RE: Viewpoint discrimination or careless reading.

Is it just a coincidence that it was in The Utah Law Review (vol. 2000.
no. 1, February 9, 2001), published by the University of Utah Law
School, that DeWolf, Meyer and DeForrest published "Teaching the
Controversy: Science, Or Religion, Or Speech?" ?

Jim Hofmann

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Pim van Meurs
Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2005 8:39 PM
To: asa
Subject: Viewpoint discrimination or careless reading.

The Discovery Institute shoots and misses once again, although with the
presence of Minnich at the University of Idaho, I understand why they
are worried.

<quote>
Discovery Institute Denounces University of Idaho's Ban on Differing
Views on Evolution as Unconstitutional

SEATTLE - "Every educator should be alarmed when an institution's
administrator issues an order preventing faculty from teaching
`differing views' about the subject they teach." said David DeWolf,
professor at Gonzaga University Law School. "Yet that is precisely what
the President of the University of Idaho did when he issued a letter
informing faculty, staff and students that it was "inappropriate" for
anyone to teach "views that differ from evolution" in any "life, earth,
and physical science courses or curricula."
</quote>

http://www.evolutionnews.org/index.php?p=849&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1#more84
9

So how does this compare to the actual statement. Suprise, differing
views are not banned from discussion "eaching of views that differ from
evolution may occur in faculty-approved curricula in religion,
sociology, philosophy, political science or similar courses. However,
teaching of such views is inappropriate in our life, earth, and physical

science courses or curricula"

The 'viewpoint discrimination' whining is become a bit tiresome. Why not

present a positive theory of intelligent design for once?... But I
forgot, that's not really what ID is all about, ID remains
scientifically vacuous. Sigh...

Interestingly enough, the statement by the DI that "The statement offers

a blanket prohibition on any 'views that differ from evolution,' no
matter how scientific, and no matter how related to the courses under
study."" is wrong on at least two counts

    1. There is no blanket prohibition on any views that differ from
    evolution

    The letter clearly states that there is no blanket prohibition from
    such views. Just that such views, when not following scientific
    principles should not be taught in life science classes but rather
    in religion, sociology, philosophy political science or similar
course.

    2. There is no blanket prohibition on any views no matter how
    scientific.

    The statement does not prohibit the teaching of scientific views
    which show disagreements within evolutionary science. "We affirm
    scientific principles that are testable and anchored in evidence".

I am also not sure how West reached the following conclusion

    "This is an assault on academic freedom, and a barefaced violation
    of the Constitution's guarantee of free speech."

Does West understand what the constitution guarantee is all about? Does
free speech mean that it is fair to discuss for instance young earth
creationist arguments in a science course about evolution? Or that it is

unfair to limit such discussions to science itself and provide
alternative venues for these arguments?

The Idaho statement is clear, it does not limit the expression of speech

but rather helps determine the appropriate venue for them. While one may

disagree with the university insisting that science is being taught in
science classes, it's important to understand what the university did
and did not do.

Pim

Full letter follows

Letter to the University of Idaho Faculty, Staff and Students:

Because of recent national media attention to the issue, I write to
articulate the University of Idaho's position with respect to evolution:

This is the only curriculum that is appropriate to be taught in our
bio-physical sciences. As an academic scientific community and a
research extensive land-grant institution, we affirm scientific
principles that are testable and anchored in evidence.

At the University of Idaho, teaching of views that differ from evolution

may occur in faculty-approved curricula in religion, sociology,
philosophy, political science or similar courses. However, teaching of
such views is inappropriate in our life, earth, and physical science
courses or curricula.

The University respects the rights of individuals to their personal
religious and philosophical beliefs, including those persons who may
hold and advocate a faith-based view that differs from evolution.

The University of Idaho's position is consistent with views articulated
by the National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the
Advancement of Science, and more than 60 other scientific and
educational societies.

Timothy P. White, Ph.D.
President, University of Idaho
http://www.president.uidaho.edu/default.aspx?pid=85947
Received on Thu Oct 6 11:19:53 2005