North Dakota Bans Public Forum Resolution
SANTA MONICA, CA - It is being reported over in the Minnesota forum of HSDebate.com that North Dakota has banned the debating of the NFL Public forum resolution: “Resolved: In the United States, public high school science curriculum should include the study of the Theory of Intelligent Design.”
Seth Halvorson, former Apple Valley LD debater, frequent debate judge, and PhD candidate at Columbia called the League. Here is his report:
I was told that the decision was made because ID was to be the state topic, and some school adminstrators, not coaches, balked at the idea of debating intelligent design. The person said evolution is not taught in some of the schools. He was really surprised, but in the end said that administrators have the final say, and it wouldn’t be fair to exclude some students from state competition on the grounds that their administrators would not allow them to debate. He said similar things were afoot in Kansas and elsewhere.
Popularity: 2%
no more tag found, sorry
Posted from: 71.250.85.132
December 21st, 2005 16:36
BOOO.
North Dakota sucks.
Posted from: 24.245.26.87
December 21st, 2005 16:47
I happen to come from North Dakota and its better than any polluted city of filth and refuge. It is clean, and the people are considered to be the midwest term “Minnesota Nice”.
Posted from: 24.245.26.87
December 21st, 2005 16:49
I happen to come from North Dakota, and it’s better than any polluted city of filth and refuge. It is clean, and the people are considered to be the midwest term “Minnesota Nice”.
Posted from: 71.251.15.215
December 21st, 2005 16:49
this resolution is horrible and i refuse to debate it. while i completely disagree with their motives presented for regecting it i agree with the decision and do not remotely blame a state wide ban on this resolution. i understand the direction and intent of this type of resolution but it is sad that such a polarizing issue can make it into debate such that judging leaves depressing debating room deviating from a judges predisposition in prelims
Posted from: 24.245.26.87
December 21st, 2005 16:52
I happen to come from North Dakota, and it’s better than any polluted city of filth and refuge. It is clean, and the people are considered to be the midwest term “Minnesota Nice”.
Posted from: 68.198.155.134
December 21st, 2005 16:58
OMG AMERICA R0XXX YESSSSs
Posted from: 24.0.202.101
December 21st, 2005 17:00
1) I think it’d be a city of ‘filth and refuse,’ not refuge.
2) North Dakota is not a city.
3) Clean or dirty, nothing is really being indicted in this whole column. This is just VBD doing it’s job - reporting. There isn’t any shout-out slant that I can see from reading Halvorson’s report, so I dont understand why North Dakota, clean or dirty, really defends anything.
Jamie
Posted from: 24.0.202.101
December 21st, 2005 17:02
1) I think it’d be a city of ‘filth and refuse,’ not refuge.
2) North Dakota is not a city.
3) Clean or dirty, nothing is really being indicted in this whole column. This is just VBD doing it’s job - reporting. There isn’t any shout-out slant that I can see from reading Halvorson’s report, so I dont understand why North Dakota, clean or dirty, really defends anything. And if you’re responding to Zhao, I think he’s just being vindictive. But either way, (I’m not dissing ND, or anything) something can suck and be dirty/clean
Jamie :)
Posted from: 24.0.202.101
December 21st, 2005 17:04
1) I think it’d be a city of ‘filth and refuse,’ not refuge.
2) North Dakota is not a city.
3) Clean or dirty, nothing is really being indicted in this whole column. This is just VBD doing it’s job - reporting. There isn’t any shout-out slant that I can see from reading Halvorson’s report, so I dont understand why North Dakota, clean or dirty, really defends anything. And if you’re responding to Zhao, I think he’s just being vindictive. But either way, (I’m not dissing ND, or anything) something can suck and be dirty/clean
Jamie :)
Posted from: 24.118.54.159
December 21st, 2005 17:30
While I have little care about whether a school’s administration chooses to teach intelligent design/evolution and such, it is utterly ridiculous to actually restrict DEBATE and DISCUSSION of such an issue - that doesn’t seem very American.
Posted from: 70.18.54.21
December 21st, 2005 17:32
sigh– thats all i have to say, i want to say a lot more, but i dont think it’d be appropriate so i’ll end with this– sigh
Posted from: 64.53.94.70
December 21st, 2005 17:37
The topic is an excellent one. It is highly debatable. Why is this a more polarizing topic than previous ones?
However, if ND wants to ban it, go for it. The PFD Steering Committee recommended that states and tournament directors use resolutions of state/local interest in state and local competitions (not districts, however). What kinds of resolutions are being used instead of the ID topic?
Posted from: 24.6.59.211
December 21st, 2005 17:40
Censorship at its worst
Posted from: 71.250.117.75
December 21st, 2005 17:46
well screw ND. it’s not a real state anyways. and zhao, ur comment was as meaningless as mine was.
Posted from: 67.183.231.107
December 21st, 2005 17:55
What’s North Dakota? Do you mean “South” Dakota. Like in Fargo.
Posted from: 71.250.85.132
December 21st, 2005 18:21
“well screw ND. it’s not a real state anyways. and zhao, ur comment was as meaningless as mine was.”
Doesn’t change the suckiness of North Dakota for banning a resolution.
Posted from: 70.136.54.90
December 21st, 2005 18:38
I agree with Alex, let them eat cake and debate the resolution.
Posted from: 71.139.168.102
December 21st, 2005 18:48
They debate in North Dakota, WOW, but i think this shows north dakota at its finest, limiting a discussion on a semi-important issue. Congrats!
Posted from: 69.249.50.38
December 21st, 2005 18:59
i’m pretty sure fargo was north dakota.
Posted from: 69.203.74.71
December 21st, 2005 19:01
What an interesting issue.
Two possible reactions:
“I am sympathetic with the concern that it would be unfair if some students could not compete because of the stance of their school administrators. However, if the ‘League’ made their decision based on this concern, they decided wrongly. As educators in debate, we are committed to an ethic of open debate and discussion. At some gut level, we must feel that debating contentious issues is a good thing. If certain school administrators did not want their students debating evolution, then they should have been forced to go on the record prohibiting debate. Out of concern that some debaters would be denied the ability to fairly compete, the ‘League’ denied all debaters in North Dakota the right to debate evolution/ID. The ‘League’ took an action to protect the ability of administrators to act unconstitutionally without fear or recourse, and stripped the ability of students to legally assert their rights had the administrators in fact banned debate.
The ‘League’, incidentally in doing so, has now invited litigation upon its head.
I don’t know if Seth’s report is accurate, and I anxiously await an official announcement and explanation of the members of the ‘League’. The National Forensic League needs to demand a full accounting if this ‘League’ is affiliated with them. Other organizations dedicated the debate education need likewise take a stand on this issue or risk a serious loss of credibility. If this account is accurate, this decision has to be protested in the strongest possible terms.”
On the flip side…
“The ‘League’ acted correctly, because including a debate topic between ID and evolution is unconstitutional. ID is a form of creationism, which has been ruled to be a religious viewpoint. Requiring students to debate ID is a way of promoting ID as equal to evolution, or as a legitimate area of inquiry, which is the promotion of a particular religious viewpoint. The ‘League’ was not acting out of concern that some debaters would be forced to advocate evolution, it was that all students would be forced to advocate religion…”
I really have no idea which should be my reaction. I am getting a headache…
Posted from: 69.203.74.71
December 21st, 2005 19:07
What an interesting issue.
Two possible reactions:
“I am sympathetic with the concern that it would be unfair if some students could not compete because of the stance of their school administrators. However, if the ‘League’ made their decision based on this concern, they decided wrongly. As educators in debate, we are committed to an ethic of open debate and discussion. At some gut level, we must feel that debating contentious issues is a good thing. If certain school administrators did not want their students debating evolution, then they should have been forced to go on the record prohibiting debate. Out of concern that some debaters would be denied the ability to fairly compete, the ‘League’ denied all debaters in North Dakota the right to debate evolution/ID. The ‘League’ took an action to protect the ability of administrators to act unconstitutionally without fear or recourse, and stripped the ability of students to legally assert their rights had the administrators in fact banned debate.
The ‘League’, incidentally in doing so, has now invited litigation upon its head.
I don’t know if Seth’s report is accurate, and I anxiously await an official announcement and explanation of the members of the ‘League’. The National Forensic League needs to demand a full accounting if this ‘League’ is affiliated with them. Other organizations dedicated the debate education need likewise take a stand on this issue or risk a serious loss of credibility. If this account is accurate, this decision has to be protested in the strongest possible terms.”
On the flip side…
“The ‘League’ acted correctly, because including a debate topic between ID and evolution is unconstitutional. ID is a form of creationism, which has been ruled to be a religious viewpoint. Requiring students to debate ID is a way of promoting ID as equal to evolution, or as a legitimate area of inquiry, which is the promotion of a particular religious viewpoint. The ‘League’ was not acting out of concern that some debaters would be forced to advocate evolution, it was that all students would be forced to advocate religion…”
I really have no idea which should be my reaction. I am getting a headache…
Posted from: 64.12.116.203
December 21st, 2005 19:32
at least they didn’t say that debating intelligent design was “unpatriotic”
Posted from: 68.164.191.125
December 21st, 2005 19:37
Well, I’ve got to say that I’d find it mighty tough to affirm, “Resolved: In the United States, public high school science curriculum should include the study of the Theory of Intelligent Design.” I’m also not too thrilled w/ the grammatical error (the NFL needs to include the word “the” or make curriculum plural). Of course, that doesn’t seem to be North Dakota’s issue. Though fundamentalist Christian debaters could negate by arguing that we should not affirm a resolution that violates elementary school grammar… Regardless, this topic would have been far more balanced (though still not good for North Dakota) had it read, “Resolved: In the United States, public high schools should be allowed to include the study of the Theory of Intelligent Design in their science curricula.” At least then the Aff. could argue for regional diversity/states’ rights.
Posted from: 12.216.108.171
December 21st, 2005 20:49
you know terrorists teach intelligent design
darwin is for infidels
PRAISE ALLAH
Posted from: 209.214.106.101
December 21st, 2005 21:02
is it just me or does everyone else love the irony in this?
Posted from: 71.139.200.140
December 21st, 2005 21:58
While I don’t support any sort of censorship, this resolution is undebateable. If the neg is mildly intelligent, then it is nearly impossible for the aff to win.
Posted from: 71.139.200.140
December 21st, 2005 22:02
And by nearly, I mean completely.
Posted from: 131.229.177.243
December 21st, 2005 22:18
To everyone who recites the nearly panegyric litany: “Where would we be without teachers and an admin that was kind enough to support debate? Isn’t it true that you can’t have debate outside of a school system?”
Note this well.
To the posters who have defended ND - please punctuate and only hit post once. You all sound like you’re from the University of Southern North Dakota At Hoople*.
*Bonus points will be awarded to anyone who correctly identifies the source of my obscure joke.
Posted from: 24.159.242.235
December 21st, 2005 22:34
“ID is a form of creationism, which has been ruled to be a religious viewpoint. Requiring students to debate ID is a way of promoting ID as equal to evolution, or as a legitimate area of inquiry, which is the promotion of a particular religious viewpoint.”
I may not know the pariticular case that you are talking about, but this just seems like a wrong interpretation. It sounds like you’re blending the Free Excercise and the Establishment claues. These are distinct jurisprudences (for the most part; ignoring the intersection cases like Rosenberg and Southworth).
I’d like to hear some more information on this, can someone point me a way of talking to Mr. Halverson or to a news article that fully discusses the issue?
Posted from: 70.152.250.217
December 21st, 2005 22:51
although i dont really do the whole vbd thing anymore i did come across this thread and felt compelled to respond…not to the debate issue but to the ref to USND@Hoople
which is def the always present school name when one logs into WebCT (or Vista)
Posted from: 70.152.250.217
December 21st, 2005 22:53
thats not to say that that is where the joke comes from…could be webct using same source of humor
idk
Posted from: 64.53.94.70
December 21st, 2005 22:57
I am not sure I understand why everyone sees the PRO as unwinable. I assure you, it is winable.
I find it funny how debaters, who pride themselves on open minds, are quite quick to immediately throw out a view point that they consider “silly” or, in this case, “unscientific” when their own lack of knowledge results in this conclusion. The PRO is not an automatic win, but I assure you, the CON is not either.
And when are students REQUIRED to debate anything? They can chose to sit it out if they want.
Posted from: 67.175.188.30
December 22nd, 2005 03:29
Bryce, my report is indeed accurate. I have also written an op ed for the NYT on the issue based on my conversation.
I called a debate educator at the association in North Dakota and asked what the rationale was for making such a decision. I was told that it wouldn’t be fair to exclude some students from competing in the state debate tournament, simply because parents and administrators objected to their children debating the topic. The association’s hands were tied and they opted for inclusion. I was also told there were and are similar discussions going on elsewhere in the country.
Your objection regarding the NFL needs to account for this is misplaced however, at least as far as I understood the conversation that I had. Not all topics (especially state torunament topics which often have their own rules) have to be NFL topics. The old Bronx LD tournament is a good example, which was written as a proposition of value on the national policy topic.
In our conversation, which I don’t know if it is right or not to “quote” him or not in such a forum, we talked about how in the end, debate coaches borrow their students from their school, and if parents and administrators don’t want their students to debate a particular topic, the debate is no longer open to all for participation.
If the Times doesn’t accpet my op-ed, I’ll be posting it over at MN debate. It details my conversation.
SDH
Posted from: 24.211.155.46
December 22nd, 2005 06:04
Oh dear. This is so strange.
Basically, the ND decision is completely unfortunate for the debaters in ND. The officials have ruled based on one interpretation of the resolution: that the aff must defend ID as science. In reality, the resolution does not mandate this. According to the actual topic, the aff must defend the inclusion of ID in science curricula. They’re not the same thing. For example, an aff interpretation could be: ID is NOT science, but it should be included in science curricula as part of history and awareness, in the same way that science teachers talk about Aristotle’s views of the elements: not as science but as one of the sociohistorical issues. The same way history teachers talk about Galileo’s experiments–Galileo’s experiments were not history but they had an impact and connection to history. In the same way, ID has an important impact on science and it can be used as part of an explanation of the scientific method/process. The aff needn’t defend creationism as science which I guess would violate some state rules. Thus, the ND official’s decision only deals with one, flawed interpretation of the resolution. I disagree with their decision on these grounds. The decision seems not to have been made by debate coaches or other relevant authorities. Rather, it seems to have been made as a gut-reaction, automatic-controversy manner. Just because the topic says “ID” does not mean either side must defend God as science. The framers of the resolution deserve at least some credit.
However, I do think the officials are completely entitled to ban a topic from being debated. I just think their rationale in this particular case was flawed. I defend their ability to do so because, although it seems like “censorship,” debaters are students, often at public schools. Public schools use taxpayer money, and although I find it somewhat repugnant, I understand that the public schools are accountable to taxpayers, and if taxpayers do not want their kids debating about God, the state has no obligation to promote/allow debate of a controversial topic in public schools or in a state league. Private schools are another question.
Please feel free to refute any of this, because I really am saddened that the ND officials have taken such a rash, impulsive step in this case.
Posted from: 207.28.99.97
December 22nd, 2005 06:10
The ND decision is wrong because debating this issue will allow more knowledge on the issue. We debated it last weekend in Des Moines. Using the TRPC program, I was able to learn that 47.2% of the rounds were won by the affirmative. In fact, in round 2, over 60% of the debates were won by the affirmative. It is debatable. The new decision in Dover will make it more difficult, but there are ways.
The Market Place of Ideas is at work here. Most of us will know a great deal more about ID and evolution at the end of the month. Our debaters had a great guest lecturer after school last week from a Chemistry teacher in a neighboring district who is a Creationist/ID believer. She did the science education lecture for our debaters and did a wonderful job. We all learned much more about ID and why some people with masters in science can still believe in it. The North Dakota debaters are going to miss out in knowledge and in good competition.
It wories me that most schools teach evolution - something like 67%, but most Americans think that ID or Creationism should be taught. We have a huge knowledge and perception problem that cannot be addressed by runnign away from the issue.
The NFL cannot act, and as a member of the steering committee, the earlier post is correct that he stated that we recommended local and state appropriate topics. I just hope their NFL District is not during the month of January.
Finally, we plan to do a public debate on this issue later in the year. I call on other coaches to take this issue to the public. We can not foster intelligent discussion in this country on important issues if we are afraid of the controversy. This is a way for debate to be part of the solution to a bi-polar country that is afraid to discuss real issues in a public format. If we do not, we are all destined to watch Fox or CNN and complain about the bias other side.
Posted from: 70.241.123.69
December 22nd, 2005 09:34
haha this ban is quite silly.
Posted from: 131.229.177.243
December 22nd, 2005 10:36
Seth, I really hope your op-ed is published. From the little you said in your post, it sounds like you also see the admin as the main (perhaps, only) problem in this situation.
As for creationsism itself and Stevens’s post, which read in part:
“It wories me that most schools teach evolution - something like 67%, but most Americans think that ID or Creationism should be taught. We have a huge knowledge and perception problem that cannot be addressed by runnign away from the issue.”
I think it’s very dangerous to present an idea as a “potential fact” simply because a large number of people believe in it.
The best solution I can think of would be to mandate that the history of science be taught, just like the history of government is.
Of course, this is a stupid issue in the first place. If America was really interested in progress, we’d be most interested in turning out chem, phsyics, and engineering geniuses… not social science or religion junkies.
Max - The joke’s from Peter Schickele - composer, host of the ex-NPR show Schickele Mix, musicologist, and comedian (of P.D.Q. Bach fame.) He used to “host” a “radio show” on the nonexistent station WOOF Hoople, broadcast from the non-existent University of Southern North Dakota at Hoople.
Posted from: 69.203.74.71
December 22nd, 2005 10:40
Seth: Am quite sure your report is accurate, but wanted to qualify my post since it was calling for the resignation of educators based upon a report that while being accurate, was not complete. As for the NFL being off the hook, that entirely depends upon whether the ‘League’ in ND is associated with the NFL or not. If it is, and I was the lawyer drafting the complaint, I include the NFL as a defendant. Furthermore, if this a local NFL league (and not an independent state league), the NFL has an obligation to denounce the decision and call for the members resignation. If they did not (so my one possible reaction to this incident goes), I would resign my NFL membership. (how are you surviving the transit strike? we need to get a drink)
On my other possible reaction, that the topic itself violates a constitutional prohibition on the teaching of creationism in public schools, I don’t think anyone has yet addressed this, and it is thornier than you think. Religious fundamentalist/creationists are seeking to teach the debate between ID and evolution - not teach just ID. They are seeking to raise doubt about the scientific veracity of Darwinism, and offer students an alternative view, and expose them to the theory of ID. Could they accomplish these goals by requiring students in government class to prepare a debate between ID and evolution? Require students to give speeches advocating ID? Or other forms of creationism? Or any religious viewpoint, as long as it was presented in the context of a ‘debate project’ in government class, where more than one side was presented. This is undoubtedly where they will try next to insert creationism - in social studies class, not science class.
At the end of the day, if you believe ID=creationism=religious viewpoint, you should be troubled that affirmatives are supposed to advocate for a religious viewpoint. This is indistinguishable legally from a resolution asking students to advocate monotheism or Jesus. The fact that there is ‘balance’ because there is a negative debater as well completely misses the point - the advocates of ID are only asking for balance in the public school, to be compared alongside evolution, and for reasons that confound my understanding, the NFL gave them exactly what they were asking for.
And no, I am not conflating establishment and free exercise. I am only talking about the establishment clause. Public school students should not be participating in school sponsored activities that require the students to advocate religious viewpoints. Having school sponsored activities where participation dictates that students publicly advocate particular religious viewpoints is a violation of the establishment clause, and a pretty clear one. Now perhaps people want to distinguish based upon the intentions of the actors - that the NFL was not attempting to infuse religion into the schools, unlike the Dover district; that is all fine and good, but what precedent has the NFL set by choosing this topic? When the next organization (which will not have such soft liberal motives as the NFL, but will be named something like the ‘Discovery Institute Open Debate Project’) seeks to introduce the debate between ID and creationsim into the classrooom, has the NFL made it easier for them to do so?
So I am confused, because I am suspicious of the ND motives (I believe them to be motivated by a desire to shield students from evolution because of religion) but appreciative of the outcome - no ID topic. I am appreciative of the NFL’s motives (bring open debate and discussion to a contempary issue of interest), but skeptical of the outcome: students being required to research and advocate creationism in order to participate in a school-sponsored activity.
My gut- both the North Dakota ‘league’ and the NFL should be ashamed today…
Posted from: 199.174.241.147
December 22nd, 2005 10:46
Couldnt the aff argue that the schools ought to include ID in the curriculum and then explain why it is an inferior theory to evolution? This could counter-act churches teaching that ID is correct.
I don’t want to offend anyone. Just a way of getting around advocating ID as science on the aff.
Posted from: 207.28.99.97
December 22nd, 2005 11:42
Bryce, you misunderstand my argument. I don’t think it is a fact that ID should be taught, but most Americans believe it. The right wing uses this fact to push its agenda. My argument:
1. Science teachers are experts in science
2. ID proponents want ID taught in science class
3. The court has ruled that ID is not science
4. The theory of ID should be taught in science classes, so students and possibly their parents will understand the difference between a belief in ID and the science of evolution.
5. Teaching an example that does not fit a subset, in this case ID does not fit the subset of scientific theory, is a proven way to teach material.
6. Thus, ID should be taught in science class.
As far as forcing students to debate a religious topic, there really is no need. This past weekend teams that tried to say ID was religious nearly all lost. Judges, lay judges in particular, did not buy it. The argument that it was not science was much better received.
The court decision will make it more difficult for the affirmative, but that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be debated.
finally, the NFL should not feel ashamed because they have brought out a controversial topic that was noticed by administrators. As I said above, we need debate and discussion in thsi country.
Posted from: 69.203.74.71
December 22nd, 2005 12:15
Stevens: I was not actually responding to your argument, but if you would like me to do so, I will now:
The mere fact that there are ways for the affirmative to argue that do not actually endorse ID as correct science is irrelevant. Courts have consistently held that just because there are ‘opt-out’ mechanisms for students when confronted with religion in schools (such as students leaving the classroom for prayer, or for the ID instruction) does not mean there is not an establishment clause violation. Debating ID vs evolution or whether ID should be included in the classroom itself inserts ID into the classroom. Since ID is creationism, this is unconstitutional.
As for what affirmatives can or should argue, I would hold that public school students should not be given assignments to advocate religion good or bad. I am sure affirmatives will find ways of affirming while at the same time arguing that ID is a sham science…
As an aside, if judges were not buying that ID was religious, then debaters need to do a better job researching the question and presenting evidence. ID is creationism. Anyone who says otherwise is being disingenous in order to try to find a way of teaching creationism without violating enunciated constitutional restraints. I am not talking about what works or doesn’t work in a debate round. In the real world, ID is creationism, nothing more.
Now, a lot of people will say that this debate topic could be valuable. I agree. If my students were in private school, I would have no objection to them debating this subject matter. But public schools are under different restraints. While debating religion might be valuable, it puts us on a scary path. And if you don’t think that religious fundamentalists could start controlling debate leagues or the NFL, then you are naive. Given precedent on this matter, they are going to try to insert creationism in classes other than science. ‘Debate’ would be an excellent way for them to promote Of People and Pandas or whatever other lies they are serving…and the NFL (even with the best of intentions) made it easier for them by choosing this topic.
Proponents of creationism are fighting for one thing: for the schools to teach that there is a legitimate scientific debate between creationism and evolution. The NFL took a big step towards that goal by choosing this resolution. They legitimized it as a question for debate, and set the precedent that in non-science class settings, it is acceptable to assign students to debate between creationism and evolution - so you miss it in biology, but you get it in social studies. The NFL carried a lot of water for the Christian Right on this one.
Why in God’s name did they put “Intelligent Design” (capitalized! - and called it a theory!!!!) in the resolution? There are other ways to debate the issue of science/religion/separation of church and state than actually giving one side of the resolution a religious theory to advocate! Will we ever see the day when debate topics are straightforward propositions of religion? Oh yeah, that was today…
Posted from: 67.83.100.72
December 22nd, 2005 12:44
I think this is absolutely ridiculous. We debate for educational value and we dont always agree with the positions we run, however, research will never harm us. Its ridiculous that people seem to forget that debating is two conflicting sides that people are going to disagree anyway. There isn’t really a great reason why they should ban it especially since we aren’t injecting our views by standing on soap boxes preaching, rather debating in a high school debate setting.
Posted from: 66.43.223.40
December 22nd, 2005 13:16
A generation ago, the idea that the holocaust never happened was beginning to get some traction in this country oustide the neo-nazi groups. To defeat the argument the asnwer wans’t to ignore the debate but to provide evidence that the atrociites did happen.
Because of this debate, we have the Holocaust Museum in Washington and a much better understanding of the issue. Bryce, your argmuent would be for us to not lend credibility to those who were stating the holocaust did not exist by debating it. However, the debate that did happen proved it was the right approach.
Many people doubt whether evolution is real science. They have been bombarded from the right wing press, religious education, and right wing radio that evolution is a disproved theory. To counter this we need a debate. I do think the wording could have been much better on this topic, but I also think that students and others around the debate community will be better off having had this debate. I can tell you right now I know more about ID and its relationship to creationism than I would have if the topic would not have been brought forward. My students know a lot more too.
Finally, this is a real world topic where reality is losing to the better rhetoric of the well financed creationists. America cannot win this fight for the future of science curriculum by not speaking. The market place of ideas will demonstrate rather quickly that ID = Creationism and thus should not be taught in classrooms because of the religious exceptions. That is not a bad result of having this debate.
A former debater and now a worker for microsoft attended a debate between a well choreagraphed ID specialist debating a biologist. The biologist was not a debater, and the ID specialist won the arguments. The debater was appalled. We can do something about their lead in the rhetoric, but we do not do that by not engaging the debate.
Posted from: 69.203.74.71
December 22nd, 2005 14:03
I must have missed it when the NFL had the topic: Resolved, the Holocaust never happened. Regardless, I am not saying that Americans should not debate ID, I am saying that public school sponsored activities should not require participating students to debate (research, advocate, etc.) creationism. My position is that this is as clear a violation of the Establishment Clause as requiring public highschool science students to be read a disclaimer about creationism when they study Darwin. Further, I caution that even if the NFL’s intentions are good (debate about issues of contention is good, not bad), they have unwittingly served the ends of advocates of creationism in the school, and set a precedent for future attempts to insert forms of creationism into the schools designed to evade judicial challenge. This fight to get creationism into the school is a greater threat to open debate than my arguing that public high school students should not debate a resolution regarding a specific religious viewpoint. All the platitudes to the need for debate and a marketplace of ideas doesn’t solve a very important constitutional problem for this debate topic.
I am not opposed to open debate, in society or our educational system. I am not opposed to debate topics for public high school students on the issue of whether religion should be in the classroom. I am not opposed to students researching religion and religious viewpoints as part of their research into debate. What I am opposed to is a debate topic assigned to public high school debaters with an affirmative and a negative side, and the affirmative side is advocating on behalf of a religion. ID=creationism=religion. This resolution is that ID should be taught in science classrooms. This clearly suggests to debaters that they should advocate on behalf of creationism when they affirm. It is wrong for government to do this. This topic is no better than the resolution Resolved: Jesus was the son of God.
Creationism is coming to public schools, it is being brought by religious fundamentalists taking over school boards and educational institutions, and it is coming in the trojan horse of ‘open debate and discussion’.
Posted from: 68.117.56.248
December 22nd, 2005 14:40
I think you are over-complicating. My read on the issue is simply that this is a huge can of worms that local administrators are not wishing to open up. It’s easy to sit in judgement at your computer in a major metro area or at a university and say, “Liberalism is good. Speech is good.” That’s all true, it is, I 100% agree. (I’m in the more-speech is good-speech camp.) But it’s a huge load to carry when you are a principal or a coach in the middle-of-nowhere, red-state, we- are-so-conservative-that-we-don’t-teach-evolution-at-some-schools, North Dakota. I would guess that it would not be hard to find places where schools boards, churches, and newspapers would go nuts if this were the topic. Now, you are the coach or principal at one of those schools, you have a family — are you willing to risk your job over a debate topic? Not a chance. I’m not justifying, I’m explaining what I think this is really all about.
Posted from: 72.130.183.145
December 22nd, 2005 16:36
could we keep the culture wars out of debate plzkthx.
Posted from: 24.6.59.211
December 22nd, 2005 17:00
I wholeheartedly agree with Andy’s post. Ideally, we could debate any topic that we wanted where ever we wanted to, with the support of the administration. Most people on the debate circuit and most people on these message boards are lucky enough to get that openness that we take for granted. However, conservativeness and religious fundamentalism pervades a lot of this country, and their beliefs and values can prevent discussion on a full range of issues. This is unfortunate, but we do make a lot of criticisms without really considering the whole situation. While this resolution should be allowed; that is a separate issue from whether the administrators in ND made the right decision. For your arguments to be most effective to the people you want to address, it’s important to make the distinction. The disallowance of this resolution is part of a larger problem, but it is a unique and different part that deserves separate consideration.
I don’t think this topic in any way violates the constitution. After all, we learn about all the world religions in history, we advocated the church on the negative when we debated “Strict separation of church and state is consistent with democratic ideals.” Questioning whether a particular, religion based theory, ought to be in a science class is not to far from either of those. First, it says theory, which means it doesn’t need to be taught as fact, second, science teachers teach all sorts of things that are known not to be true (plum-pudding atom model anybody? Mmmmmmh sounds tasty), third, although it’s a technicality, debating about a religions issues are by definition not ‘an establishment of religion’ because it’s a questioning of religion. Even though an affirmation of the resolution would be tantamount to saying that the establishment clause was wrong, debating about the constitution is not unconstitutional, it’s actually what’s required of us as citizens in a democracy.
On the other hand, I don’t think having this debate topic is going to change anybodies mind. If somebody already believes in ‘intelligent’ design, telling them that their theory is wrong goes as far as to say “your religion is wrong.” Likewise, nobody’s going to be convinced of intelligent design if they don’t believe in God. That implies that having this debate doesn’t really have any implications beyond what schools allow their students to debate.
I haven’t thought about this one much, but pure science can’t explain existence. Way back their was the big bang, right, but what put that super-dense particle of matter there in the first place? As far back as we can go, at some point science fails. Maybe there is some superintelligent being that ignited the big-bang. That leads us to the question: what created that superintelligent being. Whenever I think about this I become convinced I don’t exist, but I’m sure that’s a different problem.
Posted from: 64.53.94.70
December 22nd, 2005 17:14
Aren’t you guys being just as closed minded about conservatives and Christians as they sometimes are about moral issues? “middle-of-nowhere” implies you are somewhere more important. Rather arrogant.
Posted from: 69.203.74.71
December 22nd, 2005 17:53
I am really amazed that people don’t see a constitutional problem with this topic. I am curious if people would see a problem with this resolution:
Creationism is a scientifically valid explanation for the origins of life.
If you don’t see a problem with requiring public high school students to research and prepare speeches in favor of a proposition for creationism, I really don’t know what to say to you, and I think we should end the conversation. If you distinguish the hypothetical creationism topic from the NFL ID topic, please explain why. Specifically, is the distinction that creationism and ID are different? or is it that the NFL resolution is innocous because the question is whether ID should be in science class, not whether ID is right or wrong? If it is the former, then I would suggest you actually research ID. Anyone who claims that ID is not creationism is being disingenous. Period. The current proponents of ID took a creationist text and literally substituted the word “intelligent designer” for “creator”. ID=creationism. If the distinction is that the NFL resolution is whether ID should be in science class, so it is not technically a requirement of the affirmative to advocate the scientific merits of ID, you have beautifully mapped out the creationist’ next strategy - like W said, ID proponents just seek to teach the debate! It isn’t taking sides! It just wants to present both ideas and let students decide! It just wants students to know ‘Of People and Pandas’ is in the library! If students read it and still don’t believe it, that is fine, we just want them to be aware of the debate between truth and fiction!
Not that actual law seems to faze debaters and other arm chair constitutional theorists much, but the precedent is clear that schools can not teach creationism in science class as an alternative to evolution. For those responding that it is necessary to have debate topics regarding ID or whether the holocaust happened or whatever, I would like to know: is your claim that the current law regarding creationism in science class was decided incorrectly? that ID is not the same as creationism? or that the law only applies to science classes, and does not cover mandatory presentations in non-science classes that advocate that creationism is scientifically sound? Please enlighten me.
John advances two arguments for why the ID topic is not unconstitutional: that this debate topic is analogous to the study of religions in history class, and that debating a religious proposition is by definition not an establishment clause violation. I would distinguish the study of religion (or advocating in general that there should not be a strict separation of church and state) from a resolution that essentially directs public highschool students to go to the library, research creationist texts, and prepare speeches advocating the scientific legitimacy of creationism. As for whether the fact that this all occurs in the context of debate excuses it from a potential establishment clause violation, it clearly doesn’t under current precedent. Religious fundamentalists have been seeking not to replace evolution with creationism, but to present a debate in the scientific classroom as to whether evolution or creationism is the correct theory. The precedent clearly says that they can not present a debate regarding evolution vs. creationism in the science classroom. Therefore, creationists recast creationism as ID in order to try to teach creationism as an alternative to evolution.
Incidentally, the fact that the resolution identifies ID as a “theory” is incredibly problematic - ID is not a theory. It is a critique of evolution. It is not a very good one. It is not falsifiable. It does not meet any standard of a scientific theory. It does not actually present a defense of its conclusion (that an intelligent designer created animals and plants in the form they exist today), but rather just rejects Darwinism. The resolution identifying ID as a theory as an assumption for the debate has already legitimized ID before the round even began - it is just an assumption in the resolution, not the question of the resolution.
Schools requiring students to ‘debate’ creationism is clearly a violation of the establishment clause. ID is creationism. Therefore, schools requiring students to debate ID is a violation of the establishment clause. Which premise do I have wrong?
Posted from: 67.190.146.70
December 22nd, 2005 17:58
Hahahahaha…
Posted from: 68.196.125.150
December 22nd, 2005 18:29
Firstly, there is no need to bring religion or science into this on the aff, one could simply argue to include it for a social history (a good many people beleive this theory, thus it affects our society, therefore social science courses ought to teach it)or one could argue to teach it like how we receive drug resistance education. They don’t want us to do drugs so they teach us about them and the dangers that exist.
Secondly, administrators should not ban intelligent discussion of an issue, if some people for personal/religious reasons decide not to debate it, they don’t have to. Administrative action takes ones right to public discussion of a topic (guarenteed by freedom of speech!) away. Its unconstitutional.
Thirdly, what is ND’s new resolution going to be; I suggest:
Resolved: That censorship of intelligent discussion is counter-productive for a body whose goal is to promote education in a school.
Fourthly, no one is being required to debate this topic, requirement would be a violation of the establishment clause. No one is required though. Debate can either be an after school club or an elective course. None of those are required. And there is no need to debate the truthiness of ID, just its necessity to be taught in science curriculums.
Posted from: 72.130.183.145
December 22nd, 2005 18:31
THIS IS NO A GOOD DEBATE
Posted from: 12.214.17.23
December 22nd, 2005 18:58
huhuhuhuhuhuhuhuhuhuhuhuhuhuh
Posted from: 66.223.245.124
December 22nd, 2005 19:08
I really am dissapointed in North Dakota for deciding to ban this topic, not giving its debaters the right to debate this topic. This is indeed censorship. If Alaska does this (Alaska is a very conservative state), many will be forced to fight back. And I hope that those in North Dakota who want to debate this topic are fighting back. I’m also interested if anyone in North Dakota knows what the state will be debating instead of this topic?
Posted from: 68.108.143.253
December 22nd, 2005 19:59
This is all part of the War on Christmas.
Posted from: 12.216.108.171
December 22nd, 2005 20:49
the ramadan forces are closing in
Posted from: 69.172.81.39
December 22nd, 2005 22:17
Happy Holidays Ryan!
Posted from: 68.233.135.229
December 22nd, 2005 22:54
this is the way i see it, Teachin ID in schools is a good idea just not as a science because science is completely based on evidence and there is no evidence for ID its simply an assumption so personally what i think should be done is ID should be OFFERED in a class maybe sociology, religion etc. i dunno, but it should definitely be offered because the way i see it is that school districts teach evolution as is THIS IS THE ONLY WAY YOU WERE CREATED STUDENT! so teaching ID offeres students an alternative to how they were created if they decide to search for their origins because schools force the students to learn evolution and the impression i got from learning evolution is that this was the only possible way i was created.
on the otherhand if ID isnt taught in schools i think the teaching of evolution should undergo some new policies. because there are flaws in the theory of evolution, there are holes and disproven things in the theory, and i only know this because i went out and LOOKED FOR IT MYSELF, my school kept me ignorant to the fact that there are flaws to this theory, so thats my opinion which is that evoultion needs some serious reevaluation
Posted from: 68.233.135.229
December 22nd, 2005 22:56
this is the way i see it, Teachin ID in schools is a good idea just not as a science because science is completely based on evidence and there is no evidence for ID its simply an assumption so personally what i think should be done is ID should be OFFERED in a class maybe sociology, religion etc. i dunno, but it should definitely be offered because the way i see it is that school districts teach evolution as is THIS IS THE ONLY WAY YOU WERE CREATED STUDENT! so teaching ID offeres students an alternative to how they were created if they decide to search for their origins because schools force the students to learn evolution and the impression i got from learning evolution is that this was the only possible way i was created.
on the otherhand if ID isnt taught in schools i think the teaching of evolution should undergo some new policies. because there are flaws in the theory of evolution, there are holes and disproven things in the theory, and i only know this because i went out and LOOKED FOR IT MYSELF, my school kept me ignorant to the fact that there are flaws to this theory, so thats my opinion which is that evoultion needs some serious reevaluation
Posted from: 68.233.135.229
December 22nd, 2005 22:57
this is the way i see it, Teachin ID in schools is a good idea just not as a science because science is completely based on evidence and there is no evidence for ID its simply an assumption so personally what i think should be done is ID should be OFFERED in a class maybe sociology, religion etc. i dunno, but it should definitely be offered because the way i see it is that school districts teach evolution as is THIS IS THE ONLY WAY YOU WERE CREATED STUDENT! so teaching ID offeres students an alternative to how they were created if they decide to search for their origins because schools force the students to learn evolution and the impression i got from learning evolution is that this was the only possible way i was created.
on the otherhand if ID isnt taught in schools i think the teaching of evolution should undergo some new policies. because there are flaws in the theory of evolution, there are holes and disproven things in the theory, and i only know this because i went out and LOOKED FOR IT MYSELF, my school kept me ignorant to the fact that there are flaws to this theory, so thats my opinion which is that evoultion needs some serious reevaluation
Posted from: 67.161.37.179
December 23rd, 2005 00:30
Lemon test:
1. The government’s action must have a legitimate secular purpose;
check - debate is to enhance communcication skills/critical thinking/whatever.
2. The government’s action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion; and
checl - its not coercive, does not necessarily advance or inhibit religion , etc…
3. The government’s action must not result in an “excessive entanglement” of the government and religion.
Im pretty sure this passes.
It seems to be constitutional.
It definaitely passes the coercion test / endorsement test.
Posted from: 24.6.59.211
December 23rd, 2005 01:03
Yeah, I think Navot makes it clear that this topic itself is not unconstitutional.
From Bryce
“I would distinguish the study of religion (or advocating in general that there should not be a strict separation of church and state) from a resolution that essentially directs public highschool students to go to the library, research creationist texts, and prepare speeches advocating the scientific legitimacy of creationism”
1) Right, researching religion, as does history class and strict seperation topic. Learning about religion isn’t unconstitutional, as you previously grant, you take exception to the advocacy of religion. this takes out the first part of your argument.
2) this resolution does not force students to advocate ID as scientifically legitamate, Rather, it argues that it should be in the curriculum, maybe, as some have suggested, A) as a foil for real theory or B) as scientific history (the bohr model of the atom, etc)
It’s possible to advocate ID (or creationism, whatever) on secular grounds, as i did at the bottom of my first post, and a.palos sorta does. It’s also possible to advocate its inclusion on secular grounds. Just because the 1st commandent says ‘thou shalt no kill’ doesn’t mean that the US can’t have murder laws. (that is the first commandment, right?)
“As for whether the fact that this all occurs in the context of debate excuses it from a potential establishment clause violation, it clearly doesn’t under current precedent.”
1) no warrant. what precedent are you talking about?
2) precedent is not always right. Dredd scott, anybody?
3)If you’re talking about the recent court decision that denied schools the ability to teach ID in science class, this resolution is distinct on a few levels.
A) the court decision was about teaching it as ‘legitamate scientific theory’ which i already adressed. this resolution does not endorse ID
B) science is a required class. while you can claim exemption and get a note to be excused the day ID is taught, the default is to be taught it, and the school is coercive (grades) and chances are, you will be taught ID. ON the other hand, debate is an extracurricular and takes a concious effort to get on the team and debate the resolution at hand. To deny people the ability to debate about religion during an extracurricular would be tantamount to forbidding students from skipping class for a religios holiday.
C) The resolution can be changed into “the recent court decision about eminent domain was bad” I think that topic can never violate seperation of church and state because it’s just about how the high court decided on an issue. it’s critical for one’s education to understand how the court works, and the pros and cons of each decision. viewed in this light, forbidding this resolution is real aweful censorship. Are you claiming that it’s unconstitutional to question decisions of government because that question violates strict seperation of church and state? If so, you’re advocating a perpetual cycle where everything the state dictates as unconstitutional is forever forbidden from debate. alas! we’d never be able to drink if that was so! good ole 29th amendament. (that is the right one? if not i’d be embarrassed)
“The precedent clearly says that they can not present a debate regarding evolution vs. creationism in the science classroom. Therefore, creationists recast creationism as ID in order to try to teach creationism as an alternative to evolution.”
1) If so, we can’t have the debate in science classrooms. That doesn’t mean we can’t have this debate at debate tournaments.
2) This resolution is in effect, a questioning of a judicial decision, not an advocacy of ID is wonderful and true, and i want to inundate my children with creationism and maybe name them adam and eve!!!
3) although you are right that ID is just dressed up creationism, those new clothes mandate that we debate the validity of those new clothes. Some people, beleive it or not, disagree with you and view ID as disting from creationism, and others want it solely because an alternative to darwinism.
that’s it for now. i got work tommorow.
Posted from: 24.6.59.211
December 23rd, 2005 01:15
Yeah, I think Navot makes it clear that this topic itself is not unconstitutional.
From Bryce
“I would distinguish the study of religion (or advocating in general that there should not be a strict separation of church and state) from a resolution that essentially directs public highschool students to go to the library, research creationist texts, and prepare speeches advocating the scientific legitimacy of creationism”
1) Right, researching religion, as does history class and strict seperation topic. Learning about religion isn’t unconstitutional, as you previously grant, you take exception to the advocacy of religion. this takes out the first part of your argument.
2) this resolution does not force students to advocate ID as scientifically legitamate, Rather, it argues that it should be in the curriculum, maybe, as some have suggested, A) as a foil for real theory or B) as scientific history (the bohr model of the atom, etc)
It’s possible to advocate ID (or creationism, whatever) on secular grounds, as i did at the bottom of my first post, and a.palos sorta does. It’s also possible to advocate its inclusion on secular grounds. Just because the 1st commandent says ‘thou shalt no kill’ doesn’t mean that the US can’t have murder laws. (that is the first commandment, right?)
“As for whether the fact that this all occurs in the context of debate excuses it from a potential establishment clause violation, it clearly doesn’t under current precedent.”
1) no warrant. what precedent are you talking about?
2) precedent is not always right. Dredd scott, anybody?
3)If you’re talking about the recent court decision that denied schools the ability to teach ID in science class, this resolution is distinct on a few levels.
A) the court decision was about teaching it as ‘legitamate scientific theory’ which i already adressed. this resolution does not endorse ID
B) science is a required class. while you can claim exemption and get a note to be excused the day ID is taught, the default is to be taught it, and the school is coercive (grades) and chances are, you will be taught ID. ON the other hand, debate is an extracurricular and takes a concious effort to get on the team and debate the resolution at hand. To deny people the ability to debate about religion during an extracurricular would be tantamount to forbidding students from skipping class for a religios holiday.
C) The resolution can be changed into “the recent court decision about eminent domain was bad” I think that topic can never violate seperation of church and state because it’s just about how the high court decided on an issue. it’s critical for one’s education to understand how the court works, and the pros and cons of each decision. viewed in this light, forbidding this resolution is real aweful censorship. Are you claiming that it’s unconstitutional to question decisions of government because that question violates strict seperation of church and state? If so, you’re advocating a perpetual cycle where everything the state dictates as unconstitutional is forever forbidden from debate. alas! we’d never be able to drink if that was so! good ole 29th amendament. (that is the right one? if not i’d be embarrassed)
“The precedent clearly says that they can not present a debate regarding evolution vs. creationism in the science classroom. Therefore, creationists recast creationism as ID in order to try to teach creationism as an alternative to evolution.”
1) If so, we can’t have the debate in science classrooms. That doesn’t mean we can’t have this debate at debate tournaments.
2) This resolution is in effect, a questioning of a judicial decision, not an advocacy of ID is wonderful and true, and i want to inundate my children with creationism and maybe name them adam and eve!!!
3) although you are right that ID is just dressed up creationism, those new clothes mandate that we debate the validity of those new clothes. Some people, beleive it or not, disagree with you and view ID as disting from creationism, and others want it solely because an alternative to darwinism.
that’s it for now. i got work tommorow.
Posted from: 24.6.59.211
December 23rd, 2005 02:30
Yeah, I think Navot makes it clear that this topic itself is not unconstitutional.
From Bryce
“I would distinguish the study of religion (or advocating in general that there should not be a strict separation of church and state) from a resolution that essentially directs public highschool students to go to the library, research creationist texts, and prepare speeches advocating the scientific legitimacy of creationism”
1) Right, researching religion, as does history class and strict seperation topic. Learning about religion isn’t unconstitutional, as you previously grant, you take exception to the advocacy of religion. this takes out the first part of your argument.
2) this resolution does not force students to advocate ID as scientifically legitamate, Rather, it argues that it should be in the curriculum, maybe, as some have suggested, A) as a foil for real theory or B) as scientific history (the bohr model of the atom, etc)
It’s possible to advocate ID (or creationism, whatever) on secular grounds, as i did at the bottom of my first post, and a.palos sorta does. It’s also possible to advocate its inclusion on secular grounds. Just because the 1st commandent says ‘thou shalt no kill’ doesn’t mean that the US can’t have murder laws. (that is the first commandment, right?)
“As for whether the fact that this all occurs in the context of debate excuses it from a potential establishment clause violation, it clearly doesn’t under current precedent.”
1) no warrant. what precedent are you talking about?
2) precedent is not always right. Dredd scott, anybody?
3)If you’re talking about the recent court decision that denied schools the ability to teach ID in science class, this resolution is distinct on a few levels.
A) the court decision was about teaching it as ‘legitamate scientific theory’ which i already adressed. this resolution does not endorse ID
B) science is a required class. while you can claim exemption and get a note to be excused the day ID is taught, the default is to be taught it, and the school is coercive (grades) and chances are, you will be taught ID. ON the other hand, debate is an extracurricular and takes a concious effort to get on the team and debate the resolution at hand. To deny people the ability to debate about religion during an extracurricular would be tantamount to forbidding students from skipping class for a religios holiday.
C) The resolution can be changed into “the recent court decision about eminent domain was bad” I think that topic can never violate seperation of church and state because it’s just about how the high court decided on an issue. it’s critical for one’s education to understand how the court works, and the pros and cons of each decision. viewed in this light, forbidding this resolution is real aweful censorship. Are you claiming that it’s unconstitutional to question decisions of government because that question violates strict seperation of church and state? If so, you’re advocating a perpetual cycle where everything the state dictates as unconstitutional is forever forbidden from debate. alas! we’d never be able to drink if that was so! good ole 29th amendament. (that is the right one? if not i’d be embarrassed)
“The precedent clearly says that they can not present a debate regarding evolution vs. creationism in the science classroom. Therefore, creationists recast creationism as ID in order to try to teach creationism as an alternative to evolution.”
1) If so, we can’t have the debate in science classrooms. That doesn’t mean we can’t have this debate at debate tournaments.
2) This resolution is in effect, a questioning of a judicial decision, not an advocacy of ID is wonderful and true, and i want to inundate my children with creationism and maybe name them adam and eve!!!
3) although you are right that ID is just dressed up creationism, those new clothes mandate that we debate the validity of those new clothes. Some people, beleive it or not, disagree with you and view ID as disting from creationism, and others want it solely because an alternative to darwinism.
that’s it for now. i got work tommorow.
Posted from: 24.6.59.211
December 23rd, 2005 02:49
Whoops. Those three posts together are more writing than i’ve done in a year.
Posted from: 72.131.23.99
December 23rd, 2005 06:09
Wow… the sheer quantity of comments (and duplicate posts) this issue has received is a testament to what a highly-charged issue the role religion plays in our society has become.
As correctly first identified by Nick Bubb, we must remember that religious freedom is truly defined in two opposing facets: that government not legislatively recognize any established religion, but that it also does not block citizens’ rights to exercise their faith in their daily lives. The notion of “separation of church and state” is a dubious one, because it often emphasizes the former and eschews the latter.
The so-called separation of church and state is a fallacy. If a major facet of our American society is our capitalist economy, then we need only consider how many millions of dollars various levels of government spend on funding organizations whose primary charter/mission is to provide some type of service in the name of their faith (what is called a “faith-based organization” [FBO] in the nonprofit sector), essentially amounting to a financial endorsement. One of the most prevalent of these funding structures is school vouchers (a.k.a. “choice schools”). I’m almost certain that it can be proven, statistically, that more Christian-derived FBOs receive money from the government than any other denomination (given the pervasiveness of this particular religion in such organizations). Given the fact that religion is spread and indoctrinated in followers through the act of teaching, then is not the primary objective of religious schools to teach young people, tempered by the dogma from which they are chartered? Personally, I’ve taught in both public and parochial schools, and I acknowledge the pervasiveness of faith in the parochial school. To me, a voucher constitutes a government endorsement of teaching that religion, but it also empowers a citizen who has made the choice to attend that school. It doesn’t force religious education on anyone. It’s a dicey issue, though, when you consider how it has the potential to polarize a community of various faiths — where tax dollars support the local school district, but there is one parochial school that receives a chunk of that, essentially eroding the funding that the school district receives for the rest of the children. That educational infrastructure, in turn, becomes less important for those partaking of the vouchers, and so future investment in that school district becomes a difficult proposition for a reduced population of families that has a stake in it.
John’s post above so eloquently mentions the various perspectives on the issue. This resolution can indeed be debated from the standpoint of free speech. There are plenty of scientists who spend their time proving that what’s in the Abrahametic Old Testament (Judaism, Christianity and Islam, inclusively) actually happened. Acknowledging that science and faith sometimes do intersect, and that there are alternative theories/viewpoints is essential to the dialectic that teachers should expose their students to (so that their students may draw their own conclusions). Isn’t that part of what science is all about?
Moreover, to ignore the existence of religion is to ignore a rich part of the fabric of humanity. I am well aware that many of my students base their morality and beliefs on their religious viewpoints, making decisions in their lives through the lens of their faith. If we are to build acceptance and appreciation for diverging viewpoints (the essence of the activity of debate), then exposing students to the varying religions is an important step toward forging a more enlightened society in the future.
As a theatre teacher — even in a public school — ignoring religion is impossible. Theatre is a craft rooted in rituals, often derived from religious ceremonies. In fact, the theatre curriculum we offer (International Baccalaureate) requires theatre history and literature of varying perspectives to be taught. Ancient Greek theatre payed homage to the gods of Mt. Olympus. Medieval European theatre celebrated Christian gospels. Japanese Noh theatre highlights the pillars of Zen Buddhism. Some post-modern, avant garde theatre has questioned religion in a more existential perspective. And yet, all of these theatrical periods/movements have one ultimate aim in common: to consider the morality that motivates human decision-making (which is an important aspect of the psychological characterizations in a play).
More to the point, decision-making is the essence of debate.
Posted from: 66.43.223.40
December 23rd, 2005 06:37
John
I thinkn you are wrong and totally nonresponsive to the other posts on this thread. Vouchers would be an entirely different debate, and I think they violate the separation of church and state and are flatly wrong. Most faith based initiatives are also in this category and in my view they contradict the first amendment.
Tradition aside, theatre is a great way to teach morality. The Sound of Music with it nuns and Catholic nuances is a great musical. However, it gets away from the thread: Did the North Dakota administrators make the correct decision in denying a debate on these issues?
Should administrators censor theatre productions that move to the edge? How would you feel if they did? How would you feel if they canceled a show or a curriculum unit because it was too controversial? You do not answer the questions in the thread. Answer these, and we will see how you feel about the censorship of the ND debaters.
Posted from: 72.131.23.99
December 23rd, 2005 08:08
stevens,
First, I’m not John.
Second, if you would have read the thesis statement — the first paragraph of my post — you would have noticed that I’m crystallizing much of the discussion here, through the lens of my own context — how this is related to discourse in the real world.
You cannot discuss an issue such as the reaction to the Intelligent Design topic and the implications of teaching evolution without considering how it is inextricably tied into the religious aspects of the First Amendment, as well as free speech and academic freedom. That’s why I also consider vouchers and my own experience teaching theatre.
Moreover, the adversarial tone of your post suggests your emotional reaction to this issue. In fact, you point out the connection between my post and the rest of this thread by asking me what would happen “if administrators cancelled a show or curriculum unit.” Curricular or extra-curricular, this boils down to how government (school administrators), academic and religion intersect.
The purpose of my post — as a coach who often plays the devil’s advocate — is to muse over the different facets of the issue and to illuminate just how deeply-rooted these arguments go. In other words, the formation of position needs to be carefully weighed. To answer your questions more directly, I would sue the school district if administrators did what you propose because (1) they previously adopted this curriculum, so to take it back indicates their own culpability in the first place, and (2) this curriculum encourages multiple viewpoints and does not endorse one particular establishment of religion (phrase used purposefully for its connotation to the First Amendment). There is plenty of case law (my books on the subject are in my office at school, locked up until Tuesday) that back up my claims to academic/religious freedom.
stevens, I am just as skeptical about the influence of religion in our society as you most likely are. I find it suspect that our United States Congress says a prayer at the beginning of every session, and keeps a chaplain on staff. However, to deny the mere existence of faith in our society is also to miss a dynamic that tempers people’s decision-making processes. And, if our country’s motto is “E Pluribus Unum,” then we must realize that ultimately, the electorate is influenced by their beliefs — even if those are an absence of a particular faith. However, is it not hypocritical for those who do not temper their decisions by a religious morality to not tolerate those who do. That’s as much a factor in the First Amendment as the so-called separation of church and state.
That leads me to my final point: right now, our governmental framework lacks an explicit, credible/expert definition of the “Separation of Church and State.” A nebulous sense of this comes from case law, but even that is contradictory at best.
Posted from: 38.117.182.130
December 23rd, 2005 09:01
Navot nicely lays out the Lemon test, and after laying it out, concludes the topic is necessarily constitutional. In doing so, he provides a model of such efficient constitutional analysis that casts doubt on the need to even actually have judges who apply the law to facts, write lengthy decisions, etc. What he does not do is provide a single precedent that teaching creationism as an alternative to evolution in a classroom is constitutional. He either has to do that, or argue that ID is not creationism.
So I don’t put a burden on Navot that I am not willing to fulfill myself: Edwards v. Arkansas 428 U.S. 578 (1987). Edwards was a Supreme Court decision holding that public schools requiring that ‘creation science’ be taught alongside evolution were in violation of the establishment clause. Edwards is good law. Edwards used the Lemon test.
Now, I suppose some would argue that schools could get around Edwards by assigning students a ‘debate project’ between creationism and evolution. I expect that this is the next step for creationists(social studies or history class rather than science class). But this ignores the facts of the creationist cases that have come before the courts recently: attempts to ‘teach the debate’ or teach creationism alongside evolution. I would hate the NFL resolution to be a test case simply because the intentions of the actors are not to teach creationism - the next people who come along with school sponsored student debates about evolution/creationism(ID) will be religious fundamentalists attempting to insert creationism into the schools. If you don’t think this will happen, you have not paid attention to what religious fundamentalists are doing in the wake of Kitzmiller. Go to Google News, type in Intelligent Design, and it will give you a taste . . . they are coming to history class, they are coming to government class, and the NFL helped pave the way.
So I conclude a debate topic about the scientific legitimacy of creationism is unconstitutional. I also claim that ID is creationism. Therefore, a debate topic about the scientific legitimacy of ID is unconstitutional. I have been clear about my premises and conclusion - please tell me which one of the premises you disagree with?
Just so there is no doubt:
Premise 1: A public high school debate topic about the scientific legitimacy of creationism is unconstitutional under Edwards.
Premise 2: Intelligent Design is creationism.
Conclusion: A public high school debate topic about the scientific legitimacy of Intelligent Design is unconstitutional under Edwards.
In case anyone is curious about premise 2 - read the Kitzmiller decision. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/documents/kitzmiller_342.pdf
Posted from: 68.161.102.129
December 23rd, 2005 10:03
In October, the Columbia Journalism Review examined the media’s attitudes toward ID. In an exhaustive survey of local news publications, they found that most newspapers report both sides of the “debate” locally to give a balanced perspective. For instance, many newspapers try to run an equal number of anti-ID op-eds and pro-ID op-eds. The problem with this approach is that it gives equal weight to the ID argument, effectively supporting it. After all, all IDers claim to want is, at most, equal time with evolution in classrooms. We, however know, that ID is synonymous with another abbreviation: BS. Not only does it defy the very definition of science, but it also has absolutely no peer-reviewed research supporting it. Furthermore, it has been laughed out of court by a conservative judge as an obvious repackaging of Christian Creationist ideas. So there isn’t really a debate between evolution and ID, which means that you can’t give both sides equal time. And that’s what this resolution does. By trying to be fair, it gives credence to an argument that deserves none. You could say that the resolution enhances a debater’s technique by making him take a difficult position, but isn’t PF supposed to focus on substantive issues? If I were a coach, I would not let my debaters debate this resolution. Ultimately, I disagree with ND’s reasons, but not with its final decision.
Posted from: 38.117.182.130
December 23rd, 2005 10:08
A couple of John’s arguments I want to address:
Argument 1: Debaters choose to participate in debate, it is an extra-curricular activity, therefore, no establishment clause violation.
Response: There certainly can be establishment clause violations in extra-curricular activities. If the mere fact that an activity was extra-curricular (or voluntary) meant that it survived constitutional scrutiny, then debaters could be required to pray before debate tournaments. ‘Voluntary opt-outs’ have never excused an establishment clause violation…
Argument 2: Under this resolution, the affirmative can advocate for the resolution without arguing for the scientific legitimacy for Intelligent Design. For example, the affirmative can argue that scientific curriculum should include sham sciences in order to explain why they are inadequate scientific theories.
Response: So what? The topic is on creationism. I don’t care if debaters find a way not to advocate creationism as scientifically valid and still affirm the resolution. My concern isn’t that students are required to advocate something they don’t believe; it is not that students are having their free exercise rights infringed; it is that having a school sponsored debate between creationism and evolution, no matter how it is worded, is a way of introducing creationism into the classroom. It is a way of exposing students to creationist texts. This is really no different than the whole ‘opt-out’ mechanism or the ‘we are just teaching the debate, and letting students decide’.
Argument: All the law says is that we can’t teach creationism in the classroom, but we can have debate topics on it.
Response: It is certainly an open question under the law whether the prohibitions against ID mean that ID can’t be addressed anywhere (the courts seem to leave open a discussion in another class, presumably where it is not contrasted with evolution). This is now how creationists hope to proceed. While the NFL is made up of fine, open-minded educators, the precedent of allowing ID v evolution as a school sponsored topic for student debate will be used to introduce creationism into the classroom . . . imagine how this plays out in Kansas. The debate will be rigged then, and even if it isn’t, the creationist objective of getting creationism to be considered as a balance to evolution will have been accomplished.
Posted from: 24.126.168.38
December 23rd, 2005 11:48
It seems like a lot of people on this thread are just lazy. I don’t really see how affirming this resolution gives credence to Intelligent Design and no one who supports that position refutes others’ arguments that affirming does not mean ID is on the same level as evolution. I myself do not support ID as a theory, but it seems really easy anyways to affirm the resolution without proving that statement. Pull out your science textbook and pick the numerous examples of typically non-scientific analysis within the book. Or, as people above have said, argue that ID is dumb and teach it that way.
THE ISSUE IN THE RESOLUTION IS DIFFERENT THAN THE CONFLICT PEOPLE ARE PRESENTING!
Posted from: 38.117.182.130
December 23rd, 2005 12:37
Lazy is not actually readying the comments you are responding to before resorting to all caps.
Regardless of whether some debaters can come up with an affirmative case that does not say nice things about creationism, the debate topic is creationism. School sponsored debate topics regarding creationism can be used to ‘teach the controversy’ between evolution and creationism. Teaching the ‘controversy’ between evolution and creationism is a violation of the Establishment Clause of the Constitution.
The objection isn’t that affirmatives have to or don’t have to say certain things. It is not a free exercise objection. It is whether public schools can promote student debates on the topic of creationism versus evolution. I think this is an end-run around the constitution, in the same way that student led prayer was an end-run. And I am not lazy.
Posted from: 24.211.155.46
December 23rd, 2005 12:45
I don’t really understand what this has to do with the separation of church and state.
What it is about: school officials knew that some parents would not let their kids participate in debates because of the nature of the topic. school officials banned the topic because they didn’t want to exclude those kids. This decision has its own flaws that have nothing to do with the conflict over separation of church and state.
Posted from: 24.6.59.211
December 23rd, 2005 12:45
Bryce, I think a lot of your argmuments miss the point.
Argument one: Your response relies on the premise that debating this topic is an opt-out issue for all students. It’s not.
I was claiming that debate was a voluntary OPT-IN, which is the point. Imagine that some kids at school are muslim, and they find a teacher to sponsor an Islam club, and meet every tuesday at lunch. The existence of this club isn’t a violation of Church and State because it’s opt-in. So is debate. I have to actively make a decision to join the team, and to do voluntary research, and go to a tournament. Furthermore, my football team prays before every game, but to limit that would violate the free-exercise clause. It’s not like I have to pray (I don’t) I just have to be respectful towards others.
Argument two: Bryce claims that it doesn’t matter that students don’t have to advocate Intelligent Design as scientific legitamacy.
However, bryce’s real objection, and the courts objection, was to presenting ID as a viable alternative to Evolution. This resolution doesn’t require debater’s to do so, which was the point i was making. I don’t want to get into it again, because i’ve sufficiently dealt with this above. Because my argumentation was true, Bryce changes his argument to be ”exposure to creationists text” is bad
He now claims that just introducing religion into a classroom is bad because students have to learn about religious viewpoints. This shift now bite’s into the aguments i made earlier.
1) we had to research and suffer exposer to religios viewpoints in history class and in the church and state topic. Bryce agreed that these were constitutional, but now he claims the very exposure is the problem. His arguments now compel us never to learn ANYTHING about religion because people might have to know what christians believe.
2) I don’t think students need to research creationists text to affirm. If i was affirming, i’d probably do something like this
If ID is scientifically valid, it should be taught in class, b/c legit science should be in science class
If ID is not scientifically valid, it should be taught in class as a foil for Evolution. As the only competing theory, it is useful to explore the failings in creationism to show why darwinism must be true.
this is similar to what stevens posted earlier. affirm by detracting from ID, negate by detracting from ID. what could be better for you bryce, as an avid opponent of ID?
Furthermore, I remember negative positions on church and state that argued that religous values are good, and should be included. This pretty clearly mandates research on religous texts. That topic wasn’t unconstitutional. Neither is this one.
Argument 3: all you say here is that allowing ID in a debate could lead down a slippery slope to eventual first amendment violations. So what? slippery slopes aren’t unconstitutional! This argument doesn’t attack the constitutional backing for the resolution, rather it attacks the resolution on general grounds. That’s non-responsive the argument i was making, that we are debating a court decision, not teaching ID on equal ground.
I think the greater constitutional violation is that banning this topic violates free-speech, but that’s another matter. Bryce, I think your tip-toeing around a very dangerous area. You are arguing that we SHOULDN’T be able to debate about whether a judicial decision was good or bad in public schools. Your level of censorship is kind of scary because it leads to a cycle where we can’t question government. This is the argument i made that you never responded to.
For your claims to have any validity, you’d have to demonstrate some COERCIVE power COMPELLING students to beleive in ID. You don’t do that.
On Edwards. Again, this decision 1) is about teaching creationism as science, which debating this resolution doesn not do 2) deals with the coercive power of the state because science is a required class, wheareas debate is an opt-in activity.
Therefore you first premise is untrue. You are misrepresenting Edwards.
Just to let people know, I personally don’t support teaching ID in classrooms, even as sham science to compare to evolution. I just don’t think this debate topic violates the constitution, and wouldn’t be opposed to debating it.
Posted from: 24.6.59.211
December 23rd, 2005 13:06
Bryce: I think your arguments have some merit.
However, you said so yourself in response to Navot, that their are reasons we aren’t sitting in the nine black armchairs.
I think that in absence of really compelling reasons from you about the constitutionality of this resolution, which you fail to provide (or rather, that i beleive i responded to adequately ;-), we should assume it is constitutional. 9th amendmant. That is all.
Posted from: 64.235.170.136
December 23rd, 2005 13:14
“the creationi