On November 13th the Ohio House of Representatives passed the controversial Student Religious Liberties Act which included provisions which opponents claim allow students to receive credit for providing incorrect, faith-based answers to science assignments and homework in areas such as evolution. This is the latest front in a long-running battle between those who believe that religion has no place in the science classroom and those who believe literal biblical interpretations deserve to be taught alongside scientific explanations for the origins of the universe or of mankind. We therefore thought it a good opportunity to look in a little more detail at this and similar legislation and how it fits into the century-old constitutional conflict between the fundamental principles of freedom of religious expression and the separation of church and state.
What have we become? from Wikimedia Commons. Inspired by “The End of Faith” by Sam Harris.
The battle so far
There have been numerous attempts, largely by right-leaning states with large evangelical communities, to mandate or at least allow the teaching of biblical versions of the origins of the universe or of mankind (creationism) alongside scientific explanations such as the theory of evolution, as described in this comprehensive article. The landmark Supreme Court decisions in Lemon v. Kurtzman (1981) and Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) ruled that requiring the teaching of creationism in schools violated the Establishment Clause and was therefore unconstitutional, on the basis that religion shouldn’t be taught as fact in public schools. The ruling, while a major defeat for proponents of creationism did not mark the end of the battle.
The tactics changed, with states attempting to pass laws allowing teaching of the controversy between creationism, rebranded as “intelligent design”, and evolution. This approach emphasises the importance of academic freedom for teachers to teach science in the way they see fit, which would allow a focus on the critiques of evolutionary theory rather than its scientific rigour, for example. While courts have been very consistent in opposing attempts to introduce creationism into schools through the back door, there have been some notable successes. Republican-controlled Tennessee passed the so-called “Monkey Bill” by wide margins in both houses of the legislature in 2012 which included this section:
“Neither the state board of education, nor any public elementary or secondary school governing authority, director of schools, school system administrator, or any public elementary or secondary school principal or administrator shall prohibit any teacher in a public school system of this state from helping students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught.”
It’s notable that the bill only mentions evolution as part of a list of “controversial” science topics, which also includes climate change and human cloning, and makes no mention of creationism, intelligent design or other religious approaches. It has been widely interpreted as allowing teaching to focus on how scientific explanations in such areas are only one possible option – a view which critics claim allows for religious creation myths, which have no evidence to support them, to be taught as equivalent to scientific theories which have been developed through centuries of rigorous, scientific exploration.
The bills
Ohio House Bill 164 takes a different tack by seeking to protect students’ freedom of religious expression more broadly. It includes a number of provisions such as guaranteeing students access to facilities for religious expression to the same extent as those for secular groups and setting aside time for private prayer. The most controversial aspect of the bill, however, is the section which prohibits schools from restricting a student from engaging in “religious expression” in completion of homework, artwork and other assignments. This can be seen as meaning that teachers can accept answers as correct which fly in the face of scientific fact, such as stating that the earth is only 6,000 years old. Opponents to the bill are concerned that this will lead to students basing science assignments on religious dogma and that teachers will be prohibited from penalizing it. I reached out to American Atheists, and Alison Gill, their Vice President for Legal and Policy told me:
“This bill is unnecessary, and it will actually add more than confusion than clarity. The First Amendment already guarantees religious freedom to students in public schools. Instead, this poorly drafted bill will create loopholes that unfairly privilege students of particular religions. The true purpose of this bill, similar to other legislation associated with Project Blitz, is to insert Christian nationalism into our schools.”
The bill sponsor, Republican Rep. Timothy Ginter disagrees that the bill will lead to unscientific answers being allowed in assignments, according to Cleveland.com. He claims that student must still turn in work that accurately reflects what has been taught to get good grades. “This doesn’t give student a get-out-of-jail free card,” he said.
The bill passed the Ohio House 61-31 and it has now moved on to the Senate which is controlled by the Republicans 24 seats to 9. This isn’t the first time we’ve seen the bill, however. It was also introduced last year as HB428 which also passed the House, by a slightly wider margin of 67-26. It was introduced in the Senate but eventually fell without a vote. There will be close interest to see whether it receives a greater priority in its current incarnation, as given the makeup of the Senate it is very likely to pass if it is put to a vote. We reached out to several of the bill sponsors and spoke to an aide in Rep. Jim Butler’s office. She told us that they have received a lot of emails about the bill and that they have been a mixed bag – some in support and some opposing.
Ohio isn’t the only state to have introduced introduce laws of this nature. New York introduced the New York student religious liberties act of 2017 (NYA05353) and Minnesota introduced the Student Religious Liberties Act (HF 23) in 2017. These bills are even more explicit that Ohio’s, both including identical sections (taken directly from a model bill provided by the Congressional Prayer Caucus Foundation) which states:
“Students may express their beliefs about religion in homework, artwork, and other written and oral assignments free from discrimination based on the religious content of their submissions.”
They are, however, careful to include the measure that “Homework and classroom assignments must be judged by ordinary academic standards of substance and relevance and against other legitimate pedagogical concerns”, very similar to a section in the Ohio bill, which advocates can claim stops students merely putting forward religious views without also considering and understanding what they have been taught as science fact. Regardless, any attempt to allow religious beliefs into the science classroom and therefore even imply that they should be treated as valid alternatives to fact-based science are unacceptable to those who regard secular science education as non-negotiable. Neither of these bills made it through their first committee stage, unlike the Ohio bills. (American Atheists shared this page with us where they track similar bills.)
Final thoughts
It remains to be seen whether the bills discussed above are a serious attempt to open a new front in the battle to allow religious expression into science education or whether they are merely isolated examples. If the Ohio bill is more successful this year and makes it into law it may well spur other states to attempt to pass similar laws. It may also trigger challenges through the courts as to whether it is unconstitutional. Given the shift to the right in the makeup of the courts in recent years, if any challenge made it that far there’s no guarantee that such laws would be overturned as happened in the 1980s. If such bills were allowed it would be a major blow to secular campaigners and seen as a serious erosion of the principle that religion cannot be taught as fact. All eyes then on Ohio!
This is a guest post by our Brexit Correspondent