Article Tags: You could not make it up
As a high school senior and an ardent environmentalist, I have mixed feelings about new legislation in various states that would change science curricula to include “other views” on climate change, the way some school districts have tried to open the theory of evolution up for debate. I know the goal of such legislation–to downplay the severity of climate change and to cast doubt on its manmade causes–is against everything I stand for as an advocate for all things green. And yet there’s something pretty convincing about how lawmakers have framed these bills: as catalysts for “open discussion” and “intellectual freedom.” I mean, who’s against that?
Indeed, often the most memorable parts of my classes are the fiery debates about contentious topics. It’s when I learn the most. Like when my environmental science teacher led my class in a discussion about the pros and cons of nuclear energy. I’ve always been against building nuclear power plants, which got me into ideological tiffs with some classmates. But being forced to use facts and data I had read in my textbook to hold my own is probably the only reason I remember so much about something I was once so opposed to.
The wording of the latest of these bills, Kentucky’s “Science Education and Intellectual Freedom Act,” seems to be a perfect setup for such in-class intellectual throwdowns: “Teachers, principals, and other school administrators are encouraged to create and foster an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that promotes critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of scientific theories being studied.”
Source: huffingtonpost.com