Academic freedom, creationism, and the meaning of democracy
By Massimo Pigliucci
pigliucci@utk.edu; http://fp.bio.utk.edu/skeptic
This essay was inspired by the reading of "Freedom and the Colleges", by
Bertrand Russell, originally written in 1940, and published as part of the
collection Why I am not a Christian (1957). Russell wrote his piece
immediately after an American judge, McGeehan, found him unfit to teach as
a professor at City College in New York City, on the grounds of his
philosophical and political ideas. It was one of the most public and
shameful chapters of academic and judicial history in the United States,
and one that is essential to bear in mind more than half a century later.
What I wish to discuss here is something that has plagued America ever
since the infamous Scopes trial (Larson 1997): the debate over what should
or should not be taught in American schools and especially over who is to
make that decision. As a case in point, I will discuss the
evolution-creation controversy, and I shall support a view that is
unpopular among both religious fundamentalists and evolutionary
scientists. But it may turn out to be the healthiest for the American
children and therefore the public at large.
Russell opens his essay by defining what he means by "academic freedom",
and I totally subscribe to his view on this matter:
The essence of academic freedom is that teachers
should be chosen for their expertness in the subject
they are to teach and that the judges of this
expertness should be other experts. Whether a man is a
good mathematician, or physicist, or chemist, can only
be judged by other mathematicians, or physicists, or
chemists.
This is exactly what exponents of religious agendas do not want. From
Jennings Bryan at the Scopes trial to the more recent campaign by Phillip
Johnson (1997), the "experts" are painted as a tyrannical elite bent
toward undermining the morality of American youth. These self-styled
saviors of innocence of course, never explain why exactly teachers and
college professors should conspire to warp the minds of their pupils.
What fundamentalists and educators mean by democracy is apparently the
major stumbling block in the dispute. Following Russell,
There are two possible views as to the proper
functioning of democracy. According to one view, the
opinions of the majority should prevail absolutely in
all fields. According to the other view, wherever a
common decision is not necessary, different opinions
should be represented, as nearly as possible, in
proportion to their numerical frequency.
The problem, it seems to me, is that educators tend to subscribe to the
second view, while religious and - to some extent - political leaders much
prefer the first one. In America, this tyranny of the majority is
especially evident in the way public schools are run. This, I'm afraid, is
a direct result of the fact that the United States is apparently not made
up of citizens, but simply of taxpayers. To put it as Russell did:
Taxpayers think that since they pay the salaries of
university teachers they have a right to decide what
these men shall teach. This principle, if logically
carried out, would mean that all the advantages of
superior education enjoyed by university professors
are to be nullified, and that their teaching is to be
the same as it would be if they had no special
competence.
In other words, are we going to teach the best of what we currently know
about the world (however provisional such knowledge may be), or are we
going to decide if the Earth is flat or round by majority consensus?
Reality has a rather nasty habit of not conforming to our wishes, no
matter how majoritarian our views happen to be. Consequently, education is
not a democratic process by any means, however distasteful this may sound
to the American public.
Do any negative consequences result from curtailing or entirely abolishing
academic freedom? Well, while Russell offers the case of the economic
collapse of Spain after the expulsion of Moors and Jews, and was
prophetically hinting to a similar fate for Nazi Germany, I would like to
offer a third, more recent example. It is popular among American
conservatives to ascribe the fall of the Soviet Union to the valiant
foreign policy of Ronald Reagan. Needless to say, that is simply
ridiculous, politically motivated, wishful thinking. The USSR in 1989
simply hit upon a hard wall, which it slowly raised during the course of
decades, by adopting absurd economic, political, and scientific policies.
Reagan just happened to be there when the system collapsed. One of the
best-studied instances of the causes of the Soviet collapse is the rise of
Lysenkoism during the 1950s, which basically destroyed Russian genetics,
and set back the entire agricultural machine of that nation by decades.
Lysenko was the embodiment of what happens when bigots take hold of
academia. His theories of genetics and plant breeding were based not on
the best science available, but on political demagogy and ideology, not
different in substance from the religious ideology currently permeating
most of American politics and promoted by the Christian Right movement.
As Russell pointed out, part of the problem is the thrill that ignorant
bigots get out of dictating what smarter and more educated people than
they are can teach or say. He speculates that if the Roman soldier who
killed Archimedes were forced to take geometry in school, he must have
felt a particular pleasure at repaying the man responsible for his
sufferings over triangles and their hypotenuses. Be that as it may, we
should remember that there usually are very good reasons to trust the
"experts". Mind you, I am not advocating a frame of mind that relinquishes
any and all criticism of the official authorities, in whatever guise they
may come. But I would hardly appeal to majority opinions upon entering an
operation room in a hospital, or while trusting my life to the hands of an
airplane pilot. Why should teachers be deprived of a similar vantage
point?
Given all of the above, I think that it will be hard to disagree with the
endless streak of court decisions in favor of teaching evolution and
against teaching creationism in the public schools. (Larson {1997} notices
that the Scopes trial was the only case in which evolutionists actually
lost in court). So far, I trust my biologist colleagues will have found
only reasons to rejoice from reading these few lines. The following is why
they shouldn't.
Phillip Johnson (Gardner 1997), is a leading creationist; Will Provine
(http://fp.bio.utk.edu/darwin - see his address to "Darwin Day 1998"), is
a historian of science and evolutionary biologist. They actually agree on
more than would be expected on the basis of their philosophical and
scientific positions (and they both disagree with the majority of
creationists and evolutionists, respectively). Provine, in particular,
suggests that teachers should encourage open discussions of the
creation-evolution controversy in the classroom, contrary to the
mainstream position of most educators (embodied by the National Center for
Science Education's policy statements: http://www.natcenscied.org/).
The outcry that usually follows Provine's suggestion (which I hereby
completely support), is based on five points:
1. We should not teach views we know to be incorrect.
1. The students are not capable of carrying out an informed discussion
on the subject.
2. There is not enough time during the academic year.
3. If this is a valid approach for evolution, why not teach flat vs.
round Earth, or the geocentric vs. the Copernican theory?
4. The teachers are not well equipped to handle a discussion format on
evolutionary theory.
Of these, point one completely misunderstands Provine's line of reasoning.
He does not say that teachers should teach both creationism and
evolutionism. Of course we know better, therefore we teach evolution. But,
the students should be allowed to debate their opinions on the matter.
Why? First, because guided discussion (the so-called "Socratic method") is
probably one of the best ways to teach critical thinking, as opposed to
just imbue kids with a lot of notions they'll forget as soon as the term
is over. Second, because about 50% of the American population believe in
some form of creationism and only about 10% of Americans think that a god
doesn't have anything to do with evolution! These are staggering
statistics, which must be faced with something more honest and
constructive than silencing a large portion of the class under penalty of
failing the course.
The second point, that the students don't have the ability of carrying out
such discussion, is not only an insult to the intelligence of young
people, but it also dramatically underestimates the wealth of information
on the subject available in libraries or on the World Wide Web. The
teacher could easily guide the pupils to clear and informative sites on
both sides of the issue, making the teaching of evolution a fun and
interactive part of the curriculum.
The idea that there isn't enough time to do this is more a reflection of
priorities than anything else. As a teacher, I would be much happier if my
students got their critical sense sharpened and their understanding of
evolution improved by the end of the semester, rather than having them go
through every single nuance of the curriculum and come up with a bunch of
empty factoids at the end.
Why not advocate doing this for other obsolete theories as well (I wish to
remind the reader that creationism is indeed obsolete from an academic
standpoint)? Simply because there are not many flat-earthers or Ptolemaic
supporters out there! What students need to learn about are the best
theories available on the nature of the universe, as well as the most
controversial ones, where the word "controversy" cannot be narrowly
limited to the academic flavor, but must include the social variety as
well.
The last point, that the teachers may not be sufficiently prepared and
will not themselves have a solid enough background in evolutionary biology
is probably very true (of course, with individual exceptions). But it
seems to me that this is an excellent argument for retraining teachers,
not for continuing to have them regurgitate what they have force-fed their
brains just a few minutes before entering the classroom!
To conclude again with the words that Russell wrote in a different context
sixty years ago:
Opinions should be formed by untrammeled debate, not
by allowing only one side to be heard. {...} All
questions {must be} open to discussion and all
opinions as open to a greater or less measure of
doubt. {...} What is curious about this position {of
not allowing discussions} is the belief that if
impartial investigation were permitted it would lead
men to the wrong conclusion, and that ignorance is,
therefore, the only safeguard against error. {...}
Uniformity in the opinions expressed by teachers is
not only not to be sought but, if possible, to be
avoided, since diversity of opinion among preceptors
is essential to any sound education. {...} As soon as
a censorship is imposed upon the opinions which
teachers may avow, education ceases to serve {its}
purpose and tends to produce, instead of a nation of
men, a herd of fanatical bigots.
Interestingly, both creationists and evolutionists have paid lip service
to this argument, only to proceed to stifle a sane and productive
discussion in American schools, for religious or ideological reasons
respectively. It would be good for both parties to remember that the very
concept of academic freedom was invented (chiefly by John Locke) as a
reaction against 130 years of religious wars in pre-17th century Europe.
Furthermore, the principle was originally applied to defend the church
against undue interference on the part of the state. The 1st amendment
does, indeed, cut both ways.
References
Darwin Day, http://fp.bio.utk.edu/darwin
Gardner, M. 1997. Intelligent design and Phillip Johnson.
Skeptical Inquirer 21:17-20.
Johnson, P. 1997. Defeating Darwinism by opening minds.
InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, IL.
Larson, E.J. 1997. Summer for the gods. BasicBooks, New York.
National Center for Science Education,
http://www.natcenscied.org/
Russell, B. 1957. Why I am not a Christian. Simon & Schuster,
New York.