Tuesday, October 04, 2005
Discovery Doesn't Like It
Naturally, the Discovery Institute is already out with a news release decrying a letter (see above) by Timothy P. White, president of the University of Idaho that says:
"Censorship and thought-control are apparently alive and well at the University of Idaho," says Dr. John West, Associate Director of Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. "This is an assault on academic freedom, and a barefaced violation of the Constitution's guarantee of free speech."
Discovery might be taken more seriously as an advocate for free speech and academic freedom, if it joined forces with anti-censorship forces such as the American Library Association and the ACLU who fight the banning of books in our public schools. We might find them more credible if they joined with teachers who refused an order to read a statement on intelligent design they disagreed with in Dover, or if they fought for the right of students to hear about contraception in health classes.
However, in all these cases they are aligned with -- and draw much of their support from --those who would ban books and withhold information. That's why it's so hard to take them seriously when they present themselves as advocates for free speech and academic freedom.
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.
"Censorship and thought-control are apparently alive and well at the University of Idaho," says Dr. John West, Associate Director of Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. "This is an assault on academic freedom, and a barefaced violation of the Constitution's guarantee of free speech."
Discovery might be taken more seriously as an advocate for free speech and academic freedom, if it joined forces with anti-censorship forces such as the American Library Association and the ACLU who fight the banning of books in our public schools. We might find them more credible if they joined with teachers who refused an order to read a statement on intelligent design they disagreed with in Dover, or if they fought for the right of students to hear about contraception in health classes.
However, in all these cases they are aligned with -- and draw much of their support from --those who would ban books and withhold information. That's why it's so hard to take them seriously when they present themselves as advocates for free speech and academic freedom.
