolution was occurring right now.  But such agreement doesn’t tell us enough about the contours of anti-evolution thought, in Australia or anywhere else.

Another intriguing question from this survey asked respondents if humans lived at the same time as dinosaurs.  Just over a quarter (27%) of respondents thought that early humans lived at the same time as dinosaurs.  Of course, this question, too, leads to more questions.  Do such respondents believe in the Answers-in-Genesis sort of human/dinosaur cohabitation?  Or are they simply misinformed about the way life began?

One thing seems clear from this survey.  Significant percentages of Aussies, for whatever reason, do not agree with fundamental tenets of mainstream science.  Sorry, Bill Nye, but creationism is not “unique” to the United States.

 

Ed Schools and the Perversion of Teaching

Ed school: Just a front for left-wing ideological indoctrination?

That’s the accusation this morning by Bruce Frohnen in the pages of The Imaginative Conservative.

We’ve looked recently at the history of ed-school animus among conservative intellectuals.  The schools that train America’s teachers are often accused of lackluster academics, stultifying political correctness, and shoddy scholarship.

Frohnen warns that ed schools don’t educate much at all.  Instead, they force young people through an intellectually embarrassing and politically damnable course of shopworn leftist clichés.

Ed schools, Frohnen accuses, willfully misunderstand the purposes of true education.  Instead of training new teachers to think of education as a process by which young people master vital knowledge and skills, ed schools train new teachers to think of education first and foremost as a process of “liberation.”

Frohnen cites the case of the University of Minnesota, where teachers-to-be take required fluff courses such as “Creating Identities through Art and Performance,” “Diversity in Children’s Literature,” and “Introduction to Cultural Diversity and the World System.”

A more sympathetic critic might see such courses as important attempts to introduce new teachers to central ideas.  Not Frohnen.  He calls them part of the “trendy but outdated ideological indoctrination so typical of our education schools.”

It is no surprise, with this perspective, that so many conservative academics view teacher education as no education at all.

Frohnen suggests a more positive alternative.  Programs such as Teach For America, Frohnen believes, offer smart, motivated young people a chance to do some good, without jumping through all the left-wing hoops on offer at the nation’s ed schools.