Academic Freedoms From Seattle

HB13-1089 by Rep. Stephen Humphrey, "Academic Freedoms Act"

 

The Bill

Many times, legislators identify something going on in schools that they believe should be improved. Rep. Moreno wants to expand the school meals program, Rep. Fields wants to improve school attendance, and Rep. Humphrey wants to allows teachers to foster classroom debate about established scientific knowledge solely on the topics of global warming, evolution, and human cloning. 

His bill would create the Academic Freedoms Act, an effort to help both k-12 and Higher Ed students develop critical thinking skills. From the bill:
 

TEACHERS TO FIND MORE EFFECTIVE WAYS TO PRESENT SCIENCE CURRICULUM WHERE IT ADDRESSES SCIENTIFIC CONTROVERSIES.

PUBLIC SCHOOL AUTHORITIES AND ADMINISTRATORS MUST PERMIT TEACHERS TO HELP STUDENTS UNDERSTAND, ANALYZE, CRITIQUE, AND REVIEW IN AN OBJECTIVE MANNER THE SCIENTIFIC STRENGTHS AND SCIENTIFIC WEAKNESSES OF EXISTING SCIENTIFIC THEORIES COVERED IN A GIVEN COURSE.

Also extremely important is this passage:
 

THE STATE BOARD, ANY LOCAL BOARD OF EDUCATION,  SCHOOL ADMINISTRATOR, OR TEACHER IN A PUBLIC SCHOOL MUST NOT PROHIBIT ANY PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHER IN THIS STATE FROM HELPING STUDENTS UNDERSTAND, ANALYZE, CRITIQUE, AND REVIEW IN AN OBJECTIVE MANNER THE SCIENTIFIC STRENGTHS AND SCIENTIFIC WEAKNESSES OF EXISTING SCIENTIFIC THEORIES COVERED IN A GIVEN COURSE.

The two points. First, every school authority must allow teachers to, as it's understood, "teach the controversy". Second, no authority can stop a teacher from doing so. This effectively directs what a teacher may or may not do, something that is the sole responsibility of the locally elected school board. 

In Committee

1089 was assigned to the House Education committee composed on 13 members. 7 members are Democrats, 6 are Republican, and the Chair is Democrat Rep. Millie Hamner. As the usual flow of committees go, Rep. Humphrey made a short case for the bill he was sponsoring. What made this a less than convivial encounter was the initial questioning by Democratic members before the witness testimony phase even began. 

Rep. Fields began by asking what the consequences were if a teacher failed to create an environment of debate on these science topics. Humphrey responded that the bill had no enforcement, only encouragement for teacher to do so. Rep. Court then explained that teachers are already encouraged to do exactly what the bill is asking; why is the bill necessary then? Humphrey offered an explanation that sometimes students are afraid to ask their teacher about the controversies surrounding the subjects of global warming, evolution, and cloning, and that his bill was needed to allow students to complain to higher authorities if debate-friendly environments were not made. Other Democrats on the committee echoed their colleagues in asking why the bill would only apply to science courses and not English, Math, or History.

The witness testimony phase of the hearing began by Humphrey allowing opponents to his bill speak first. Jane Urschel of the Colorado Association of School Boards, known as CASB, simply stated that the bill violated article 9, section 15 of the Colorado Constitution by taking away the rights of local school boards to dictate what goes on in classrooms. Up next was Karen Wick of the Colorado Education Association, essentially the teacher's union. CEA represents over 38,000 school district employees. She elaborated on what Urschel said but went into depth explaining how school boards pull together experts to craft school curriculum. According to her, 1089 would severely confuse that process and undermine academic standards already in place. 

Here something telling of a freshman legislator occurred; Rep. Landgraf found the notion of subject experts dictating what schools do and do not teach to be putting children in a box and asked how that would be good for education. The Chair of the committee actually had to pause things at that point and explain to Landgraf that that's how curriculum is determined in Colorado.    

Finally in the opposition camp was Katie Navin of Colorado Alliance for Environmental Education, a non-profit that influences the teaching of environmental issues in schools. Her main contention with 1089 was that it asked teachers to "explore the strengths and weaknesses of scientific theories", arguing that evolution and global warming are facts, not theories. Rep. Chris Holbert expressed his belief that global warming is a hoax that he doesn't believe in. 

The first in line to support the bill was Scott Horak of the Christian Outdoorsman. I strongly encourage you to listen to what can only be described as a 10 minute pseudo-scientific rant beginning at the 1 hour 37 minute mark of the audio recording.   

Origin Of The Matter

By now you might have an inclination where this bill is headed. Where it came from, though, is surprising. After Horak concluded his remarks, another witness, Joshua Youngkin of the Discovery Institute, revealed that it was his Seattle, Washington based organization that wrote the language of the bill and brought it to Rep. Stephen Humphrey to pass in the Colorado Legislature. A quick review of the Discovery Institute reveals it to be a strange think-tank falsifying the work of Charles Darwin and advocating the intelligent design of the universe. 

Insisting that the language of the bill was "bulletproof", Youngkin explained the bill was designed to give students the ability to discuss the "question of climate change" and allow them to review information in an objective manner and make up their own minds. He explained to Rep. Buckner that textbook theories of evolution are not true and that current scientific education is only teaching one side of the controversy. Most interesting of all, Youngkin stated that the bill gives teachers the right to teach as they see fit, and, goes on to actually quote Charles Darwin, "...a fair result can only be obtained by carefully balancing the arguments and facts on both sides of the question".  

To The Vote

This bill came down to a cordial party line vote.  7 to 6, all the Democrats against and all the Republicans for, 1089 was PI'ed (postponed indefinitely, killed).

Afterthoughts 

Did Humphrey reach out to the Discovery Institute or did they track him down? How frequently do out of state interests have a driving role in Colorado lawmaking? Youngkin mentioned that the Discovery Institute managed to pass a similar bill to 1089 in Louisiana back in 2008. 

Is it concerning that freshman legislators sitting on the Education committee demonstrate a poor understanding of the fundamental framework for curriculum building? The Democratic party swept the House in recent elections- is this bill symptomatic of why the Republican party lost its previous majority hold? This session is witnessing a strong Republican "tacking to the right" of their legislative agenda, one that I predict will continue the trend of failing initial committee hearings.