Academic Freedom Act (the Act)
Questions and Answers (Q&A)

Q. Isn’t the Act a reversion back to the days of the infamous Scopes Trial?
A. The Scopes Trial of 1925 was over a teacher’s academic freedom to teach controversial scientific ideas instead of only the one indorsed by the state. This Act is asking for that exact same freedom to be protected again, only this time it is evolution that is allowed, and all other views are suppressed.

Q: Could some teachers take liberty to teach religion based on the Act?
A: The Act does not give teachers the right to bring up subjects outside the curriculum, just to present balanced views on required subjects, and the subject is science. The evidence presented is only protected if it is “scientific information” about “scientific views.”

Q: Could introducing other materials and views take precious time away from required materials?
A. Part A of the Act specifically says that inserting new materials and ideas is only protected “provided that the subject matter has been taught” first.

Q: Will this Act legalize the presentation of Creationism in science classes?
A: The act will not legalize the use of any religious materials as the basis of an argument for a scientific view. Still, “scientific views” based on “scientific information” may lend themselves to various religious interpretations, whether or not they are in the assigned materials. This is deemed irrelevant by Part 3 of the Act.

Q: Could teachers use the Act to introduce objectionable viewpoints, such as might pertain to sex, racism, or radical political or religious views?
A: Whatever the viewpoints, they are only protected if they can be considered to be “scientific views,” based on “scientific information,” and “appropriate to the grade and subject assignment.” If they are propaganda, then the restriction of scientific support should be sufficiently constraining.

Q: Don’t teachers already have the right to supplement their curriculum with current news and other outside materials?
A. Yes, they do, and administrators have the “right” to stop them through various means listed in the Act. There is very little problem with teachers presenting any such materials on other subjects, but a disproportionate amount of restriction on the scientific subjects of origins.

Q. Could the Act unduly tie the hands of school administrators over an area for which they are directly responsible?
A. School administrators have a difficult job, which not only includes oversight of course content, but also funding and public image. No school administrator can afford to take lightly the threat of a lawsuit, so they are in a difficult place when challenged about classroom content. Even if they personally see nothing wrong with the way a teacher is handling their classroom and want to encourage classroom participation, school administrators would be hard pressed to allow a teacher to continue any practice under threat of the school being sued. This Act removes the lawsuit threat from administrators by taking the issue off their desks in this one most controversial area.

Q. Shouldn’t courts decide such matters?
A. If a case of teacher discrimination were to come to court based on content, it would be better for judges to have a specific law upon which to derive their decision than to have to hand down a decision in the absence of law.

Q. Could a teacher go off onto extraneous subjects due to this Act?
A. The Act gives no license to present subject matter except “appropriate to the grade and subject assignment.”

Q. What if a teacher does not wish to teach ideas outside of the text book?
A. Teachers not wishing to incorporate materials beyond the assigned text would be unaffected by the Act.

Q. With the Act in place, could a student refuse to learn what a teacher assigns?
A. Teachers would retain the right to require students to have “understanding of course materials.” Student protection pertains only to what the student chooses to believe, not what they choose to know.

Q. Would the Act take away a teacher’s ability to control class discussion?
A. A teacher would still be able to restrict class discussion, term paper topics, and any other assignments and content, just as without the Act. Students are allowed to “subscribe to” their views, not to speak their views.

Q: Could a teacher use this Act to require a student to learn material outside of the curriculum?
A: A teacher is only protected by the Act for presenting material pertaining to origins and relevant to the “subject assignment.”

Q: How would the Act affect an employment-at-will state?
A: The employment-at-will doctrine allows dismissal of an employee for any or no reason at all. This gives employers the right to dismiss employees, in this case, teachers, for any reason, unless that reason is specifically stated in a law. The Act would restrict termination based on teaching this specific content when “appropriate to the grade and subject assignment.”

Q: Shouldn’t the State Board of Education be making these decisions for K-12 schools?
A: The Act does not affect a State Board’s prerogative to require certain content of teachers in K-12 classrooms. It is rare for a Board to specify that certain content not be taught. If a Board were to add or restrict content pertaining to biological, chemical or cosmological origins, it may be opening itself up to lawsuit, with or without the Act in place. Several state school boards have enacted policies that protect academic freedom in science with the result that the next elected board reversed the protection. The only permanent fix is to enact a law on the state or federal level.

Q. Won’t students be confused by introducing them to non-mainstream ideas of science?
A. Students need to be taught to think critically and draw conclusions for themselves. If they never hear of the controversies that actual scientists deal with, how can they contribute to the advance of science? Science advances by questioning, and democracy is preserved by citizens who can handle competing ideas.

Q. Couldn’t a state agency be sued for complying with the Act?
A. School Boards can and have been sued for the way they handled related issues, but this approach avoids the threat of suit.  No entities need fear suit for complying with a law. The worst case scenario would be that the law itself be declared unconstitutional, which would not put at risk any entity acting within the law before such a decision.

Q. Other laws have been passed on this subject and then declared unconstitutional by the courts. Why should this one be any different?
A. Other state laws and educational agencies have pursued one of two tracks. One has been to restrict the teaching of evolution. Restricting the dominant scientific view of origins seriously limits science education and the thwarts expectations for higher education applicants. The other has been to require the teaching of alternative views, typically framed on religious reasons. This introduces religion into the equation, and also usurps the authority of state education agencies. The proposed Act takes neither approach, but simply protects the open discussion of science for teachers who individually choose to use it.

Q. Would the Act only be useful if passed on a federal level?
A. No. the phrase “which receives Federal financial assistance” is included in Part A simply to clarify what the Act means by “public” schools. The same phrase could be included in a state version, or “State financial assistance” could be substituted. Several state legislatures have in fact begun moving on the Act.

Q. Can Part 3’s mention of “religion of non-religion” be taken to indorse the concept that some scientific views can be devoid of religion while others are not?
A. No. The term is included in case some interpreters of the Act consider such a polarity to exist. They might interpret the omission of the term “non-religion” as exemption from coverage for certain ideas they hold as “non-religion.”