War on Education

A disturbing report concerning education policy in Texas cautions that the national textbook market may soon be flooded with products that advocate rather than educate. The Lone Star State recently approved changes to social studies, economics, and history textbooks that would drastically alter what the next generation of students learn. While the School Board has yet to finalize the changes (there is a required period of public comment), the initial 10-5 vote for approval suggests that acceptance is all but assured. Perhaps unintuitively, policy decisions concerning education in Texas -- ostensibly a local issue -- spawn potentially national ramifications because "the Texas School Board effectively spells out requirements for 80 percent of the nation's textbook market." Thus, it is important to take notice of how the materials for the nation's students might be altered.

The changes proposed by the Texas School Board have generated so much consternation because they would require that educational materials include questionable elements that impose an admittedly conservative gloss on their contents. Neither end of the political spectrum denies the somewhat flagrant manipulation at issue. While critical members of the School Board decry the move as an attempt to promote an extremist ideology, the conservative majority maintains that "academia is skewed too far to the left" and that "balance" must be restored. In all fairness, this is not an argument that should be dismissed out of hand. Education is a dynamic and vital part of our national culture and it should represent many different viewpoints fairly and accurately. An educational system that advocates only liberal ideas is as flawed and undesirable as one that stresses conservative beliefs, and it is frankly questionable to expect that liberal adherents are the best proponents of conservative aims. Tensions between political ideals and contested values are built into the American system in countless areas precisely so that oppositional ideologies will be respected and adequately represented. As such, a claim of imbalance or bias deserves -- indeed demands -- conscientious examination.

The conservative position is misleading, however, because it willfully ignores the essential natures of opposing educational philosophies -- undermining neutrality while purporting to achieve balance. Clearly, the goal of any educational system should be to produce intelligent, well-equipped students who possess the knowledge and abilities required for them to achieve success and become valuable citizens. The fundamental question in a democratic and deeply diverse society is how to most effectively and fairly achieve this goal. In point of fact, conservative critics who lament that "academia" generally embraces liberal ideals more readily could be correct. There is some evidence that universities and other centers of learning sometimes demonstrate left-leaning tendencies. There are several reasons, however, why the converse -- or even an increased focus on conservative values in the name of compensation -- is undesirable if one is to achieve legitimate educational goals.

The most salient argument is that a liberal educational philosophy generally values and seeks to expound as many differing viewpoints as possible while a conservative philosophy by definition must reject some ideas in order to preserve what are designated as vital principles. It is important to recognize that this observation is judgment neutral -- it says nothing about the actual value of the principles at issue or the importance of teaching those ideals to students. A conservative philosophy may, in fact, emphasize perfectly laudable concepts but it is dishonest not to acknowledge that a perspective focusing on conservation of values and beliefs is in tension with an appreciation for the inclusion of opposing ideas. One cannot conserve one way of thinking while expanding and incorporating novel concepts. The conservative model may be appropriate for some instances; for example, in a homogeneous society where core principles are universally shared and consistently rearticulated. It is woefully inadequate, however, for a fast-paced, dynamic, and heterogeneous nation composed of strikingly diverse citizens who hold infinitely varied views on almost every subject. Survival and success in such an environment is contingent on an ability to appreciate and understand beliefs that differ from one's own -- skills that are not gleaned from educational materials delimited by idiosyncratic perspectives.

Support for this analysis can be found in a brief review of several of the changes tentatively approved by the Texas School Board:

I. "A greater emphasis on the conservative resurgence of the 1980s and 1990s."

This directive would require more or better converage of conservative and antifeminist activisit Phyllis Schlafly, the Moral Majority, Newt Gingrich, etc. The School Board is correct that such information should be included in educational materials and given the appropriate weight. It is, after all, important that historical changes in political and social culture be accurately documented, preserved, and taught. "Greater emphasis" may be actually be required if the information from this period is not presented appropriately relative to other material. This, however, does not appear to be the case.

While pleasing to conservative persons, the 20-year span at issue is hardly an historical moment that inherently transcends other social and temporal periods. This is not the same as saying that important achievements were not made or that so-called 'liberal' eras should receive better treatment -- it is just as important to emphasize past conservative periods and to compare one brand of conservatism to another. The overall point is that students must learn to contrast and form their own conclusions, because both private and civic life will require that they do so. Designating such a brief time as especially important because some the prevailing political ideology compelling is simply misleading and irresponsible.

II. "Changes in specific terminology."

This suggestion would alter certain terms in order to introduce new connotations for traditional ideas. Examples include changing American "imperialism" to "expansionism," "capitalism" to "the free market," and "stressing favorable depictions of America's economic superiority across the board." Not only are these inventive alterations in many cases less precise, they are also patently unnecessary to serve any purpose other than blatant political manipulation. It is frankly wrong to implicitly deny points in history where American actions are accurately described by negative terminology -- especially when such labels are freely applied to similar actions by other countries. Without acknowledgment of its own errors no nation can learn, improve, and move forward.

Similarly, it is not the place of economics textbooks to extol the virtues of the American system over those of competing designs. It may be that the American economic system is superior and any commentator is certainly free to say so in articles, books, papers, blogs, etc. Textbooks, however, should strive to present information objectively and should never restrict information in an attempt to convey a "favorable impression." Obscuring legitimate criticisms of the American capitalist system is dishonest and perhaps even pointless. After all, if it truly is superior then presumably the benefits of capitalism will vastly outweigh the costs, leading students to reach the same desired conclusion without any need for deception.

III. Revision of the the legacy of the Founding Fathers.

Perhaps the most striking revision offering by the Texas School Board is the diminution of the importance of Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, as an important intellectual force behind the Revolution. Instead, textbooks would emphasize thinkers such as St. Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin, and William Blackstone. While these individuals certainly deserve consideration as important giants in philosophical and legal thought, it is hard not to take notice of the fact that preference is given to religious philosophers while more secular theorists (such as Jefferson, who was a Deist) are ignored. There are clear indications that the School Board is seeking to emphasize the "strict Christian beliefs" that guided the foundation of the country -- an assertion that serves a baldly political and religious purpose, takes great liberties with academic accuracy, and sharply divorces fact from historical context.

Moreover, that the aim of education should be restricted to secular instruction is too established to be questioned. The ultimate goal is not and cannot be religious or spiritual education; such tutelage is rightly reserved to the individual student's religious community (or in the case of a parochial school, special classes and periods that explicitly focus on religious principles). Attempting to mold students in a specific religious image violates the autonomy and rights of nearly all involved, and seeking to accomplish this end through the rewriting of textbooks and history is deplorable.

Education is an important building block of our society; it helps us to grow, improve, progress, and survive as a nation -- and as a people. Without honest, challenging educational programs, the future of any country is bleak. The prevailing international marketplace of competition and ideas demands the best and brightest and the United States certainly has the raw talent to satisfy this call. An honest education, however, usually means challenging personal views and studying a number of other possibly conflicting perspectives. This frankly would not be offered in an educational system slanted toward conservative, capitalist, Christian views -- regardless of how appealing one might find them. Self-imposed myopia and stubborn insistence on a narrow swath of personal beliefs simply is not good enough for our nation's children.

Citizens Are United

The Washington Post reports today that an overwhelming majority of the public are vehemently opposed to the recent Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Interestingly, this opposition appears to cut across partisan, economic, and cultural lines, as the Post notes that "[T]he poll shows remarkably strong agreement about the ruling across all demographic groups, and big majorities of those with household incomes above and below $50,000 alike oppose the decision. Age, race and education levels also appeared to have little relative bearing on the answers."

The decision has continued to spark disagreement and controversy since it was announced, with supporters hailing it as a victory for free speech and opponents calling for a constitutional amendment to correct what they see as a grave error. While talk of the "Senator from Wal-Mart" and the "Congressman from Bank of America" is certainly hyperbolic, the decision does raise very serious questions about the role that corporations should play in the national political sphere. These concerns are all the more salient today as the U.S. economy continues to stumble through a recovery -- a situation that, ironically, was triggered by irresponsible corporate actors who have already proven their talent for evading regulation.

While there are reasonable arguments to be made on both sides of this issue, the two most commonly offered in defense of the Citizens United are somewhat misleading. First, advocates for corporations lament that prior campaign finance restrictions limited their powers of "speech" far more stringently than other groups. This argument ignores the fact that numerous alternative outlets have always been available to corporations -- even under the stricter regulations that were struck down by the Court. For instance, corporations could easily sidestep restrictions by making contributions through a PAC, advertising outside of the limited blackout period, or simply switching to another type of media. More fundamentally, the argument that businesses should be accorded identical opportunities as other groups obscures the very real differences that distinguish these entities. As mentioned in a previous post,

"Non-profit organizations ... rely on a particular constituency composed of individuals with like-minded views. It is easier to trace the path of their contributions to individual citizens and to impute the purpose of political expression to these donors. [...] It is arguably more difficult to discern this important connection when it comes to corporations, which derive their spending power from profits and effective business models rather than direct contributions from individuals who share similar views."

Additionally,

"While the Court has ruled in the past that corporations are (for all intents and purposes) to be endowed with many of the rights and privileges of actual citizens, it seems problematic to offer them more flexibility in the area of politics. One could argue, for instance, that the executives, stock holders, employees, etc. who make up the corporation can simply exercise their rights to free speech individually or through non-profit organizations with which they agree. [...] Insulated from public opinion by practice and profit, those at the helms of large corporations would likely acquire greater influence in the political process -- a notion that is hard to reconcile with the idea of democratic self-governance by the people."

The second claim, even more prevalent than the first, is that this decision is really a boon to small corporations such as "every incorporated mom-and-pop falafel joint, local firefighters’ union, and environmental group" or, even more humorously, "Susie's Flower Shop." This argument is disingenuous because it completely ignores the budgetary realities that most small corporations encounter. It is much more likely -- especially in the midst of a difficult economic recovery -- that most "mom-and-pop" establishments will have neither the inclination nor the disposable income to effectively lobby the electorate. It is by no means certain that struggling small business owners will appropriate capital from other areas of their business to invest in political research, polling, or advertisements. In fact, it seems much more likely that such an undertaking will become the norm only for much larger businesses with deeper pockets.

It is an impermissible stretch of the truth to assert that small, locally owned and operated corporations will profit from this decision in the same way as, for example, Exxon Mobil (valued last year at approximately $375 billion). Even should small businesses wish to exercise their newfound clout, it can hardly be maintained that their influence would even come close to having the same effect as that of a massive conglomerate. Massive corporations, then, are a different story; they stand to gain much from Citizens United. Viewed in this light, the case hailed by Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) as a "1st Amendment triumph" could more accurately be described as a victory for large corporate entities -- and the politicians they support.

Gross Inequality

Today the New York State Senate killed a measure to grant marriage rights to same-sex couples. In a vote of 38-24, the state senate rejected a proposal that would have granted equality to a large population within New York and dashed the hopes of many loving couples. This bill, already passed twice by the Assembly, is dead for at least this year but is expected to brought forward again in the future.

Predictably, the main line of attack against granting same-sex marriage was religious in nature. Since no reputable medical, psychological, or economic organization has adduced any reasons why same-sex marriage should not be granted, this is perhaps the only available argument. As such, it bears scrutiny in the context of today's vote.

The opposition to the measure was led by Senator Ruben Diaz, Sr., a Pentacostal minister from New York City. In his opening remarks, Diaz implored legislators to "remember your values -- remember you stand for traditional values, family values, moral values." Such misplaced rhetoric is truly offensive and reveals Ruben's profound incapacity to understand the effects of his actions on the gay community. Nothing about same-sex marriage threatens family or morality. Thus, Ruben's comments are also disappointing because they continue his tragic trend of leveling baseless accusations and showing a distinct lack of compassion toward an minority seeking equal treatment. Richard Barnes, executive director of the New York State Catholic Conference, also commented, saying, “While the Catholic Church rejects unjust discrimination against homosexual men and women, there is no question that marriage by its nature is the union of one man and one woman.”

This unfortunate myopia demonstrates the duplicitous attempts of religious leaders to cast themselves as both opponents of gay marriage and as egalitarian defenders of the downtrodden. In reality, however, the church's continuing crusade against the gay community is better understood as clear and unequivocal discrimination. That the church believes it has strong reasons for its stance only offers an explanation for its position -- it does not change the fact the real effect of its actions is to derogate and subordinate gay people. The definition of discriminate is "to make an adverse distinction with regard to" or "to distinguish unfavourably from others." Declaring that one group is not entitled to the same rights as another -- or, for that matter, arguing that their lifestyle is inherently worthy of condemnation -- is clearly within this definition. For religious leaders to argue to the contrary is unambiguously and categorically false.

Rather, a more appropriate analysis would be to say that religious leaders believe that they have the right to discriminate -- a right that they claim is granted to them by their religious traditions (e.g. the Bible, the Quoran, etc.). The problem with this, of course, is that the history and Constitution of this nation overwhelmingly reject the notion that any group possesses some natural right to discriminate against another. The mandate of equality under the law is not modified or rescinded simply because the discussion turns to religion -- a fact that religious leaders themselves are quick to trumpet whenever their interests are threatened. When Congress recently passed legislation classifying violence related on sexual orientation as hate crimes, religious leaders voiced their displeasure over the mere possibility that their freedom of speech might be infringed.

Contrary to the claims of many religious leaders, the laws of the United States are not rooted in Christianity -- or, in fact, in any other particular religion. That religious dogma and civil laws sometimes possess similarities cannot be doubted, but this is more attributable to the historical evolution of moral and ethical thought rather than some inherent interdependence. The intellectual underpinnings of law such as theories of ethics, morality, and justice, often grew out of religious musings. This common origin, however, by no means gives religion a monopoly on moral or legal thought. In Reynolds v. United States, the Supreme Court stated that "to permit [bigamy based on a religious duty] would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself." Such a notion was firmly rejected by the court as inconsistent with the freedom and liberties granted to people of this nation, and it is equally inappropriate to maintain that religious beliefs should become the law of the land.

One should also hesitate to apply religious laws because -- even among the religious -- there is severe disagreement about everything from the correct teachings to the proper principles. People around the world subscribe to many different systems; Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism are but a few of the major faiths found throughout the globe. From Animists to Zoroastrians, each has different beliefs and values which are often unique. Even within each particular sect there is a wide spectrum of beliefs and practices. State Senator Eric Adams, a Brooklyn Democrat who supports same-sex marriage, stated, “When I walk through these doors, my Bible stays out." His beliefs are obviously quite different from those of many Christian fundamentalists -- even though they are based on the same compilation of writings and teachings. In fact, there are dozens of different translations of the Bible in the English language alone. Given the practice of carefully parsing the text of religious documents, even small differences in each version are likely have significant consequences. The diversity within the broad umbrella of religion is nothing short of astounding.

Yet many religious leaders maintain that the religious rules to which they adhere are the one true set of laws that should prevail. For instance, Rabbi Yisroel Dovid Weiss, who traveled to Albany before the vote on same-sex marriage, admonished the State Senate “that the world belongs to the Almighty, and [the Senators] have to reckon with his rules and his law.” When one realizes that such declarations are almost always followed by religious directives (Rabbi Weiss did not just leave and the legislators decide for themselves what the laws of the "Almighty" said to do), comments of this sort are reduced to little more that religious threats -- thinly veiled attempts to coerce democratically elected leaders into opposing propositions that do not conform with religious teachings.

But why is this a problem? Much of religion, after all, is concerned with commonly held values such as love, kindness, honesty, and reciprocity. Viewed in that light, it might seem beneficial to allow religion to shape our laws. Serious complications arise, however, because human beings are -- as recognized by most religions themselves -- imperfect. Human beings (a category that includes religious leaders) are susceptible to mistake, coercion, bigotry and a long list of other vices. Much of our history has been spent overcoming these shortfalls, a task that is nowhere near finished. Because the people who write, read, teach, and lead in religious circles are human, they are subject to the same fallibility as all other people.

Unfortunately, many people have a tendency to confuse the allegedly pure teachings of religion with the very human aspect -- granting some religious leaders broad powers that they are neither worthy nor capable of wielding. This situation has been seen throughout history, and has led to countless atrocities being committed in the name of the noblest purposes; an embarrassingly short summary includes the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, persecution of scientists, slavery, male chauvinism, the Salem witch trails, genocide, and opposition to interracial marriage.

In Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court case that recognized the right to marriage, even the trial judge who convicted the Lovings stated that, "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix." Furthermore, many argued that interracial unions were "evil" and "unnatural." This line of thinking has been born again today in the debate over same-sex marriage. More recently, the Pope claimed that condoms would actually exacerbate the HIV/AIDS crisis in Africa -- a shockingly irresponsible move that quite literally puts thousands of lives at risk and promotes the spread of a devastating disease.

None of this is to say that religion is inherently bad -- it most certainly is not. A humble, honest, and reverential search for spiritual or divine meaning can certainly enrich the life of the seeker (and perhaps the lives of others) in myriad ways. Yet while religion certainly has many valuable aspects, ignoring its shortcomings and denying that commonplace religious doctrine can be wrong or misinterpreted can also be extremely harmful. We should bear in mind the dangers of refusing to think about religion. Tradition and custom are powerful forces in society, and they have helped us to maintain many practices which are beneficial. They have also, however, been the historical vehicle through which to oppress minorities. Our Founding Fathers built a country consecrated to liberty, not religion, and we would do well to observe the safeguards that they put in place -- measures meant to guard against the unfair concentration of power and to prevent the formation of a monarchy, autocracy, or theocracy.

The Rule of Law

Today Governor David Paterson criticized the decision to try Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and four other accused 9/11 hijackers in Manhattan federal court. The decision, which was announced on Friday by U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, has ignited a fierce debate that questions the appropriate role of the law in in the struggle against terrorism -- and in American society itself.

Conservatives and Republican politicians have derided the move as a political maneuver that threatens national security and increases the possibility that the accused terrorists will go free. Most Democrats and supporters drawn from the ranks of organizations such as the ACLU have praised the decision as a triumph for the rule of law and American justice. The families of victims of the 9/11 tragedy have expressed conflicting opinions, with some welcoming and others disparaging the plan to try the detainees in New York. Despite the contentious debate, all of the vociferous parties in this debate agree on many central issues; no one has expressed serious doubts about the culpability of the detainees, nor has anyone suggested that they should not be made to answer for their crimes. Both sides also acknowledge that the alternative (trying the detainees in military commissions) affords the accused individuals fewer rights and procedural protections.

Interestingly, the controversy surrounding AG Holder's decision does not seem to stem from concerns about security or the threat of terrorist attack. While some conservatives have suggested that civilian trials will increase the threat to the nation, a recent poll showed that, though most Americans did opt for trials by military commissions, a majority felt that the detainees should still be brought to the United States. Statements like those of Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-MI), which allege that bringing the accused terrorists to Manhattan raises the risk of further attacks, thus seem to be off-target with respect to the concerns of the American public. Moreover, there is little evidence to support such claims. While this trial has certainly caught the attention of the media, Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) has pointed out that numerous terrorism suspects have already been successfully prosecuted in civilian courts -- many under the Bush Administration.

The debate actually appears to grow out of a fundamental disagreement over the very propriety of determining the detainees' guilt in American courts. Former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani has claimed that the "choice of New York is a better choice for the terrorists" and that the government is "giv[ing] the terrorists a better choice than [it's] giving the public," but the justification for these statements is not exactly clear. As Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) has argued, “Any suggestion that [Manhattan's] prosecutors and law enforcement personnel are not up to the task of safely holding and successfully prosecuting terrorists on American soil is insulting and untrue.” It seems safe to say that many Americans would agree -- that the prestigious U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York is more than capable of delivering justice for the victims, their families, and the nation as a whole. Why, then, are many so resistant to the decision to try the detainees in American courts?

Perhaps the animus of the opposition is best captured in the words of Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH). Senator Gregg has called the detainees "evil people," arguing that "they represent a cause which wants to destroy this nation. [. . .] There's no reason we should have them in the criminal justice system." This sentiment is in fact quite shocking when one considers the rich history and pedigree of the American legal system. Our Constitution promotes the rule of law by guaranteeing essential rights that protect people from wanton discrimination, persecution, and tyranny. The document itself was born from the struggles of an oppressed and disenfranchised group who found the courage and fortitude to build a government that would breathe life into moral ideals such as liberty and freedom, creating a nation that was "of the people, by the people, for the people." The rule of law, however, is meaningless if not applied equally.

The United States has learned -- and continues to learn -- from painful civil rights struggles that liberty and equality cannot be separated. From the persecution of Native Americans to the institution of slavery to the fight for gay rights, our nation is faced with grim reminders and difficult challenges that highlight the importance of equality under the law. This principle is so entrenched in our history, in our identity, and in our jurisprudence that it cannot and should not be suspended even for the most detestable of human beings. The military commissions begun by the Bush Administration ignore many of the rules that most Americans hold inviolate -- protections that have grown out of centuries of thoughtful legal evolution. They are not to be dismissed lightly (if at all), and it is exceedingly dangerous to allow them to be rescinded by the government simply because the accused is especially despised.

The principles and protections afforded by American courts are envied and emulated around the world because they confer upon the accused the dignity and respect that are inseparable from the human condition. The American legal system embraces the concept (in principle if not always in practice) that every individual is entitled to just treatment. The persons responsible for the 9/11 attacks are indeed reprehensible individuals, but that does not mean that they should be placed in a special category or denied equal justice under the law. The ideals enshrined in the Constitution are not intended only as protections for the accused, but for society as well. After all, using hate as a justification to abandon the commitment to the pursuit of justice leaves only revenge as a remedy -- a course that simply moves us closer to our adversaries.

Fallen Heroes

My sincerest condolences go out to the friends and families of the soldiers from Fort Hood. It is my solemn hope that they will soon find both answers and closure. May the victims of this terrible tragedy rest in peace.

Photo Source: http://www.nytimes.com

Reading, Writing, Religion?

Today the Orange County Register carried an update to an ongoing legal battle over comments concerning religion that were made by a public school teacher. Apparently Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of the UC-Irvine School of Law and a famous constitutional scholar, will be joining the defense team for James Corbett, the teacher who recently lost his case on summary judgment. At issue is a comment that Corbett made concerning creationism, namely that it was "religious, superstitious nonsense." Both Corbett and Chad Farnan, the student who brought the suit, have appealed to the 9th Circuit.

The case invokes many of the standard arguments that one would expect to see in an issue of this type -- alleged infringement of the establishment clause, offense to the freedom of religion, and transcendance of the permissible bounds of free speech. Predictably, the plaintiff has asserted that Corbett's condemnation of creationism violates the right of students to be free from government hostility toward religion. The basic assumption of the plaintiff is, as Farnan's mother puts it, that "any student should be able to sit in the classroom without having their beliefs attacked." This, of course, is true. No student should ever feel unjustly persecuted for beliefs that he or she holds, and it is well established that the Constitution offers significant protections in this area. What is not clear from the case (or in general) is where one should draw the line between derogating and merely challenging beliefs.

The distinction is important. Our constitutional rights are vital to the preservation of a free society, yet without challenging students to think critically about the world and their own ideology education is little more than a waste of time and resources. A proper balance must be found between these two concerns. On one hand, too much deference to religious beliefs effectively violates the rights of others to free expression and catastrophically inhibits the ability of society to meaningfully engage in constructive discourse. Conversely, too little emphasis on preserving the right of individuals to be free from persecution predicated on their beliefs undermines the notions of liberty and equality -- the foundations of our democratic society. It is very unlikely that this tension can be easily resolved, and it is no wonder that legislatures, courts, and individuals continue to struggle with this question.


Balancing the public interest in the free exchange of ideas against the right of individuals to be free from governmental oppression is difficult, but a genuine balance must be found. Forbidding a teacher from advancing a negative view of creationism is dangerous, because it seems to provide too much deference to religious rights. Why, for instance, should Corbett be prohibited from describing creationism as "superstitious" when (as a history teacher) he is perfectly free to characterize the beliefs of ancient civilizations in the same manner? It is certainly doubtful that such indignant objections would be raised were Corbett to express skepticism that the world was created by the Titans of Greek mythology. Creationism is not distinguished by the presence of convincing proof -- indeed it cannot be proven. The only apparent distinction is that creationism is a Judeo-Christian account of the origin of the world rather than a Norse, Celtic, Egyptian, or Aztec explanation. Why does belief in that particular idea trigger constitutional protection?

While it is vital that constitutional rights be vindicated, it is also important to remember that, in a democratic society, personal religious tenets do not take precedence over our shared political and philosophical ideals. Most religious figures will argue that religion coexists with these values because the fundamental concepts are the same. This is not a completely truthful response, however. Religion does tolerate concepts that are compatible with its dogma, but this is the not the same as saying that democratic values and religious values are the same. After all, it cannot honestly be said that the equality in religion and equality in society are the same. For example, in both Christianity and Islam women occupy distinctly different and unequal doctrinal places -- possessing different rights, responsibilities, and privileges. Without passing judgment on those determinations in the religious sphere, it is not difficult to say that such an overt disparity in everyday United States culture would be considered intolerable.


Obviously there are boundaries that, when crossed, indicate unfair treatment of those with a specific set of beliefs. Other alleged statements by Corbett, such as "Religion was invented when the first con man met the first fool," would certainly seem to fall into this category. This statement goes beyond expressing doubt or inviting students to critically examine an idea; it is unnecessarily acerbic and strongly condemns a system that is likely to be intimately tied to valued beliefs and experiences. It is difficult to see, however, how describing creationism as religious superstition or even nonsensical rises to this level of offense. If conservatives and religious fundamentalists are permitted to cast aspersions on the theory of evolution, why cannot the opposition respond in kind?


Another example is provided by the very group representing Farnan in his suit. The Advocates for Faith and Freedom also argue strenuously against granting equal rights to gay men and women. This position is based on the religious beliefs of the group regarding gender and sexuality, and it is consonant with their particular, strictly tailored, narrow definition of equality. This group is contesting the validity of according a fundamental right to an entire group of people. Similar organizations even contest measures that protect gay men and women against violence and murder on the groups that it might hinder religious speech. Were it not so hypocritical, the fact that Advocates resents such a passive challenge would be downright comical.


Though Farnan's mother stated that her son "had to leave a class that could have helped him get into college," it is unclear what necessitated such drastic action. Corbett's comment (at least the one concerning creationism, which is the current focus of litigation) is not nearly so offensive as to amount to religious persecution. Rather, it is the frank -- though perhaps blunt -- appraisal of a religious theory that is supported by no substantive proof. Discrimination of any sort is unacceptable, but an oversensitivity to legitimate challenges to a system of belief destroys free expression and renders any education meaningless.

Victimized (Twice)

The Chicago Tribune and the ABA Journal carried a disturbing story from Illinois today. Kathy Cleaves-Milan and her 9 year old daughter were apparently evicted from their apartment by Aimco, the company that owns and operates her Elmhurst housing complex. According to a company spokesperson, the reasons for their eviction were the violation of a "zero-tolerance" policy toward criminal activity in the housing community and questions about Cleaves-Milan's ability to make her rent payments.

There is much more to this story, however. The "criminal activity" that spawned the eviction was in fact a domestic violence incident in which Cleaves-Milan's armed husband threatened to kill her. She sought and obtained an order of protection against him, but this action was unexpectedly turned against her when Aimco used it as a basis for her eviction -- even going so far as to include a copy of the protection order "stapled to the eviction notice that terminated her lease." The concern about her inability to pay rent also stemmed from this incident. The company questioned whether Cleaves-Milan had sufficient income without the assistance of her husband, a capacity she asserts she could easily prove. The article goes on to note that, unlike in other states that have legislation protecting victims of domestic abuse, such deplorable business practice is permissible in Illinois until a new amendment to the Human Rights Act takes effect in 2010. With help from the Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law and Reed Smith, Cleaves-Milan has filed suit over the eviction claiming sex discrimination.

It is not difficult to see why the actions by Aimco are cause for alarm. The intent of the policy -- to keep residents safe by quickly weeding out problem tenants -- is not itself problematic; rather, it is the inexplicable application of the policy in this case that raises serious issues. Cleaves-Milan herself committed no violation and the situation was completely beyond her control. Moreover, the order of protection had already obviated the need to enforce the policy as the offending party could not return to the premises.

Yet perhaps the most disconcerting element of this case is the perverse message that the company's actions send to victims of crimes. First, by indiscriminately evicting tenants without regard to whether they were the victim or the perpetrator, the company eliminates the tenants' incentive to notify the authorities when they are in danger or when a crime has been committed. As Sandra Park of the ACLU Women's Rights Project noted, "It forces women into a situation where they have to choose between reaching out for safety or staying in their homes."

This policy also severely limits the resources available to victims of domestic violence at precisely the point when they need the most assistance. Victims of crimes need access to proper legal channels, support to enable them to seek help, and often therapy and other services to help them to recover from the trauma of the experience. These resources are especially important in cases of domestic violence, where the offender is usually a person the victim had known and trusted. The policy enforced by Aimco achieves the opposite result; it severely limits the options available to victims and may force them to make decisions that are not in their best interest but which are unavoidable under the circumstances. That danger is especially apparent in this case, as Cleaves-Milan and her daughter were forced to take "temporary refuge" at her husband's former home after their eviction.

Finally, in what can only be described as despicable, Aimco sent Cleaves-Milan a bill for $3,800 that it claimed she owed due to the "early termination of her lease." When the Chicago Tribune inquired about this fee, the company decided to drop it. How kind.