Academic Freedom in Missouri
Wins Round One
News Commentary by Abram Messer
Today,
there are many different educational environments available for students and
their parents to choose from; public, private, religious and home schooling. The
purpose of a good education is to provide students with basic and advanced
knowledge, which hopefully will enable them to think and reason for themselves.
A well rounded education should expose students to all facts and theories surrounding
a subject so that they may formulate their own opinions on any given subject. The
overall object is to equip a student to become a well rounded, well informed
and productive citizen.
However, what happens when one of the largest and most influential
of these educational systems chooses to purposefully omit, distort, or censor
vital information related to a subject? 
Worse
yet, what happens when that system is actually hostile and vindictive toward
educators who wish to provide their students with complete information about
a subject and, just as hostile toward students who, for whatever reason, question
the status quo? Such a system is no longer an ‘educational’ system, it has
become a dictatorial, ‘indoctrinational’ system controlled by intellectual
‘elitists’. Elitists who believe ‘they’
have all the answers and ‘know’ what’s best for those who they consider to
be their ‘intellectual inferiors’. Folks like you and me and practically everyone
(if not everyone) reading this article who they refer to as “the uneducated,”
“uninformed,” “backward thinking,” “close minded,” “religious nut cases” or,
in general, “the ‘ignorant’ masses.”
Recently
this very subject has gotten a lot of national attention, much to the
excitement of the faithful few who have been fighting the good fight against
such tyranny for many years. Much of the excitement is a result of the new
documentary film Expelled: No
Intelligence Allowed, produced by Premise Media, starring Ben Stein. The
film really does a fantastic job of framing the debate in a way that is both
easy to digest and entertaining. But, perhaps the most exciting element of the
film is the way the film looks beyond itself and calls its audience to action.
A challenge that State Representative Robert Wayne Cooper, MD (155th District –
Camdenton, MO) decided to accept.
HB
2554
Unfortunately,
this late in the legislative session it seems unlikely that the Legislature
will be able to get any serious traction on HB 2554. Toward the end of a
legislative session it’s hard to get any new issue really moving due to
everything else which the House and the Senate have to deal with before the
session ends. But, the Speaker of the House, Rod Jetton, called for a hearing
on HB 2554 saying “What we want is for teachers and kids to have the freedom to
discuss and learn about other ideas and theories (about Darwinian evolution).”
He went on to say, “I say let’s allow the kind of discussion that offers more
than one side to an argument and causes kids to think and make their own
decisions about what they believe.” With that, the hearing for HB 2554 was
scheduled for Wednesday, April 30th.
The
Hearing was held in the House Elementary and Secondary Education Committee
chaired by State Representative Jane Cunningham (86th District – Chesterfield,
MO). I happened to be standing in Representative Cunningham’s office when the
news came in that the Speakers’ office had given the green light for the
hearing. It was great to see the excitement as her office jumped into action
working out the details with Dr. Cooper’s office. There’s an incredible amount
of work that must be done to prepare for a hearing; work that Representative Cunningham,
Dr. Cooper and their staff were happy to do!
Academic
Oppression
Some
may look at this legislation and think that it isn’t very significant. They may
question whether or not we really need laws like this? They may say, “Our
schools are different! Missouri isn’t California or New York!” But I guarantee
you, anyone who heard the testimonies given during the April 30th committee
hearing or has seen the movie Expelled,
or cares about what their children are taught in the public education system,
or values their and their children’s freedom of expression, speech and inquiry,
would not hesitate to shout from the highest roof top “YES, WE NEED THIS LEGISLATION!”
The problems of academic and scientific censorship as shown in Expelled, the subtle and sometimes
blatant attacks on students’ and teachers’ rights of free-speech, expression
and inquiry are real and are happening right here in Missouri’s public
education system at all levels.
The
Committee Meeting
Unfortunately,
due to space limitations, I won’t be able to relate everything said by everyone
who testified before the committee. So, what you are about to read are just
some of the highlights.
Dr.
John Marshall
Dr. John Marshall, a tenured medical science professor at the University
of Missouri Columbia, as well as a practicing physician, testified before
the committee in favor of the bill. As 
readers
of the MetroVoice may recall, Dr.
Marshall spoke at the press conference on April 3rd the morning after Expelled
was shown to Missouri Legislators in the Capitol Rotunda. Dr. Marshall had
previously testified for another bill (Rep. Jane Cunningham’s HB 1315 - The Emily Broker Higher Education Sunshine
Act) where he explained that he had come to the conclusion that ID better
explained the origins of the universe than evolution and deserved being discussed.
He also testified that had he not already been tenured when he had reached
that conclusion, any vocalization of his conclusions would have most certainly
prevented him from ever receiving tenure.
In
speaking before the committee on HB 2554, Dr. Marshall stated that he was
amazed that despite living in a country that was founded on principles of
freedom and liberty, that many in the mainstream science and educational
communities [he left out the mainstream media] are actively attempting to
suppress the ability of science educators to point out the weaknesses of
Darwinian evolution and to discuss that there is an alternative scientific
theory, ID, that may better explain the origins of life. He found it ironic
that our educational system espouses tolerance and diversity, as long as it
doesn’t challenge Darwinism or try to suggest that it is just possible that an intelligent
designer or God may have been involved in the development of life, including
human beings.
Dr.
Marshall concluded by stating, “The bottom line – should not scientists and
science teachers in Missouri have the freedom to challenge the theory of
Darwinian evolution and to discuss alternative theories? Real science should be
about the search for truth, whatever the truth is – even if it means that God or
some intelligent designer was involved in the origins of life.”
Dennis
Bruns’ Testimony
The
committee also heard from Dennis Bruns, a Camdenton, Missouri High School science
teacher and head of the Science Department. Bruns, received his teaching certificate
from the University of Missouri Columbia (UMC) and related several interesting
incidents which he had experienced.
While
still a student at UMC his professor had assigned him a paper to write on
evolution. Bruns treated the subject as it appropriately should have been
treated and that was as a ‘theory’ instead of a proven ‘fact.’ His professor
gave him a ‘D’ on his paper, not because it was poorly written, but because he
disagreed with Bruns’ view that evolution should be treated as a ‘theory.’
As part of his job as head of the Science Department, Bruns told the
Education Committee that he interviews science teacher applicants. He stated
that newly certified teachers applying to teach science often express a deep
fear of even discussing any kind of critical analysis of evolution because
they believe that if they teach anything other than evolution as a proven
fact they will lose their job. Chairman Cunningham asked him what he thought
was the cause of such tremendous fear and Bruns’ answer was, “That’s what
they are being 
taught.”
Rodney
LeVake
The
committee also heard from Mr. Rodney LeVake a high school Biology teacher from
Minnesota who once lived in Missouri. Mr. LeVake’s testimony was certainly one
of the more startling examples of blatant censorship and persecution heard
during the committee meeting.
In
1984, his first year of teaching, LeVake taught middle school general science.
His credentials included an undergraduate degree in Natural Science from St.
John’s University of Minnesota and a Masters of Education in Biology from Minnesota
State University, Mankato. After waiting 13 years for a teacher to retire he
was finally able to teach the class he was the most passionate about – 10th
grade Biology. The 1997-1998 school year proved to be his first and last year
of teaching Biology.
After
identifying several inconsistencies and flaws in the theory of evolution and
relating his thoughts to a colleague in confidence, much to his surprise his
objections were relayed to the curriculum director who sought immediate
disciplinary action. That action was to transfer him out of Biology and into a
science course that did not deal with origins. Mr. LeVake was removed from his
position not for teaching creation science, not for teaching Intelligent Design,
but for thinking about biological and chemical evolution in a politically
incorrect way. He was punished for what he ‘thought’ and was reassigned for
aspiring to teach Biology honestly, hoping to provide his students with
well-researched, scientific criticisms of a scientific theory.
After
considering what had just happened to his long-anticipated career of teaching
Biology, believing his students had been deprived and that he had been wronged
and unlawfully reassigned for simply trying to teach a subject honestly, he
sought help from the American Center for Law and Justice and brought suit
against the school district and its administration on the grounds of violations
in academic freedom, freedom of speech, viewpoint discrimination and due
process.
Over
the course of several years the case eventually found its way through the
appeals process ending in January 2002 with the US Supreme Court refusing to
hear the case.
Most
importantly, the court did not hold that schools could not engage students in a
critical analysis of evolution, rather it held that if a school chose to
exclude that critical analysis from its curriculum, a teacher did not have the
right to object. What HB 2554 does is to provide teachers with the right to
teach the subject honestly, notwithstanding a less than candid textbook
curriculum.
Mr.
LeVake stated that opposition to being truthful with students is strong in this
country but what was even more alarming was how profoundly deep opposition to
academic freedom ran in regard to chemical and biological evolution and how
widespread it was. To prove his point, he related one sentence from the opinion
of a District Court Judge in his case that exposes the chilling reality of the
assault on academic freedom teachers [and students] now endure in our science
classrooms. The judge concluded “the
plaintiff in the case has no Constitutional right to teach his proposed
criticisms of evolutionary theory, though they may be scientifically
meritorious.” In other words, even
though an abundance of valid scientific evidence questioning many aspects of
evolutionary theory exists, that information is not allowed in our science
classrooms. It’s not allowed because it casts doubt on the validity of
biological and chemical evolution, both of which are materialistic theories of
origins.
Gina
Allen’s Incredible Discovery
One
of the most surprising testimonies was given by Ms. Gina Allen who currently
serves on the Board of Education for Wright City R-2 in Warren County, MO.
Ms.
Allen began by stating that the power held by those holding to Darwinian
evolution was overwhelming and binds those who want to explore scientific
questions and learn about scientific evidence.
Emphasizing how their power stifles the development of critical thinking
skills of Missouri students, she went on to say, “This power does not teach, in
this day of tolerance, how to respond appropriately and respectfully to a
difference of opinion. HB 2554 protects a teacher’s freedom to teach scientific
evidence regarding evolution and encourages all of the above.”
Ms.
Allen related that during the approval process of her district’s science
curriculum she made the motion that they incorporate the statement, “The student is expected to analyze, review,
and critique scientific explanations, including hypotheses and theories, as to
their strengths and weaknesses using scientific evidence and information.”
A statement that is used by the Texas State Board of Education in their
curriculum. Her motion failed 4 to 3.
She
later asked her school board president that if evolution is true why would he
not allow it to be challenged? His response was “because we have to meet the Grade Level Expectations [GLE’s].” At
that point she asked what those expectations were. The president then gave her a
link to the GLE’s on the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary
Education’s (DESE) website.
What
Ms. Allen found shocked her. On page 106 of a 107 page document it stated:
“Strand 8: Impact of Science, Technology and
Human Activity, Item 2.B
“Scientific
theories are developed based on the body of knowledge that exists at any
particular time and must be rigorously questioned and tested for validity.
[Bold emphasis added]
“Scope and Sequence – All Units
“a.
Identify and describe how explanations (hypotheses, laws, theories) of scientific phenomena have changed over time as a result of new
evidence (e.g., model of the solar system, basic structure of matter,
structure of an atom, Theory of Plate Tectonics, Big Bang and nebular theory of
the Universe, explanation of electric current). [Bold emphasis added]
“b.
Identify and analyze current theories that are being questioned, and compare
them to new theories that have emerged to challenge older ones (e.g., Theory of
Evolution, theories of extinction, global warming) (Asses Locally).” [Bold emphasis added]
On
page 1, the opening paragraph of the document states “The Expectations described in Strand 7: Inquiry and Strand 8 Science/Technology/Human Activity should be made a priority and integrated throughout every teaching unit
in each of the other strands.”
[Bold emphasis added]
The
bottom line to what Ms. Allen discovered was that a critical analysis of
evolutionary theories by comparing them to new theories was already in the
GLE’s and appeared to be a requirement for all school districts in the State of
Missouri.
To
me, DESE’s own GLE’s say it’s perfectly permissible (if not required) for a
teacher to discuss and teach any alternative theory or new evidence which is
critical of evolution. That of course would include Intelligent Design and creationism.
So, if that’s the case, then why isn’t DESE communicating this to Missouri
school districts and teachers?
The
Answer to the Above Question
At the end of the hearing Chairman Cunningham asked the Deputy Commissioner
of DESE, Bert Schulte, what he thought about the testimony related to the
fears expressed by the State’s science teachers and what DESE’s position was
on the issue. Schulte’s reply was that DESE’s Curriculum Standards were very
much aligned with and agreed with the language 
of
HB 2554. Cunningham then asked Schulte, given the testimony presented regarding
teachers’ misunderstanding of their freedoms and actually being fearful to
discuss the inconsistencies in the theory of evolution, would DESE communicate
DESE’s Standards to their State school districts and teachers? As incredible
as it may be, Schulte point blank stated that he would NOT communicate what
DESE’s State Standards were to the school districts
or teachers and went on to say that the Legislature needs to communicate those
Standards to the districts by passing the bill discussed in the committee
hearing.
Needless
to say, Representative Cunningham was taken back by Schulte’s comments given
the fact that Schulte, DESE’s second in command, who certainly had an
obligation to keep the State’s school districts and teachers informed on State Educational
Standards, had just refused to do his job and communicate DESE’s own policies
to those they oversee. When she told me about this conversation, all she could
say was, “That’s pitiful! And tax payers actually have to fund this department?
I guarantee you, I WILL be talking to the Commissioner and State Board Members
about my concerns on this issue!”
Cultural
Terrorists
No
one testified at the hearing against HB 2554 however, there were at least ten
representatives from the National Teacher’s Association Union (NEA) who, half
way through the testimonies, got up and walked out of the meeting without
saying a word. The NEA obviously did not like what they were hearing.
The
committee also received a threatening four-page letter dated April 29th written
by Dena Sher, the State Legislative Counsel for Americans United for Separation
of Church and State (AU) in Washington, D.C.
The letter, written on behalf of the Missouri chapter of AU, accused
proponents of the legislation of attempting to bring religion into
public-school science classrooms and “replace
science as currently practiced with ‘theistic and Christian science.”
Laced
with visceral attacks on the Discovery Institute, which has long fought for
academic freedom, the letter accused the Institute (and by association anyone
supporting HB 2554) of “undermining
science education” by “peddling
deceptively named ‘academic freedom’ bill[s]” as “part of its marketing
campaign for intelligent design and creationism.”
In
keeping with AU’s history of ‘intimidation’ and ‘scare tactics’ (the same
tactics used by their evil twins – the ACLU and People for the American Way)
the letter made reference to several court cases where evolutionists had ‘won’
their cases, and at least eight threats that the passage of HB 2554 would
result in lawsuits.
As
far as I’m concerned, AU, the ACLU, People for the American Way and their like
are nothing more than cultural terrorists who are out to destroy America and
eradicate God from our national conscience. And, like all terrorists, they need
to be fought tooth and nail until they are defeated.
A
Long Way to Go
The
testimony on HB 2554 lasted for two hours running past the allotted time for
the meeting. So, after the House of
Representatives broke later in the afternoon, the committee met again and held
an Executive Session. In that session they voted the bill “Do Pass” out of
committee. The final vote was 8 to 3, with one member absent. Democrat
Representatives Sara Lampe, (Minority Caucus Secretary, Dist. 138 -
Springfield, MO), Joe Aull (Dist. 26 - Marshall, MO), and Luke Scavuzzo (Dist.
124 – Harrisonville, MO) all voted “NO” not to pass the bill out of committee.
Even
though HB 2554 was voted out of committee it still has a long way to go. As I
stated earlier in this report, this late in the legislative session it seems
unlikely that the bill will be able to get through the entire legislative
process. However, it’s a good start.
“Ideas
Control the World” a phrase that is carved prominently in marble on the wall
of the First Floor Rotunda of our State Capital. Ideas also have consequences
and HB 2554 is an important idea with major consequences. Dr. Cooper’s bill
will ensure that the God given and Constitutional rights of freedom of inquiry,
speech, and conscience of our children and their educators will be protected.
The consequences of passage of this bill will not only affect their lives
but will shape our world for years to come. HB 2554 is an idea we cannot afford
to let die. We must fight to make sure this bill becomes law and I pray you
will join the battle to help make that happen.
Since
late 2004 Abram Messer has worked as an Associate Director for Missouri Family
Network, a salt and light ministry that is dedicated to the preservation of
traditional family values. As a part of the ministry, Abram lobbies the Missouri
General Assembly full-time during the legislative session.
