...in education, but only if it's really a valid and worthwhile course. The text of the email and the title of the original course would suggest otherwise.
I know it's a day late, but today's paper (KC Star) printed this, which is an excerpt from the email:
"The fundies want it all taught in a science class," Mirecki wrote in the e-mail. "But this will be a nice slap in their big, fat face by teaching it as a religious studies class under the category 'mythology.'"
The course's original title: "Special Topics in religion: Intelligent Design, Creationism and other Religious Mythologies." It's since been changed, under pressure, to: "Special Topics in religion: Intelligent Design, Creationism."
I think the statement he and, by proxy, the school was making by creating this class is pretty clear. Why is it okay for the college to use our tax dollars to create blatantly anti-religious religious classes over the objections of religious folk, but it's not okay for the BoE to recommend putting anti-science curriculum in state schools? Or I could turn the question around and ask why controversy is wrong when the BoE wants to insert ID into science classes in order to slap the scientific community in the face, but it's okay when KU's Mirecki wants to do the same to the "fundies"?
Again, my answer is that neither scenario is appropriate. When you politicize your education curriculum, you lose your ability to educate by automatically inserting polarity into your objectivity...or the perception of your objectivty, at least.
|
