I’m back in Iowa City on the campus of the University of Iowa to again participate in the UI’s excellent Summer Writing Festival. I find myself consumed by questions about my own education, both past and present. I am now questioning what I was taught in my high school history classes in the early ’50s.
One of the things I have learned is that my lessons were far from complete. They were incomplete for several reasons. A lot of history has been uncovered in the ensuing half century and my history was either written by academic historians or “crafted” by ideological writers with views about what our nation’s history should and should not include. This beat goes on.
The Scopes Monkey Trial in 1925 is an early example of the clash between fact and belief. The trial pitted William Jennings Bryan, three-time presidential candidate, against Clarence Darrow, the famed defense attorney. On trial was substitute high school teacher, John T. Scopes who was accused of violating a Tennessee law that prohibited the teaching of human evolution in any state-funded school.
The trial publicized the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy, which set “Modernists” — who said evolution was not inconsistent with religion — against “Fundamentalists” — who believed the word of God as revealed in the Bible took priority over all human knowledge. The case was thus seen as both a theological contest and a trial on whether “modern science” should be taught in schools. Scopes was found guilty and fined $100 ($1,395.56 in 2017), but the verdict was later overturned on a technicality.
The pro/con evolution argument lives on to this day with the introduction of “Creationism” and “Intelligent Design” into the educational brawl over what should be taught in our schools. The proponents of Intelligent Design (ID) theory maintain that ID is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the “apparent design” in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (“the product of an intelligent cause”) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting in random variations. ID proponents say that Creationism is focused on defending a literal reading of the Genesis account, usually including the creation of the earth by the biblical God a few thousand years ago. Unlike creationism ID proponents say, the scientific theory of intelligent design is agnostic described as “regarding the source of design and has no commitment to defending Genesis, the Bible or any other sacred text.” My evolutionary view is that Intelligent Design is a quasi-scientific shield for Creationism.
This theological contest pales in comparison to even more hotly debated educational issues. It is based on the unproven, ideological belief in the trickle down “theory,” the “free” market (which is enslaved by personal and corporate tax breaks which cost our government billions of dollars each year), and a political “system” bought and sold by big money.
Public education is being victimized by this trifecta of ideologies. Last June, Republican campaign contributor, now secretary of education, Betsy DeVos, announced plans to dismantle a set of Obama-era policies devised to protect students and taxpayers from predatory for-profit colleges. The standard for predatory for-profit colleges is Trump University which last March agreed to a $25 million agreement to settle fraud claims arising from the president’s for-profit education venture.
DeVos’ actions are consistent with those in the EPA, Energy and Justice departments to do away with environmental and social regulations that impede profit making at the public’s expense.
Data released in the final days of the previous administration shows that the existing Obama policies have proven more effective in shutting down bad college programs than even the most optimistic backers could have hoped. For me, that’s a good thing because many for-profit college programs get up to 90 percent of their revenue through the U.S. Department of Education.
Lastly is the assault on public education that concerns me the most. The Heartland Institute, a libertarian, fossil fuel industry funded, nonprofit organization has sent mailings discrediting the scientific consensus on climate change to thousands of teachers nationwide.
“I am writing to ask you to consider the possibility that (climate) science in fact is not ‘settled,’” Heartland Institute’s Lennie Jarratt, manager for the institute’s Center for Transforming Education, wrote in a cover letter sent to the teachers accompanying the book, “Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming.”
“If that’s the case,” Jarratt wrote, “then students would be better served by letting them know a vibrant debate is taking place among scientists on how big the human impact on climate is, and whether or not we should be worried about it.”
That’s not the case. The fact, the reality, is that a huge majority of scientists worldwide DO agree on the manmade cause of global warming.
The continued corruption of public education seeking to brainwash students in the interest of the bottom line is what high school civics courses should now be teaching. This should be the “vibrant debate.”
John Bos lives in Shelburne
Falls and frequently focuses
on climate change denial. He invites comments and/or dialogue at: john01370@gmail.com.