Once Again, Religious "Rights" Trump Intelligent Education

[stromboli]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/28/us/in-arizona-a-textbook-fuels-a-broader-dispute-over-sex-education.html?_r=0

GILBERT, Ariz. â€" The textbook, the one with the wide-eyed lemur peering off the cover, has been handed out for years to students in honors biology classes at the high schools here, offering lessons on bread-and-butter subjects like mitosis and meiosis, photosynthesis and anatomy.

But now, the school board in this suburb of Phoenix has voted to excise or redact two pages deep inside the book â€" 544 and 545 â€" because they discuss sexually transmitted diseases and contraception, including mifepristone, a drug that can be used to prevent or halt a pregnancy.

A law passed two years ago in Arizona requires schools to teach “preference, encouragement and support to childbirth and adoption” over abortion, and the school board decided that those pages were in violation of this law â€" even though the Arizona Education Department, which examined the book for compliance, found that they were not.

The controversy has turned into a referendum on the 2012 law, with supporters saying the textbook content cannot be removed fast enough and opponents crying foul for any number of reasons: technical, ethical, pedagogical. But the Gilbert school board is moving forward, trying to figure out how to remove the material in question â€" by way of black markers or scissors, if need be â€" despite resistance from parents, residents, the American Civil Liberties Union and even the district’s superintendent.

“It comes down to, it’s the law, and we need to be in compliance with the law,” said Julie Smith, a member of the Gilbert Public Schools governing board and also a parent who raised concerns about the book. “If people don’t like the law, they need to take it up with their state legislator. I don’t write the law. It’s my job to uphold it.”

Other people say that the school board has misinterpreted the law and that censoring the book amounts to a violation of students’ First Amendment rights â€" and may violate copyright law as well.

“The answer isn’t to redact pages from a science textbook,” said Alessandra Soler, executive director of the A.C.L.U. of Arizona. “It’s an extreme interpretation, an incorrect interpretation, and I think it sends the wrong message. More information is always going to be better.”

It was at a heated meeting last month that the school board voted, 3 to 2, that the two pages from “Campbell Biology: Concepts and Connections” had to be removed somehow. The district is also reviewing three other biology books and two anatomy books. In all, just over 3,000 students in Gilbert’s public high schools have science books with material that could be deemed objectionable, according to district officials.

The dispute has metastasized into fiery exchanges at board meetings, rumors about secret redacting sessions, and angry confrontations in local grocery stores. One school board member, an opponent of censoring the book, was so unnerved by the swirl of gossip about her that she felt compelled to post on Facebook that she had not been endorsed by Planned Parenthood.


Christina M. Kishimoto, the schools superintendent in Gilbert, who started in the job just this summer, has found herself caught in the crossfire. “I’m constantly getting emails about so-and-so threatening this or that,” she said. “The accusations are going back and forth. It’s a distraction. It’s upsetting families.”

I know enough about copyright law to seriously question this. Any author who writes a book, publishes it and puts it on the market has expectations of seeing a complete and unedited work in print and in public. "After the fact" editing of a work that is in print and has standing can only be viewed as censorship, and a violation of the First Amendment right off the bat. That is the first problem. Secondly, the book has a history of being accepted as is, so any reinterpretation of, or omission from, a science text can be viewed as an attack against a standing work or authority. The author of the work and the publisher almost by default has grounds for a lawsuit.

The right of the majority is supposed to trump in our society. By observing a statute in a narrow focus that grants religious rights to one set of people or one person against the need to learn to the majority, should not even be a consideration and should be ignored. That this law is even on the books is stupid.

Talk about religion versus science and learning. couldn't ask for a better example.

[Solitary]

It's in Arizona, the only State with dumber people than Texas, I know, I live here. Wait! That didn't come out right.   

[Minimalist]

Exactly.  This has nothing to do with "education" and everything to do with Tea-Bagging shitheads having gained a majority on the Gilbert SB.  There have been far more dire consequences to the students of that district.

http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/gilbert/2014/03/26/gilbert-public-schools-educators-heading-door/6918059/

[stromboli]

And all of this directly affects the students and their futures. The stupidity of this is insane.

[Munch]

Well.. fuck Arizona then.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

It's in Arizona, the only State with dumber people than Texas, I know, I live here. Wait! That didn't come out right.   

For all intents and purposes you've all but admitted to being a gay man who's had multiple abortions and you do it merely for recreational sex..

[Solitary]

Well now we agree on something for a change, I am a hedonist, and I'm a Metro sexual, not gay, and one bird in the spring does not a spring make.   

[doorknob]

what exactly does birth control and sexually transmitted diseases have to do with abortion? I would hope sexually transmitted diseases would be an important piece of information for students to learn about and also birth control prevents abortion so shouldn't it be promoted?

I don't understand humans.

[Berati]

A law passed two years ago in Arizona requires schools to teach “preference, encouragement and support to childbirth and adoption” over abortion

WTF?? How can they create a law that schools are forced to teach one legal solution over another legal solution to some individuals problem?. The right to abortion is legal (Roe v Wade) so how can it be illegal to mention it??

Forget fighting over a few pages. They need to challenge the law that requires teaching of one particular groups "preference".

[MarineWarrior]

It's in Arizona, the only State with dumber people than Texas, I know, I live here. Wait! That didn't come out right.   

I guess you've never been to Florida.  Lots of religious folks here.  In fact, I was told today that "dog's don't have a soul so how do they dream?"  I walked away from the conversation shortly after that.   

[dtq123]

Manipulation spreads so far, and I am so tired of it.

Case and point: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2hf4GLAMzg

MOO! STOP IT! MOO!