A movement which claims to be an alternative to the scientific theory of evolution is nothing than an attempt to inject politics and religion into the classroom, a University of Oklahoma professor said Friday.
Victor H. Hutchinson, a former George Lynn Cross professor of zoology at OU, told members of the Cleveland County Democratic Party the intelligent design movement is part of an "ongoing culture war" being waged in America.
Hutchinson, now retired, spoke at the Democrats' weekly Tyner Cornbread and Beans luncheon.
"Evolution is not a faith and intelligent design is not a scientific theory," Hutchinson said. "Science can only ask 'how,' science cannot ask 'why?'"
Using a computerized slide presentation, Hutchinson told the group many creationists claim anyone who supports the theory of evolution is automatically an atheist.
"These fundamentalist groups say, 'the removal of the theory of evolution will be salvation of western civilization,'" Hutchinson said. "They have said, 'this is not a debate about science but religion and philosophy.'"
Their group's goal, Hutchinson said, is to make the United States a theocracy.
"Religion and science don't need to conflict," he said. "And most of our country's mainstream church understand this. It's only in the far right that we have this problem."
In fact, Hutchinson said, the only other country with a greater fundamentalist movement seeking to inject religion in the classroom is Islamic Turkey.
"This is something that has happened before," he said "We saw this movement in the '20s, when the country moved toward fundamentalism, and we had a similar response in the '50s and in the '80s."
And now, Hutchinson said, "we're seeing the same movement again."
"Part of the problem is our fault," he said. "Education and science educators have failed to explain scientific education to the general public. The general public has no idea what science is and how research is done."
And because of that, Hutchinson said most people don't understand the difference between a theory -- that is, a guess -- and a scientific theory, which has been vetted, tested and reviewed.
"A scientific theory is as close as you can get. The scientific theory of evolution is just as valuable a theory as the theory of gravity or the theory of plate tectonics," he said. "But metaphysical concepts like faith and religion are different. The supernatural is not testable."
Hutchinson criticized some fundamentalist groups' reliance on polls to push for the teaching of intelligent design. "Polls don't determine science," he said.
The professor also had harsh words for some members of the Oklahoma Legislature.
"We've had to battle textbook disclaimers, bills for intelligent design and academic sunshine laws," he said. "This has become a partisan issue and it shouldn't have."
The only way to ensure that science is taught in the classroom is by continuing to fight the efforts of those who support intelligent design, he said.
"There is room for a discussion of intelligent design in the classroom," he said. "But not as a scientific theory. There are many places were it could be discussed, it's just not science."
And the problem, Hutchinson said, will "only get worse."
"Many science teachers are afraid to teach evolution because of the issues involved," he said. "And I had some tell me that when they do talk about it, students have asked to be excused. We are in the middle of a culture war and I don't think it will ever stop.
Saturday, March 8, 2008
Extended school year a tough sell to teachers, administrators
OKLAHOMA CITY -- A proposal which would make major changes in the length of the state's school year sailed through the Oklahoma House of Representatives this week.
But there's a big storm on the horizon.
Under House Bill 3122, lawmakers would add "about three days" to the state school year and use hours instead of days to measure time in spent in the classroom.
Written by state Rep. Tad Jones, R-Claremore, the bill would require a minimum of 1,080 hours per academic year.
Jones, chair of the House Education Committee, said the measure would make schools stronger.
"This will give our schools more flexibility to teach how and when they see fit," he said. "If school districts want to leave their school year exactly as it is right now, this bill gives them that option. But, if they want to extend each school day so the needed academic time is placed within a 4-day week to save money on utility and bus costs, this bill gives them that flexibility."
However, in addition to adding time to the school calendar, the bill would reduce the number of professional development days available to teachers. Currently most teachers have about five professional development days.
Under HB 3122, those days would be reduced to two.
"The bill ... protects 15 hours of professional development for teachers each year," Jones said in a media release.
And while Jones claims the bill will "help our students compete not only nationally, but globally," area school administrators and teachers' union officials are questioning that reduction and the lack of funding for the longer school year.
The measure, union officials said, doesn't include any funding for those three extra days.
"The bill is an unfunded mandate," said Moore Association of Classroom Teachers President Jill Dudley. "They took three of our professional development days and turned those days into instruction days. So where will the money to pay for the extra time, the support staff, the extra cafeteria food and things like that come from?"
In addition, Dudley said teachers don't want to lose their professional development days.
"What those legislators don't understand is those five days are not all about professional development," she said. "We also have to accomplish many things before the beginning of the school year. We have organizational meetings, we meet with subject area coordinators, we review test scores and remediation efforts. We need time to do those things, too."
Democratic state Rep. Bill Nations agreed.
Nations, from Norman, voted against the bill. He said he, too, didn't like the idea of trading teachers' professional development days for days in the classroom.
"I voted against it because they (the House GOP) won't tell the truth," he said. "You're trading three days of professional development for three more days in the classroom. Oklahoma has some of the best teachers in America and I'm not one who wants to take those professional development days away from them."
Representative Jones, Nations said, "doesn't want to come out and say that's what they are doing and that somehow, we're going to get three extra days in the classroom. This was the cheapest way to get them."
The real cost, some administrators say, is much higher.
Norman school superintendent, Dr. Joe Siano, said each extra day of instruction would probably cost an additional $18 million, statewide.
Siano, part of a task force appointed by state school superintendent Sandy Garrett to study the issue, said the additional school days would be expensive.
"Our task force studied three areas," he said. "The quality of instruction time, the cost of instruction time and the quantity of instruction time."
And while the task force recommended adding a total of 15 days to the school year, Siano said the group also recommended those additional days be added in five day increments and that the state provide the extra funding -- between $80 million and $100 million -- to cover the costs of those additional five days.
"I think extending the school year is something we ought to consider," Siano said. "The more time with kids is going to be impactful and I like the part of the bill addressing the school year in hours instead of days."
However, like both Dudley and Nations, Siano said he, too, "was concerned" about exchange of professional development days for instructional days.
"I think that, in the end, if you begin dismissing the importance of professional development, you're going to minimize the impact of additional instruction," he said.
The Legislature, Siano said, should "fund everything they are already underfunding and meet schools' operational obligations."
"Then you're going to have to pay for the extra days," he said.
And this year, money is tight.
"One of the challenges that we've encountered is clearly the funding portion of the bill," state Rep. Scott Martin said. "There isn't just loads of extra money sitting around. If we're to expand the school year, as it has been proposed, then we're talking about millions of new dollars."
Martin, a Norman Republican, said he voted for the measure because he was "in favor of some of the changes that have been proposed."
"I don't think the change of the school days to hours impacts us too much," he said. "But I am concerned about changing professional days to instructional days."
Still, even with the measure's 67-33 vote, Martin said House members will get another chance to review the measure before it's sent to the governor's desk.
On Feb. 21, Jones moved to remove the measure's title and enacting clause. That action forces the bill back to the House of Representatives before it can be sent to Gov. Brad Henry.
"We're gong to get another look at it," Martin said. "Changing of the school days to hours was an easier sell at this time. We're going to see if we can fund it appropriately. If it comes down to it and all we can do is change from days to hours, then that's all right. We can wait until we can find the money."
However, even those changes might not prove enough to satisfy the area's school teachers.
"None of us are opposed to adding more instructional days," Dudley said. "But you gotta pay for it. You just can't push the burden off on the district."
And, Dudley said, should the measure not include funding, teachers' union officials will work to defeat HB 3122 in the state Senate.
"If we can't beat it in the Senate, then we'll ask the governor to veto it," she said. "The districts can't bear any more unfunded mandates.
But there's a big storm on the horizon.
Under House Bill 3122, lawmakers would add "about three days" to the state school year and use hours instead of days to measure time in spent in the classroom.
Written by state Rep. Tad Jones, R-Claremore, the bill would require a minimum of 1,080 hours per academic year.
Jones, chair of the House Education Committee, said the measure would make schools stronger.
"This will give our schools more flexibility to teach how and when they see fit," he said. "If school districts want to leave their school year exactly as it is right now, this bill gives them that option. But, if they want to extend each school day so the needed academic time is placed within a 4-day week to save money on utility and bus costs, this bill gives them that flexibility."
However, in addition to adding time to the school calendar, the bill would reduce the number of professional development days available to teachers. Currently most teachers have about five professional development days.
Under HB 3122, those days would be reduced to two.
"The bill ... protects 15 hours of professional development for teachers each year," Jones said in a media release.
And while Jones claims the bill will "help our students compete not only nationally, but globally," area school administrators and teachers' union officials are questioning that reduction and the lack of funding for the longer school year.
The measure, union officials said, doesn't include any funding for those three extra days.
"The bill is an unfunded mandate," said Moore Association of Classroom Teachers President Jill Dudley. "They took three of our professional development days and turned those days into instruction days. So where will the money to pay for the extra time, the support staff, the extra cafeteria food and things like that come from?"
In addition, Dudley said teachers don't want to lose their professional development days.
"What those legislators don't understand is those five days are not all about professional development," she said. "We also have to accomplish many things before the beginning of the school year. We have organizational meetings, we meet with subject area coordinators, we review test scores and remediation efforts. We need time to do those things, too."
Democratic state Rep. Bill Nations agreed.
Nations, from Norman, voted against the bill. He said he, too, didn't like the idea of trading teachers' professional development days for days in the classroom.
"I voted against it because they (the House GOP) won't tell the truth," he said. "You're trading three days of professional development for three more days in the classroom. Oklahoma has some of the best teachers in America and I'm not one who wants to take those professional development days away from them."
Representative Jones, Nations said, "doesn't want to come out and say that's what they are doing and that somehow, we're going to get three extra days in the classroom. This was the cheapest way to get them."
The real cost, some administrators say, is much higher.
Norman school superintendent, Dr. Joe Siano, said each extra day of instruction would probably cost an additional $18 million, statewide.
Siano, part of a task force appointed by state school superintendent Sandy Garrett to study the issue, said the additional school days would be expensive.
"Our task force studied three areas," he said. "The quality of instruction time, the cost of instruction time and the quantity of instruction time."
And while the task force recommended adding a total of 15 days to the school year, Siano said the group also recommended those additional days be added in five day increments and that the state provide the extra funding -- between $80 million and $100 million -- to cover the costs of those additional five days.
"I think extending the school year is something we ought to consider," Siano said. "The more time with kids is going to be impactful and I like the part of the bill addressing the school year in hours instead of days."
However, like both Dudley and Nations, Siano said he, too, "was concerned" about exchange of professional development days for instructional days.
"I think that, in the end, if you begin dismissing the importance of professional development, you're going to minimize the impact of additional instruction," he said.
The Legislature, Siano said, should "fund everything they are already underfunding and meet schools' operational obligations."
"Then you're going to have to pay for the extra days," he said.
And this year, money is tight.
"One of the challenges that we've encountered is clearly the funding portion of the bill," state Rep. Scott Martin said. "There isn't just loads of extra money sitting around. If we're to expand the school year, as it has been proposed, then we're talking about millions of new dollars."
Martin, a Norman Republican, said he voted for the measure because he was "in favor of some of the changes that have been proposed."
"I don't think the change of the school days to hours impacts us too much," he said. "But I am concerned about changing professional days to instructional days."
Still, even with the measure's 67-33 vote, Martin said House members will get another chance to review the measure before it's sent to the governor's desk.
On Feb. 21, Jones moved to remove the measure's title and enacting clause. That action forces the bill back to the House of Representatives before it can be sent to Gov. Brad Henry.
"We're gong to get another look at it," Martin said. "Changing of the school days to hours was an easier sell at this time. We're going to see if we can fund it appropriately. If it comes down to it and all we can do is change from days to hours, then that's all right. We can wait until we can find the money."
However, even those changes might not prove enough to satisfy the area's school teachers.
"None of us are opposed to adding more instructional days," Dudley said. "But you gotta pay for it. You just can't push the burden off on the district."
And, Dudley said, should the measure not include funding, teachers' union officials will work to defeat HB 3122 in the state Senate.
"If we can't beat it in the Senate, then we'll ask the governor to veto it," she said. "The districts can't bear any more unfunded mandates.
Sparks trying to recover WorldCom funds for retirement systems
OKLAHOMA CITY — A Norman lawmaker is trying to pull the legislative equivalent of a quarterback sneak to reroute more than $11 million in settlement funds back to the state agencies who originally lost the money.
Norman state Sen. John Sparks, a Democrat, confirmed this week he would try to amend Senate Bill 1868 to earmark $11.7 million in WorldCom settlement funds back to the state retirement systems who originally lost the money.
“The money is in the wrong place,” Sparks said Thursday afternoon. “The money is available as a direct result of the WorldCom settlement. It represents some of what was lost by the agencies who invested in WorldCom.”
Under Sparks’ amendment, the funds — which are under the control of the Oklahoma Department of Commerce — would be shifted back to the various retirement systems who lost money in the WorldCom bankruptcy.
Sparks said his amendment would allocate:
• $4.3 million for the Oklahoma Public Employees Retirement System.
• $2.8 million for the Teachers Retirement System.
• $1.7 million for firefighters retirement.
• $1 million for police officers.
The funds should be returned, Sparks said, because the agencies are “actually the victims of a crime.”
“It’s the principle of the matter,” he said. “The money was lost from our retirement system and now some of that money has been recovered. It should go back to the retirement system.”
As part of a $650 million settlement, Oklahoma received the funds following a lawsuit by Attorney General Drew Edmondson.
More than 32 such suits were filed by various companies and public retirement funds against WorldCom over investments which were made between 1998 and 2001.
WorldCom — which had assets in excess of $100 billion — filed for bankruptcy protection in July 2002 leaving all of Oklahoma’s public pension systems and a handful of state agencies with heavy financial losses.
Edmondson originally settled the fraud charges with WorldCom with an agreement to create 1,600 jobs in Oklahoma. However, those jobs never materialized and, in 2007, an $11.7 million settlement was reached in lieu of the jobs with Verizon Communications, WorldCom’s successor company.
Since the payment of that settlement, the $11.7 million has been parked in an account controlled by the Department of Commerce.
And while many legislative leaders originally agreed those funds should go back to the state’s various retirement systems, some of those lawmakers have now changed their position, Sparks said.
“I think we have an uphill fight,” he said. “I had to do an amendment to get it out of committee. Many people want to sweep this under the rug, they want to use it for other things. The only problem is it was specifically lost from retirement funds, and some was recovered. I believe that money should be returned.”
In August 2007, then-House Appropriation Chair Chris Benge agreed.
Late last summer, Benge issued a media statement saying that “money received from a settlement agreement from the WorldCom accounting fraud should be placed in state employee retirement systems.”
Benge’s statement drew praise from the Oklahoma Public Employees Association.
Benge, the OPEA said, “has shown outstanding leadership regarding this issue. We, as an association, owe him a great deal of thanks.”
Since then things have changed.
Benge is now House Speaker and the state’s budget developed a $117 million leak. Both of those problems have sent retirement system officials scrambling to protect the settlement funds.
Tom Spencer, executive director of the Oklahoma Public Employees Retirement System, said the money should be returned to OPERS because it and the state’s other retirement system, were the original victims.
“We heard the state had settled for $11.7 million. What caught our attention was the funds landed at the Commerce Department,” he said. “And commerce was thinking about how to spend it. We were sorta the victims of the crime, as you will, we thought it more appropriate that those funds come back to us.”
Spencer said state retirement systems lost more than $66 million in the WorldCom bankruptcy and his fund alone lost more than $25 million.
“We have received some funds over the past couple of years,” Spencer said. “But we are nowhere near whole.”
And though some lawmakers downplay the settlement as “a drop in the bucket” when compared to the $8 billion in assets of the Teachers Retirement System, Spencer said his agency’s share — about $4.3 million — would cover his operational costs for a year.
“$4.3 million would pay a pretty good chunk of what it costs to run our office this year,” he said.
Still, both men acknowledge getting the legislation passed won’t be easy.
“Last year it looked doable,” Sparks said. “But this year things could be more difficult.”
Sparks said his proposal — which amends Senate Bill 1868 by Kingfisher Republican Mike Johnson — faces an uphill battle.
“I understand there’s some controversy,” he said. “But it’s something we should do.”
Right now, Sparks said he’s awaiting committee action on SB 1868 and hopes to offer his amendment soon.
In the meantime, retirement officials have crossed their fingers.
With many of the state’s public systems underfunded by millions of dollars, every dollar, they say, adds stability.
“It’s something we’d like to see happen,” Spencer said. “Every few million helps.”
Norman state Sen. John Sparks, a Democrat, confirmed this week he would try to amend Senate Bill 1868 to earmark $11.7 million in WorldCom settlement funds back to the state retirement systems who originally lost the money.
“The money is in the wrong place,” Sparks said Thursday afternoon. “The money is available as a direct result of the WorldCom settlement. It represents some of what was lost by the agencies who invested in WorldCom.”
Under Sparks’ amendment, the funds — which are under the control of the Oklahoma Department of Commerce — would be shifted back to the various retirement systems who lost money in the WorldCom bankruptcy.
Sparks said his amendment would allocate:
• $4.3 million for the Oklahoma Public Employees Retirement System.
• $2.8 million for the Teachers Retirement System.
• $1.7 million for firefighters retirement.
• $1 million for police officers.
The funds should be returned, Sparks said, because the agencies are “actually the victims of a crime.”
“It’s the principle of the matter,” he said. “The money was lost from our retirement system and now some of that money has been recovered. It should go back to the retirement system.”
As part of a $650 million settlement, Oklahoma received the funds following a lawsuit by Attorney General Drew Edmondson.
More than 32 such suits were filed by various companies and public retirement funds against WorldCom over investments which were made between 1998 and 2001.
WorldCom — which had assets in excess of $100 billion — filed for bankruptcy protection in July 2002 leaving all of Oklahoma’s public pension systems and a handful of state agencies with heavy financial losses.
Edmondson originally settled the fraud charges with WorldCom with an agreement to create 1,600 jobs in Oklahoma. However, those jobs never materialized and, in 2007, an $11.7 million settlement was reached in lieu of the jobs with Verizon Communications, WorldCom’s successor company.
Since the payment of that settlement, the $11.7 million has been parked in an account controlled by the Department of Commerce.
And while many legislative leaders originally agreed those funds should go back to the state’s various retirement systems, some of those lawmakers have now changed their position, Sparks said.
“I think we have an uphill fight,” he said. “I had to do an amendment to get it out of committee. Many people want to sweep this under the rug, they want to use it for other things. The only problem is it was specifically lost from retirement funds, and some was recovered. I believe that money should be returned.”
In August 2007, then-House Appropriation Chair Chris Benge agreed.
Late last summer, Benge issued a media statement saying that “money received from a settlement agreement from the WorldCom accounting fraud should be placed in state employee retirement systems.”
Benge’s statement drew praise from the Oklahoma Public Employees Association.
Benge, the OPEA said, “has shown outstanding leadership regarding this issue. We, as an association, owe him a great deal of thanks.”
Since then things have changed.
Benge is now House Speaker and the state’s budget developed a $117 million leak. Both of those problems have sent retirement system officials scrambling to protect the settlement funds.
Tom Spencer, executive director of the Oklahoma Public Employees Retirement System, said the money should be returned to OPERS because it and the state’s other retirement system, were the original victims.
“We heard the state had settled for $11.7 million. What caught our attention was the funds landed at the Commerce Department,” he said. “And commerce was thinking about how to spend it. We were sorta the victims of the crime, as you will, we thought it more appropriate that those funds come back to us.”
Spencer said state retirement systems lost more than $66 million in the WorldCom bankruptcy and his fund alone lost more than $25 million.
“We have received some funds over the past couple of years,” Spencer said. “But we are nowhere near whole.”
And though some lawmakers downplay the settlement as “a drop in the bucket” when compared to the $8 billion in assets of the Teachers Retirement System, Spencer said his agency’s share — about $4.3 million — would cover his operational costs for a year.
“$4.3 million would pay a pretty good chunk of what it costs to run our office this year,” he said.
Still, both men acknowledge getting the legislation passed won’t be easy.
“Last year it looked doable,” Sparks said. “But this year things could be more difficult.”
Sparks said his proposal — which amends Senate Bill 1868 by Kingfisher Republican Mike Johnson — faces an uphill battle.
“I understand there’s some controversy,” he said. “But it’s something we should do.”
Right now, Sparks said he’s awaiting committee action on SB 1868 and hopes to offer his amendment soon.
In the meantime, retirement officials have crossed their fingers.
With many of the state’s public systems underfunded by millions of dollars, every dollar, they say, adds stability.
“It’s something we’d like to see happen,” Spencer said. “Every few million helps.”
Wesselhoft authors academic "sunshine" bill
OKLAHOMA CITY — While many state legislators are struggling with issues such as reduced state revenue and problems with the Department of Corrections, state Rep. Paul Wesselhoft has a different worry.
Wesselhoft is concerned about free speech at the state’s colleges and universities.
Wesselhoft, a Moore Republican, is asking Oklahoma college students to “contact him if they feel their free-speech rights are being taken away” in the classroom. He made the announcement in an e-mailed news release sent to the state’s three largest universities — the University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma State University and the University of Central Oklahoma.
“This is an important issue that guarantees freedom of speech but also impacts a student’s freedom to express personal choices — whether religious views or political ideas or general moral beliefs,” Wesselhoft said.
Wesselhoft said he became concerned after attending legislative conferences in Phoenix, Ariz., and Philadelphia, Pa.
“I attended these national conferences and it came to my attention at both of these places that some universities are having problems,” he said.
Wesselhoft claimed that at some of the country’s universities, professors are “not getting tenure because they might be on the wrong side of issues such as global warming.”
The professors, he said, are having promotions and tenure withheld because of their beliefs. And students in class, he said, are being graded harshly because they might disagree with a professor’s view.
“Even though they have credentials and they publish in academic journals, they are not being treated fairly. And I’ve heard of many students who feel like they have been unfairly treated.”
Because of that, the Moore Republican has authored House Bill 2600 — the Higher Education Sunshine Act — which would require public higher education institutions to file an annual report with the Legislature detailing how they encouraged intellectual diversity and “the free exchange of ideas.”
Wesselhoft could not cite any examples of the problem in Oklahoma.
“I don’t known of anything like that right now,” he said. “I am hearing from professors at OU, OSU and UCO. And most of them are saying, ‘Mind your own business, leave us alone in the classroom.’”
But Wesselhoft said he believes the issue is a “legitimate concern.”
“It may very well be there is not a pattern here,” he said. “Right now, I’m only collecting anecdotal information. All I’m asking for is for the presidents of our state’s colleges and universities to detail how they handle diversity issues.”
Wesselhoft’s claims, however, don’t sit well with the national organization that represents university professors.
In a posting on the American Association of University Professors Web site, the AAUP “sharply criticized” efforts to create an academic bill of rights or which push for intellectual diversity.
Those efforts, the AAUP said, are “unnecessary and almost certain to compromise academic freedom rather than defend it. At their core, these measures would place decisions about faculty appointments and the content of academic programs in the hands of political officials, thereby jeopardizing not only the independence of faculty members and their institutions but also their capacity to advance knowledge and educate our students.”
At OU students and faculty members also criticized the idea.
In a story published recently in the OU Daily — the university’s student newspaper — OU chemistry professor Phillip Klebba, said intellectual diversity already exists at OU.
“Diversity is already a, if not the, defining characteristic of institutions of higher education,” he said. “Are state legislators better qualified to evaluate intellectual diversity than the individuals in this chain of authority? Most of whom have spent their entire careers seeking to optimize the learning environment of colleges and universities.”
Klebba told the OU Daily that “requiring OU to report to the Legislature duplicates existing policy; OU already conducts comprehensive annual reviews of all academic activities.”
Student congress chair Jordan McGee agreed.
“I haven’t ever had the experience of being censored in the classroom,” McGee said. “The discussions in my classes have always been for the pursuit of academic knowledge.”
McGee, an Edmond senior, said he didn’t see how Wesselhoft’s bill would help.
“I don’t see how a bill could ever change that,” he said. “That type of information is not objectively verifiable.”
Still, Wesselhoft said the issue is worth exploring.
“I think it’s a legitimate question that needs to be asked,” he said. “I don’t have a deadline. And I hope to hear from students and professors. I’m not on a witch hunt, but I suspect that (some) colleges and universities are indoctrinating students.”
Wesselhoft is concerned about free speech at the state’s colleges and universities.
Wesselhoft, a Moore Republican, is asking Oklahoma college students to “contact him if they feel their free-speech rights are being taken away” in the classroom. He made the announcement in an e-mailed news release sent to the state’s three largest universities — the University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma State University and the University of Central Oklahoma.
“This is an important issue that guarantees freedom of speech but also impacts a student’s freedom to express personal choices — whether religious views or political ideas or general moral beliefs,” Wesselhoft said.
Wesselhoft said he became concerned after attending legislative conferences in Phoenix, Ariz., and Philadelphia, Pa.
“I attended these national conferences and it came to my attention at both of these places that some universities are having problems,” he said.
Wesselhoft claimed that at some of the country’s universities, professors are “not getting tenure because they might be on the wrong side of issues such as global warming.”
The professors, he said, are having promotions and tenure withheld because of their beliefs. And students in class, he said, are being graded harshly because they might disagree with a professor’s view.
“Even though they have credentials and they publish in academic journals, they are not being treated fairly. And I’ve heard of many students who feel like they have been unfairly treated.”
Because of that, the Moore Republican has authored House Bill 2600 — the Higher Education Sunshine Act — which would require public higher education institutions to file an annual report with the Legislature detailing how they encouraged intellectual diversity and “the free exchange of ideas.”
Wesselhoft could not cite any examples of the problem in Oklahoma.
“I don’t known of anything like that right now,” he said. “I am hearing from professors at OU, OSU and UCO. And most of them are saying, ‘Mind your own business, leave us alone in the classroom.’”
But Wesselhoft said he believes the issue is a “legitimate concern.”
“It may very well be there is not a pattern here,” he said. “Right now, I’m only collecting anecdotal information. All I’m asking for is for the presidents of our state’s colleges and universities to detail how they handle diversity issues.”
Wesselhoft’s claims, however, don’t sit well with the national organization that represents university professors.
In a posting on the American Association of University Professors Web site, the AAUP “sharply criticized” efforts to create an academic bill of rights or which push for intellectual diversity.
Those efforts, the AAUP said, are “unnecessary and almost certain to compromise academic freedom rather than defend it. At their core, these measures would place decisions about faculty appointments and the content of academic programs in the hands of political officials, thereby jeopardizing not only the independence of faculty members and their institutions but also their capacity to advance knowledge and educate our students.”
At OU students and faculty members also criticized the idea.
In a story published recently in the OU Daily — the university’s student newspaper — OU chemistry professor Phillip Klebba, said intellectual diversity already exists at OU.
“Diversity is already a, if not the, defining characteristic of institutions of higher education,” he said. “Are state legislators better qualified to evaluate intellectual diversity than the individuals in this chain of authority? Most of whom have spent their entire careers seeking to optimize the learning environment of colleges and universities.”
Klebba told the OU Daily that “requiring OU to report to the Legislature duplicates existing policy; OU already conducts comprehensive annual reviews of all academic activities.”
Student congress chair Jordan McGee agreed.
“I haven’t ever had the experience of being censored in the classroom,” McGee said. “The discussions in my classes have always been for the pursuit of academic knowledge.”
McGee, an Edmond senior, said he didn’t see how Wesselhoft’s bill would help.
“I don’t see how a bill could ever change that,” he said. “That type of information is not objectively verifiable.”
Still, Wesselhoft said the issue is worth exploring.
“I think it’s a legitimate question that needs to be asked,” he said. “I don’t have a deadline. And I hope to hear from students and professors. I’m not on a witch hunt, but I suspect that (some) colleges and universities are indoctrinating students.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
