A high school teacher and two students sued Arkansas on Monday over the state’s ban on critical race theory and “indoctrination” in public schools, asking a federal judge to strike down the restrictions as unconstitutional.
The lawsuit by the teacher and students from Little Rock Central High School, site of the historic 1957 racial desegregation crisis, stems from the state’s decision last year that an Advanced Placement course on African American Studies would not count toward state credit.
“It absolutely chills free speech”
I don’t think that this angle is going to be successful.
States do have the right to set the content of their curriculum.
They can’t stop the teacher from saying what he wants outside the school, but in the context of the education system, they do get to decide what goes.
The Scopes trial dealt with this point:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_trial
The Scopes trial, formally The State of Tennessee v. John Thomas Scopes, and commonly referred to as the Scopes Monkey Trial, was an American legal case from July 10 to July 21, 1925, in which a high school teacher, John T. Scopes, was accused of violating Tennessee’s Butler Act, which had made it illegal for teachers to teach human evolution in any state-funded school.
Second, the lawyers argued that the statute violated Scopes’ constitutional right to free speech because it prohibited him from teaching evolution. The court rejected this argument, holding that the state was permitted to regulate his speech as an employee of the state:
He was an employee of the state of Tennessee or of a municipal agency of the state. He was under contract with the state to work in an institution of the state. He had no right or privilege to serve the state except upon such terms as the state prescribed. His liberty, his privilege, his immunity to teach and proclaim the theory of evolution, elsewhere than in the service of the state, was in no wise touched by this law.
Yeah, because a famously anti-science trial against a teacher accused of teaching science in science class is a GREAT jurisprudence to look to! 🙄
It’s not about the material in question, it’s about if a state employed teacher has the right to override the curriculum. They do not.
Yeah, I still call bullshit. Legislating against the right of a teacher to teach well-documented science in science class isn’t about the teacher “overriding the curriculum”.
It’s about the state trying to override reality with lies and compelling teachers to do so as well.
Say I believed the earth is flat, and provided ‘well documented science’ that the earth is flat. Who’s to say that I shouldn’t be doing that? Or what if in social studies class I provided proof that men were superior to women?
The law is clearly in the moral wrong in our current situation, but in general it provides more protections than it does harm. The problem isn’t with Tennessee vs Scopes. The problem is with the Republican agenda.
Say I believed the earth is flat, and provided ‘well documented science’ that the earth is flat
That’s not equivalent since there is no such thing.
Who’s to say that I shouldn’t be doing that?
Every person who doesn’t subscribe to your fringe hypothesis. So roughly 8.1 billion people.
Or what if in social studies class I provided proof that men were superior to women?
Again, you don’t seem at all familiar with how scientific proof works.
The law is clearly in the moral wrong in our current situation
Also: factually and in every other way.
in general it provides more protections than it does harm
Nope. It’s states trying to remove every mention of LGBTQ+ people and racial equality, not rogue teachers.
The problem isn’t with Tennessee vs Scopes. The problem is with the Republican agenda.
You don’t have to like it for it to be the reality of the situation, and the fact is that the precedent is extremely relevant. Your little fantasy world where teachers choose the material ignores the other side of the equation too, as I’m sure you wouldn’t want some evangelical deciding on his own to override the curriculum to suit his beliefs.
Your little fantasy world where teachers choose the material
I’m not talking about teachers choosing the material. I’m talking about scientific consensus arrived at through abundantly peer reviewed proof dictating what is taught in science classes, not the equivalent of the Catholic Church insisting that the sun revolves around the earth.
I’m sure you wouldn’t want some evangelical deciding on his own to override the curriculum to suit his beliefs.
Sure wouldn’t. For the reasons I already mentioned.
Science is real and testable no matter whether you believe it or not. It’s not a matter of opinion. It’s not equivalent to creationism.
That’s a fun idea you have but you’re wrong. Who decides what the scientific consensus is? Is there some governing body that is accepted as the source of truth on what constitutes “abundantly” peer reviewed proof? No? Then it’s still subjective.
Is there some governing body that is accepted as the source of truth on what constitutes “abundantly” peer reviewed proof? No? Then it’s still subjective.
The fun part of living in a society with low public education standards is that this argument can work for anything from creationism to holocaust denial. Doesn’t matter if the Earth is a sphere, only matters if the schoolboard has the collective IQ to understand the abundant proof that the Earth is round. If they don’t- then the shape of the Earth is just ‘subjective’ ;)
That’s exactly the point. The only remedy to this problem, given the structure of our government, is through the legislature. If you live in one of the shithole states, that’s going to be a challenge.
That’s a fun idea you have
Could you possibly be any more condescending?
but you’re wrong
I objectively am not, according to the best way of arriving at truth without opinion or faith.
Who decides what the scientific consensus is?
Who do you fucking think? You can’t possibly be this ignorant of how science works and what a consensus is and expect to be taken seriously when discussing science.
Is there some governing body that is accepted as the source of truth on what constitutes “abundantly” peer reviewed proof?
No, that’s nowhere near what a scientific consensus is. Since you apparently ARE that clueless, allow me to inform you:
Scientific consensus is the generally held judgment, position, and opinion of the majority or the supermajority of scientists in a particular field of study at any particular time
In this case, “evolution is how life works” being the almost universally held position of anyone with expert knowledge about biology that isn’t paid by pseudoscientific and usually religious organizations to pretend otherwise.
Then it’s still subjective.
Nope. That’s not what that word means. A scientific consensus is the most objective thing there is in human knowledge.
Since you seem to have trouble with the meaning of key words, let me clarify: objective and subjective are antonyms. Antonyms are words with opposite meaning.
Hard not to be condescending in the face of such a childlike understanding of the world. Everything you’re arguing would be true in an ideal world, but that’s not what we have. I mean, have you been living under a rock while the science around climate change has been politicized and manipulated by monied interests?
I’ll remind you we are talking about the courts, and the autonomy of the States to make their own laws, and not about what makes good science.
And don’t police my tone while acting like an ass all over this thread, as you lack any moral high ground.
I’ll remind you we are talking about the courts
Ah, now I see the problem. I’m talking about what makes sense while you’re talking about what a broken legal system wrongly thinks make sense.
the science around climate change has been politicized and manipulated by monied interests?
Corrupt people trying to deny the science doesn’t change the science. That’s why I alluded to the very few scientists not being part of the overwhelming consensus being paid for lying.
autonomy of the States to make their own laws
Yeah, because “state’s rights” have always been an argument used for good laws… 🙄
and not about what makes good science.
Call me old-fashioned, but I am of the opinion that science education should be about good science, not the ideological opinions of demagogues without so much as a relevant degree.
Hard not to be condescending in the face of such
Right back at you. You’d give Dunning and Kruger daily aneurysms if you had been a part of their famous study.
The recent trend of transferring individual rights to the state en masse is alarming. Even worse, the states are working in direct contradiction to experts in the fields they are regulating. Skimming over some of these recent laws, we see legislatures working against medical associations (reproductive health care and gender affirming care), sports rules authorities (trans athlete participation), and education accreditation bodies (this article).
The result is a gigantic state power that sees fit to decide what health care you receive, what the rules of your sports should be, and what constitutes a good education. We have set up institutions to tackle these problems due to the (now less) common assumption that these decisions should be made by experts and/or local stakeholders, and that politics should have no place in our doctors’ offices, football fields, and classrooms.
But let’s assume that politics and state power should reach into these spaces. Why would the laws work in direct opposition to the most trusted authorities in these fields? What legitimate purpose could that serve?
