The Board of Education for the Rio Rancho Public Schools will decide tonight whether to keep Policy 401 on science education in the district manual.

Here is a transcript, edited only to eliminate redundancy and incomplete fragments we all use in our daily conversation, of the board’s discussion on the issue at its last meeting on Nov. xx.

Board vice president Marty Scharfglass was absent due to a family member, but the other four members – President Linda Cour, Secretary Margaret Terry and members Don Schlichte and Divyesh Patel - participated in the discussion, as sid Superintendent Sue Cleveland.

Cour: So since this is the first reading, I will open the floor to discussion. I do have a few comments. Marty (Scharfglass) called me and he has a family emergency and he had a few thoughts he wanted me to share with the board.

Patel: I’d like to start by saying that Policy 401, and a reading of the policy as it exists today as it exists in our policy manual, is redundant. The state is already dictating these things from the public education department. So I think that 401 is going to fall. It’s redundant. People have argued about critical thinking. We need critical thinking in all subjects, not just in science. That is the essence of education. I don’t disagree with people challenging any particular belief system or any particular theory or hypothesis or action that you start with. But restricting it to science for this particular policy – it just adds redundancy. We don’t need this redundancy and my feeling it should be done away with.

Terry: There has been no doubt about how I feel about 401, and I haven’t changed my mind. I don’t see a need for it. I still don’t see a need for it.

Cour: Do you want me to ready Marty’s (comments)?

Schlichte: Yes, go ahead.

Cour: This is what Marty asked me to share. I kind of read it back to him, so I think I captured his thoughts. He says that the policy speaks for itself. Then he goes on to say, “If you are able to read the state regs (regulations) – if you’re able to interpret the state regs to state that the science curriculum should allow for discourse, hen there wouldn’t be a need for this policy. However, he says, this is not the way things are being done. They do not allow for disagreement and are teaching evolution as fact. The policy is necessary to ensure that disagreements can and should be discussed. He sates that the policy is not hurting anybody. It’s there for student’s educational opportunities. He says we haven’t at this point told teachers how to implement the policy and it’s just simply a framework for including the dialogue. That’s pretty much what he wanted me to share and he will be here for the next reading.

Schlichte: On some levels, Divyesh, I agree the policy as currently written is somewhat toothless, even for what we desired and tried to accomplish. And that’s to guarantee, if we can under current New Mexico law which says we must teach Darwinian naturalism or evolution or naturalism as it is in our text books and so forth. But because, in my understanding, approximately half the population doesn’t agree with the evolutionary conclusion – maybe the science community does percentage-wise of professors, even though here are hundreds of professors in New Mexico who don’t agree with that conclusion, that half the population doesn’t agree with that conclusion – our desire was to encourage allowing that discussion. New Mexico, I believe has made a mistake at the state level to mandate that teaching when thee is so much debate about it still. None the less, that is what the law is. But within that, can the district still have a policy that encourages critical thinking, this questioning of what is sated to be a theory? Half of our population doesn’t agree with the theory. So that is what was behind it.

So I concur on some levels that it was an attempt to ensure that was allowed to happen. Because frankly there is a degree of intimidation in our culture and in our society for those who don’t agree with Darwinian evolution. So that was the desire of the policy.

We also admitted, when we proposed the policy two years ago, that we made a mistake not approaching and working with the staff. It’s a desire of accomplishing those ends of making sure that within the confines of New Mexico law that voices are able to be heard, debate is able to occur, critical thinking can happen – not be suppressed by staff or students. I don’t know that the policy necessarily does that at this stage. But my concern is that the elimination of the policy – I wouldn’t want that to eliminate the discussion about are we allowing this kind of debate and discussion in our classrooms.

So that’s where I’m at. I agree with you on some levels, but on other levels we face concerns there.

Terry: When it comes to critical thinking we need it in every area of life, not just biology. It’s just how people proceed. I just don’t see this in a biology class. Maybe in a philosophy class they can have this critical thinking, they can have this discussion, but I just don’t think it’s for one class.

Patel: This is my first term on the board. I’m an applied scientist. I’m an engineer by training. I’ve studies science. You talk about half the people as far as a statistical poll, but if you go on a global level more than 99 percent of scientists vehemently agree that Darwinian Theory is a proven scientific fact. It was a theory, but it is a theory that has been proven time and again at a scientific and molecular DNA level. We can go through the proof, et cetera.

My essential objection is that critical thinking is required at every level. I definitely encourage that. But when we give them the confines of science, of biology, we should stick to established facts that have been proven. If you can take the discourse of questioning other things – comparative religion, philosophy or any other class – I would not object to it. Under science, I think it places a lot of burden on the teachers to deal with that without sticking to proven facts that we know in science.

Schlichte: But Divyesh, that’s inherently at the core of the debate – that I don’t agree with what you just said. And many other scientists don’t agree that evolution is an established fact. It’s a theory, yes. But just because 90 percent or 99 percent or 89 or whatever the percentage is say it’s so doesn’t make it so. You have to agree with that – it doesn’t make it so. And that’s at the core of the concern. It’s not an established fact. It’s still a theory, especially when you’re talking about origins and the development of life. That is the core of the discussion.

Patel: So where does it belong? We agree that critical thinking belongs in every course. The question is: Is it in science, or is it in philosophy, or is it in comparative religion or what have you? That is the bone of contention.

Schlichte: A university is a place where you are supposed to bring the various disciplines, the diversity of the disciplines, together under one university. It’s a mistake to separate the disciplines out totally, which I understand we have to do on some levels. But it’s not how life really works. So it is already in our curriculum. It’s been placed there – the discussion of origins has been placed there – by the science department. As long as it’s there, it seems like it has to be open for some level of discourse and discussion and critical thinking.

To say it’s just a philosophical thing, just a religious thing, is not accurate on how life works in general. We don’t live in separate entities. They work together in complementary (ways). So I understand what you’re saying, but I disagree. If you’re going to address the topic at all – and I believe our science classes and chapters on evolution do – at that point it only seems fair to allow for the discussion, to allow for the alternative interpretation of the data.

I probably interpret the data differently than you do. And to allow for that discussion – again, the base of the premises is that it is not a fact. And many scientists and a lot of our population don’t believe it is a proven fact. So if you’re going to teach that topic in our science class, our point is open it up. It’s not dictating how that is done. It was an attempt to try to ensure, since there is a lot of question about the data and the interpretation of the data -- which is what it’s all about, -- to allow that discussion, that diverse interpretation to go on under the New Mexico law.

Terry: You know what concerns me Don is that we have qualified science teachers. Are they qualified to teach intelligent design?

Schlichte: It’s a misnomer. It never was an intelligent design policy. It’s been said it was. We’re just encouraging (that) there are alternative interpretations of the data concerning origins and the development of life. We’re not saying you have to teach intelligent design. That’s not the point.

The data, for many of us, points to a creator/intelligent designer, yes. And that’s why we have a population that (questions) what we  teach in the schools.

Because the data points them, it doesn’t mean you have to teach intelligent design. That’s not the point. The point of the policy was to try to encourage and allow discussion, critical thinking (and) alternative interpretations of the data. There was no intent to ever teach intelligent design. It still isn’t.  

Patel: If you show a set of data to a trained eye, there is a certain way you discern a pattern or deductions you make out of it. What we’re trying to say is that the majority of the scientists in the world have a certain way of looking at data in a logical rational fashion.

Schlichte: Well wait …

Patel: You always allow (inaudible).

Schlichte: Before you go on, when you say logical and rational and majority, it seems like you’re inferring that others who interpret the data differently are not logical or rational.

Patel: Well, it’s based on certain axioms and proven facts plus everything you can use from …

Schlichte: That’s the core of the debate. There’s not agreement. You’re stating that my position is not rational or logical, and I believe it is. And many others and scientists believe it is. Now I agree, I concur with you; my understanding is that a majority of scientists, a majority of professors and a majority of our teachers probably agree with Darwinian Evolution. I understand that.

Patel: An overwhelming majority.

Schlichte: Whether it is (or isn’t), I also know I can bring in scientists who are PhDs who have the same data and have gone through the same educational system that you have and everybody else has, and absolutely disagree with the interpretation of the data. So I understand that I am in the minority. But that’s the point: Is that allowed? That’s what I’m seeking. Is that allowed? Is that discussion allowed in our classrooms?

Terry: You know Don, even if we get rid of 401, it’s still in the state standards and benchmarks – verbatim. This is just another piece of paper that says the exact same thing that the state standards and benchmarks say. Why do we need them both?

Patel: And why have all of this … it’s semantics.

Schlichte: Frankly, Divyesh, the reason is we’re swimming uphill as the minority. And also, and I don’t have time to go into this, but people are afraid of this topic of the separation of church and state, which I personally believe the Supreme Court has ruled inappropriately on that. They’ve reinterpreted the original intent of that amendment. But that’s what the law is currently. As a result, we’re the minority swimming upstream on this and I would like to see us just have the opportunity for students and staff to ask the questions, be critical thinkers and (have the opportunity) to interpret the data differently. That’s what this is. And 401 is toothless in that sense, but the reaction to it shows the minority swimming upstream, and if it doesn’t accomplish that task, maybe some of the wording doesn’t, maybe the policy doesn’t. I’m not sure, Margaret, this is the best way to go about it. Maybe there is something else. I understand that state law mandates this, and I understand we’re in the minority. But it does not seem to me to be fair or intellectually honest or good critical thinking to not allow the discussion.

Patel: We are not opponents of critical thinking. It’s just that it has certain – in science, you’re expected to be scientists, which is based on factual observation and theories that have been verified. A theory by itself does not mean it hasn’t been verified. This has been proven time and over again, as are many other theories in the world.

Of course with revision, as Mr. Oppenheimer noted (in public testimony prior to the discussion), when you gain new knowledge and you have new insights, you make modifications to explain the phenomenon. We’re just saying there is a place for it in a different academic setting where you are free to challenge anything and express your point of view. We just put less burden on science because they have enough things to do teaching science by sticking to known established facts and factual data.

Schlichte: That’s just the core of the debate. I don’t think what we’re teaching is fact. I think it’s theory, and I think it’s sometimes presented as fact. Even your own statements tonight indicate that you think it’s fact. That’s what I heard you say.

Patel: I believe it, yes.

Schlichte: O.K. That’s at the ore of the debate, Divyesh. Many scientists and citizens don’t believe the interpretation of that data is a fact.

Patel: In the Rio Rancho school board of education we don’t have the (inaudible) to look at each and every theory to see if there is an iota of doubt so we have to have that debate, that discussion. In every area you can find some assumption that you can challenge. We’re just trying to make sure the basic science that we need to teach, that we get on with that. There are other avenues where we can encourage critical thinking in areas where people have different opinions.

Schlichte: I understand what you are saying, and concur. That’s why in this area – and this is a fundamental difference between you and I at this stage – you interpret that theory as fact. I and others do not. So that’s at the core of our difference. 

I understand that state law requi4res we teach Darwinian evolution at this stage. I understand that. But can Rio Rancho, being a cutting-edge district, have a policy that encourages critical thinking about what you consider a fact and many others don’t? Can we allow that? Can we encourage that on a policy level? That was the desire for the policy. It wasn’t to teach intelligent design. It was really for that, because of the basic nature.

You and I disagree. And at that time, our board concurred basically. Now the majority changes, and so be it. But that was at the ore of the debate and the core of the difference.

Terry: We have a great high school. I can’t imagine one teacher at the high school who is no encouraging critical thinking in all the classes. I really can’t. I can’t imagine somebody cutting off a child.

Schlichte: I don’t really know that Margaret. This is obviously somewhat of an emotional topic for lots of people. It’s a religious topic for a lot of people. It has implications for that. So it gets pretty hairy. But that was the desire of the policy. So …

(Silence).

Cour: Well …

(Nervous laughter)
Cour: I’ve got visual aids.

Terry (laughing): You’ve got a novel.

Cour: I’m not a scientist, so I did research. And this is what I did the last time we had this debate. I’m not going to rehash that. I think you have done a great job of that.

For me, I agree with both of you on several issues. Critical thinking, which is incredibly important – critically important. And I believe it is important in every single class, from your core classes to your elective classes. And I think that our high school does a great job of doing that, and I have evidence of that from my two sons and how well they’re doing in higher education and in just general conversation.

I also know that he science curriculum requires that shall understand that reasonable people disagree about some issues that are of interest to both science and religion, for example the origin of life on earth. That’s required by the state. And for a science teacher to not abide by that, they would not be following the curriculum.

My concern about this policy is that it does is put our science department under a microscope, to use a scientific term. We’re not doing that with any other departments. We’re not doing that with the math department. We’re not doing that with the English department, or the history department to make sure they teach this part of history or a part of history that maybe some people disagree about. We trust that’s what they are doing, following the state curriculum and the district curriculum.

From where I sit, with 11½ years on the board and even more years as a parent of a student in the district, I trust that the science department is going to follow the state standards and the district standards. And so I do see the redundancy in having a policy that basically puts them on notice that we’re going to be really watching you. The rest, not so much, but we’re really going to be watching you. That’s my concern with this policy.

My though is if we have an example of a teacher not following the state standards, then we bring that teacher in. I sat in on a debate in a classroom, and I cannot for the life of me remember the teacher’s name. It was a male teacher, and he had debates. And the kids had a very lively debate on the origins of life, and they were going back and forth. There were kids who agreed and disagreed. It was religious and it was evolution and it was everything all mixed up and it was very lively, and I was educated in that classroom. So I do believe that our teachers are allowing that.

But yes, I think that the emphasis is on evolution because that is what the state standards also require. Reasonable people may disagree, and I think our teachers allow for that.

So that’s where I kind of stand on it. And we do also have policies for – we have Policy 354, which allows for student freedom of expression, so a student is allowed to bring up in a classroom, within context, their disagreements; there is Policy 426, which is discussion of controversial issues; and there is Policy 430, which is controversial methods and issues. And these all allow for a lively discussion of disagreeing points of view.

I’m not a scientist. I was raised by a scientist but that doesn’t mean I’ve retained any of it. (Laughter). I know about osmosis, but it didn’t work in my brain.

So that’s where I stand. This is a first reading.  (Turning to Superintendent Sue Cleveland) Did you have anything you wanted to add?

Cleveland: Most everything that has been said has been said a lot of different times. We have some conflicts between two different Constitutional principles, and my feeling is that this eventually will be resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court. I believe it will be. There are still some cases making their way through (the system).

You have some very strong beliefs about separation of church and state. You certainly have a very strong tradition of respecting people’s rights to differ, and to do that in a safe environment. And the Supreme Court has said, very clearly, that a student’s right to free speech does not end at the classroom door. And so you have a very strong U.S. Supreme Court decision about students having the right to disagree.

On the other hand, you also have some court decisions that support that (discussions) can’t be disruptive, nor can they interfere with the covering of the content that is necessary. So there are a lot of issues surrounding this situation. I don’t think it’s going to get resolved in Rio Rancho. I think it is eventually going to get resolved at the Supreme Court level.

But I think there are hose opposing constitutional issues that are at the heart of this discussion.

One other short thing: I think our attorney would say that this policy does interesting things in different ways. One is what the policy says, and is what people think the policy says, and then it’s what people fear and where the policy will take us. And that’s what’s an interesting part of this policy. You usually don’t have that with a policy. They’re pretty clear cut and that’s it.

I think we have honest disagreements, strongly held beliefs and disagreements on this, and it’s very clear the policy does not promote the teaching of intelligent design. But there are concerns people have about the policy as far as redundancy and where it might be leading.

This is a first reading. There can be no action taken. It will be open for discussion and public comment at the next board meeting.