When Is It Unconstitutional to Call Nonsense Nonsense?

Frank B said:

Chip, I think you are reading too much into this discussion. These sort of discussions can and do take place, particularly at the high school level, but in other classes. Pt’er focus on good science being taught in science class. If a teacher states or implies that YEC, or OEC, or ID is science, then that is unconstitutional. I agree with others that teachers stating a negative opinion about religion is as bad as promoting religion.

I agree that good science should be taught in the science classroom, and good history in the history classroom, etc. I have never argued (despite what I think can only be either the deliberate misrepresentation or lack of reading comprehension of some on PT) that significant classroom time should be devoted to discussions of ID or Creation Science.

Creationism is a word with a pretty specific meaning in our culture: It means a belief that the world is approximately 10,000 yo, that there was a literal flood, that Noah really had two of every “kind” in an arc, etc. The Enuma Elish tells about a war between Tiamat and Marduk, and how Marduk fashioned man out of Tiamat’s blood. It’s a great story-but if you believe that it literally happened than you really do believe in superstitious nonsense.

So let’s say that someone is teaching that The Enuma Elish is literal truth-or that the Great Goddess **literally** enables you to make magic, or that Voodoo curses work, or that God wants you to kill yourself so you can be taken away in a comet. Now, these beliefs are of differing levels of harm. But if you are teaching these as science and as litterally true, then you are peddling superstitious religious nonsense in the guise of science, and you should be allowed to say so.

The teacher in this case didn’t say “if you go to the Lutheran Church on Sunday…or if you belong to a witch’s coven and celebrate the Sabbat…then you are peddling religious superstitious nonsense. He said if you are teaching it in science class then you are peddling superstitious religious nonsense.

So some student decided to sue for that. Not only is this a threat to the First Amendment free speech protections, its also a sign of the stupid claptrap focus on our culture of the right to never hear anything offensive.

Now, I’m not convinced that the reforms of Franz Joseph were really in the interest of the peasants (in fact, I’m kind of baffled he would say that). But unless he was telling the students that their individual religious beliefs were superstitious nonsense, this case should have been thrown out.

The result of this case is that even though quoting Mark Twain was upheld (the mere fact this was even in dispute should give people pause to think), the result is that now quoting Mark Twain will wind up being seen as pushing the envelope, so school districts will play it safe and stop even that.

Obviously the solution is clear: we must purge our school libraries of Mark Twain because to fail to do so would be to allow the state to express an opinion on religion!

What utter trash.

eric said:

Chip Poirot said: The point is that in a classroom, students should be up to having their beliefs challenged and questioned.

That depends on the class. There is little reason to intentionally discuss religion in Chemistry class - you should be teaching chemistry.

Once again, people either misread what I say or intentionally misquote me.

I did not say that religion or philosophy should be a substitute for Chemistry or that a teacher did not have a responsibility to teach the curriculum. To the contrary, I said the opposite.

What I said was that in the context of teaching the curriculum, the teacher has the right to engage in the relevant free expression of ideas, given an age appropriate context. I said that the ideal of the University classroom should be used as a model for the K-12 classroom-again-with the proviso of age appropriateness.

Some subjects/topics permit of more open discussion than others. But teachers are paid for their knowledge of the subject matter-not just to channel the state’s opinion.

And that is why i said now, and have always said, that there should be a balancing test. But there should never be a state imposed orthodoxy on the curriculum.

And for the record, I do not now nor have I ever advocated teaching YEC, ID, “teach the controversy”, or any of the pseudo-academic freedom bills sponsored by the DI.

Now consider the statement: the teacher said that teaching Creationism is superstitious religious nonsense. The teacher is expressing an opinion about science and religion on a matter of public controversy, when apparently, that matter of controversy came up in classroom discussion. The student should be encouraged (if he or she sees fit) to challenge the teacher’s viewpoint and should not be downgraded for disagreeing. Nor should the student be singled out for ridicule.

But none of that happened: the teacher **did not** say going to the Lutheran Church is religious superstitious nonsense. He said teaching Creationism-which in our culture means the view that the earth app. 10,000 yo, etc-is superstitious religious nonsense. Teachers should not have to parse words n the classroom.

Dan said:

Chip Poirot said:

But all this said, I guess I don’t see your point. Even if you caught me in a sloppy use of logic and making an overgeneralization,

That is my point.

Chip Poirot said:

…the fact remains that much of religious practice does entail ritual and a significant part of that ritual does entail warding off evil as part of the emic interpretation of the practitioner. I disagree with you btw about the free form issue.

But again, anyway: What is your point? The point I was trying to make is that practices we call superstition (such as touching a hat for luck) are similar to religious rituals and many religious rituals contain magical elements.

What is your objection to this larger point?

I absolutely agree with you when you say that much religious practice, particularly Christian, involves ritual. My point was that you overgeneralized in your initial statement.

I admire your honesty in admitting this.

Well, when I goof I goof. But I’m a bit suspicious about what you are saying here.

You did say that you had **never** seen a ritual to ward off evil and you went on to list all the Protestant churches in which you had never seen it. Now, like I said, I’ll grant you that liberal Congregationalists, Unitarians and liberal Quakers may not be warding off evil (or at least don’t think of their practices that way).

So you will admit your “mistake” in saying that you had never a ritual to ward off evil?

The fact remains, that in most orthodox/conservative/fundamentalist/evangelical Christian denominations, rituals to ward off evil are in fact practiced on a sustained basis. It is part of their routine and fundamental to their world view.

A superstition is a practice or ritual to ward off bad luck or evil.

Creationism is nonsense.

So, therefore: Creationism is superstitious religious nonsense is literally true-and if anything, borders on the redundant.

Dan said:

Chip Poirot said:

On the other hand, when people have and preach a belief that can only be justified by appeals to the most absolutely bizarre miracles (two of every kind surviving in an Ark) and then claim that that belief is justified by an etic description that meets the standards of natural scientists, then sorry, they are just spouting superstitious religious nonsense and they should be called on it.

I absolutely agree here, but you miss what I think of as the most absurd facet of Genesis: In Genesis 2:19-20 one man, Adam, names all the animals. In fact we know that an army of taxonomists has been working for centuries to name and describe animals, and estimates are that the taxonomists are one-tenth done!

Well, in fairness-I think he only had to name the kinds-which as far as I can tell is all the Families.

Eric,

I’ve addressed some of the specifics of your argument multiple times already. In addition, since I accidentally lost a lengthier, more detailed response, I’ll keep this one short (which is probably better anyway).

Until recently, the standard that judges applied in judging K-12 speech was premised on the view that speech in the classroom should be a marketplace of ideas. Thus the ideal to strive for was the environment of higher ed, subject to age appropriate constraints. This is the standard that the AFT and the NEA advocate.

Why do you think that is?

Your standard in contrast seems to be that teachers should exercise strict neutrality on controversial issues. Or is it only religious issues where they should be neutral?

How can you be neutral when you teach about topics such as inquisitions, peasant revolts, World Wars, the holocaust or more generally about world views.

History today is neither written nor taught as just a collection of Joe Friday facts.

But anyway, it’s worth pointing out yet one more time that Corbett was explaining his editorial policy when he was directly asked by a student to explain his editorial policy. Corbett’s answer is factually and literally correct. It is a reasoned judgement. This wasn’t about church attendance or taking communion or believing in being born again.

eric said:

Chip Poirot said: Your standard in contrast seems to be that teachers should exercise strict neutrality on controversial issues. Or is it only religious issues where they should be neutral?

No strict neutrality needed on any subject; be hostile, just don’t be “improperly hostile.” And while there’s no way to draw a pin-bright line as to what counts as improper, there are two things we can say about it. (1) hostility is more ‘proper’ when your conclusions and summary comments are supported directly by your academic argument rather than being an op-ed. (2) The standard is going to be higher for religion than for other subjects.

I am against any special pleading for religion, just as I am against special pleading for “sensitivity” on race and gender or on political speech. The issue is very simple: is the discussion and presentation on the issue warranted by normal academic standards? Let’s say for example that in a class I am particularly critical of feminist viewpoint theory. Does that mean that undergraduates who have acquired a committment to feminism should rationally fear being downgraded? If I am harshly critical of the role of Republican ideology in leading to the financial crisis, should Republican students reasonably fear being downgraded? Or vice versa: suppose a conservative professor says that he thinks that Murray Weinstein makes valid points. Now I happen to think that Weinstein is pure tripe. And yes, I can see why that statement would offend minority students (hell, I’m offended by Weinstein). I even think that Weinstein simply uses very poor methods. But in the interest of the marketplace of ideas, discussion and even defense of him should be protected in the classroom.

But then somehow when I arrive at religious views I’m suddenly supposed to go on eggshells?

I think that’s a perversion of the establishment clause of the First Amendment which was never intended to exempt religion from the marketplace of ideas. In fact, speech about religion and politics is core speech-other kinds of relatively low value speech such as for example Hustler magazine-are protected secondarily. I mean we protect Hustler’s right to publish because we can’t devise a standard to ban Hustler and allow the core speech. Now granted, we can reasonably and rightly ban Hustler in the workplace and even in the college classroom. Though even then, there are some very particular circumstances in which it would be appropriate to discuss it and employ it as an example in a college classroom (that would clearly be an example of age inappropriate speech in K-12).

But the point is that the First Amendment protects all kinds of religious speech in public schools (as I keep pointing out). It protects the right to wear crosses, to engage in individual prayer, to form student religious groups, to allow proselytizing groups to use school facilities, to allow teachers to act as advisors to proselytizing groups, and even to a very limited degree, to display a Bible).

What it doesn’t (and shouldn’t) protect is coerced participation in religious rituals, engaging in religious indoctrination, using the classroom to proselytize, or having the school district officially sanction religious exercises.

If students can make a distinction between a teacher acting as advisor for Campus Ambassadors for Christ and feel confident that they will not be marked down for having a secular viewpoint, then students can make the similar distinction between a history professor expressing the view that Creationists are not telling the truth about science and that Creationism is “superstitios religious nonsense.”

But at least you seem now to have modified your position.

But anyway, it’s worth pointing out yet one more time that Corbett was explaining his editorial policy when he was directly asked by a student to explain his editorial policy. Corbett’s answer is factually and literally correct. It is a reasoned judgement. This wasn’t about church attendance or taking communion or believing in being born again.

Yes, and I think its worth pointing out yet one more time that - unlike you or I - the judge actually heard both Corbett’s lecture verbatim and his direct testimony. Why you think the you are in a better position to judge the reasonableness of Corbett’s defense than the judge when you have less information than he did is a head scratcher to me.

You can’t be serious. Tim Sandefur posted this case for discussion. He provided links to two different views of the case.

So what you are saying is that I cannot have an opinion contrary to the judge’s opinion?

I can read his ruling, I can read the relevant precedents, and I can come to a decision about whether or not I think the judge’s ruling is a good and desirable one. Other people may disagree.

But if I took your rhetorical question seriously, the only people who could ever comment on a judge’s opinion would be appellant’s attorneys and appeals courts judges, and then none of us could comment on the Supreme Court.

Judges aren’t some kind of sacred power. They are engaged in their own form of argumentation-it is just that their arguments have binding legal power in many instances. But that doesn’t put an end to argumentation. Judges don’t get a by in our society either in the process of argumentation (we just have to follow their dictates or pay the penalty). They aren’t philosopher kings and queens. In order for argumentation to help us arrive at valid policies it is important for the general public to critically engage the bench;

The basis of my critique of the judge’s ruling is two fold:

1. The judge did not apply any kind of balancing test. He ruled only on one aspect of the First Amendment (the student’s right to be free of religious -or irreligious-indoctrination in the classroom) and ignored the other 3/4 of the First Amendment-Corbett’s right to set an editorial policy for the school paper that precludes having religious based psuedo-science presented as science, his right to express a criticism of religion (Peloza’s Creationist speech is protected for some reason by the First Amendment according to the judge) and his right to engage in discussion and express an opinion on matters of public concern when relevant in the classroom:

But there is no need to take my word on this issue-the AFT believe it or not has real lawyers and that kind of stuff, so if you need quote from authority, I’ll defer to the AFT (again, it’s worth pointing out that the AFT voluntarily joined the suit as a codefendant):

2. I can also fairly criticize the judge for his tortured logic and the implications of his argumentation. For example, the judge ruled that Corbett could quote Mark Twain, but could not do so favorably. The judge noted that the use of the word “magic” to describe religion would in another context have been construed by him as over the line. So his objection is as far as I can tell to the use of the word “superstition”. My sense of the judge is that he would be perfectly fine if someone described shamanistic religions as magic or superstitious, but somehow, the judge wants to give Creationism a by.

OK-again, if you have to have an authority I’ll point to Volokh. My point number 2 here is essentially the same as Volokh’s (I came to it independently before I had read what Volokh wrote, but I think he puts it well).

Anyway, if it matters (and I don’t really see that it does) I’ve been teaching full time now for about 18 years at the higher ed level. I’ve been through the PC wars. I’ve served on campus discrimination advisory panels. I’ve provided advice to my local on similar issues in preparation for bargaining. I have a pretty good sense of how these issues get practically applied and what their practical impact is in the classroom.