This post responds to comments on the entry entitled On The Origins of Speciousness.
I appreciate the comments by MM and Bill Burris re science and religion. They include precisely the point I have been making — Science and religion constitute two separate and distinct tracks viewing the world. While there is intersection where a religious view may differ from a scientific perspective the question is "what is the topic?".
Schools and teachers are mandated to teach the curriculum. Bill 44 is not about parents getting to choose to look at science (including evolution) or any other subject through a religious view point and declared that it "deals explicitly with religion" therefore a choice to be excluded. Any parent who views the whole world in that way is free to choose an alternate form of education for their children. There is no requirement to inform or option to opt out of science because of a religious belief in creationism nor out of social studies beccause a discussion on current events and the conflicts of the world current or historical may have had religious routes or involvement as one of the aspects to be taken into account. Whether worded tightly enough or not — and that is certainly at the root of much of the rational public discourse — the proposed section 11.1 is specifically about "courses of study, educational programs or instructional materials, or instruction or exercises, prescribed under(the School)Act (which) include subject-matter that deals explicitly with religion, sexuality or sexual orientation."
Parents are free to read the curriculum at any time — and encouraged to do so. Involvement in their children's education is to be encouraged. This is not intended by government to allow the re-writing of the curriculum by each and every parent based on their individual personal beliefs, religious or otherwise, but rather an acknowledgment that religious beliefs and sexuality are two topics which are inherently important to a family's value system and they therefore ought to have specific notification when religion or sexuality are being taught, so that they can align the classroom discussion with their family values. One might hope that this would be supplemental discussion rather than opting out — but in the area of religion and sex, family has always been given deference. This is not new, nor does it destroy the education system as we know it.
I am also in agreement, personally, with Bill that "Religion should be taught in social studies, from the point of view of history & societies. All the major religions should be covered. Since this is history and social studies and not teaching students what to believe there should be no valid religious reason for opting out of these classes." Curriculum would need to be carefully prepared as, in my experience, religious leaders can be very sensitive about others' interpretations of their religious viewpoint. However, given the real or perceived influence of religion on historic and current events, the need for us as a society is to "seek first to understand" to move well beyond the old notion of tolerance to a more appropriate paradigm of an inclusive dynamic society which celebrates the strengths of its diversity.
Alberta is a modern cosmopolitan society composed of citizens with roots in most of the societies and cultures of the world and we live together here in relative peace and harmony — not perfect — but better than in most other places. This is truly to our advantage, not only enriching our lives locally, but giving us a competitive advantage as we trade out into a world where we have friends and relatives in virtually every market. This is also an advantage as we build citizenship at home while helping to build community abroad in those places where community organizations like Rotary help build schools, water systems and in so many other ways share our good fortune.
Joe is a little harder to agree with. I certainly do not bring smugness to my mission. I bring a reality of the political process so completely misunderstood by many many people as they engage in debate and discussion on singular, if important issues. I think this is a topic I will blog on soon. The bottom line is that any government is not a monolith but rather a composite of the membership of the caucus which supports it. We have 72 members representing and bringing viewpoints of the demographic and geographic diversity of the province. For the most part it serves us well, in that on any topic or discussion there is a wide diversity of viewpoints. No single one of us has a magic wand or a singular ability to drive the agenda, although it may be said that we can be more or less persuasive depending on the issue.
I would not agree with the concept that I am "caving in" to anything. Decisions are made after thorough discussion — sometimes revisited after thorough public airing. Whatever the end result there is merit to being around for the next discussion. My role and that of every member of caucus is to do our best individually and collectively to find the balance for Albertans in a world of competing viewpoint and values.
Joe's concern about the role of the Human Rights Commission is a valid one. This is certainly something which will have to be well defined in practice with a process which resolves disagreement outside of a commission process. This is essential given the nature of the public discourse to date, in my view unnecessarily fueled by media like the CBC (and I am not a CBC basher, but a regular listener) which continue to portray the bill as providing for parents to opt out of classes on evolution. In the event that the bill is passed in its current form, there will need to be clear definition in regulation and policy around the process and circumstances for notice and for resolution within the education system of any dispute long before the Human Rights Commission had any engagement. Such process could also potentially involve direction from the Human Rights Commission itself as to the parameters under which a complaint, if that was the ultimate process, would be entertained.
Paula makes the point that we are the authors of our own misfortune in that the Premier himself said yes when asked if parents could pull their children from classes on evolution. That in fact has been very puzzling for me — as I know that is not the intention. I thus obtained a transcript to determine what in fact was said. It is clear to me on reading it that the issue of evolution was thrust into the discussion by a reporter and that the Premier' response was more generically addressed to the ability that all parents have in our system to choose the school and even the program that their children engage in — within, hopefully, but unfortunately not necessarily, the full spectrum of publicly supported educational choices. In any event that question has been cleared up publicly by both myself and by Minister Blackett in and outside the Legislature. Unequivocally — this is not about science, math, literature or the rest of the mandated curriculum, it is about teaching about religion and human sexuality. We do agree on the School Act — but that is the beauty of a political public policy and legislative process. It is similar to baseball: if you bat 360 consistently you ought to be inducted into the Hall of Fame.
It's hard to respond to Ken. He is, of course, entitled to his view. He is closer to the political process than many — but even then has trouble from time to time understanding the dynamic of the political and policy process within government. That is understandable — even those within the process have trouble with it from time to time. The reality is, however, that we live in a dynamic, not a singular world. If you engage in a destructive process on any one issue you lose credibility in the participation on other issues. If you participate as a caucus — you must accept the result or be prepared to leave. It doesn't work if the only things you support are the ones you agreed with. And being a loner, inside or outside of caucus means you have no effect at all. All I would ask in expressing your view is that you be careful in waving around terms like dereliction of duty. I would argue we are doing our duty exceptionally well and the policy decisions are much better for it. Nothing is ever perfect, but most things are better than they would be if only one viewpoint or perspective was represented at the table.
Dennis — I appreciate the feedback and the proposal. There will need to be, whether in the legislation, regulation or otherwise some definition of what constitutes religion and what circumstances require notice so as to ensure that teachers can operate within their classrooms and schools without fear of "overstepping". We know from our experience with FOIP legislation that although the law and the rule was supposedly clear, schools and school boards (as government departments did before them) engaged in a wide variety of interpretations, with sometimes bizarre results. We cannot afford that effect in this instance. Can I claim poetic license on the headline?
Comments
Mr. Hancock:
Thank you for continuing to listen to our concerns and responding. We don't always have to agree with our elected officials, but the willingness to communicate is a way for us all to be lifelong learners.
As an educator and parent, I have no issues with parents pulling children from educational topics that they would like to explore themselves in the family forum (I'm teaching human sexuality in my class right now and opting out is available). What many people don't realize is how incidental teachings will be stifled by sections of this bill.Some of the most important lessons my students and children have learned have occurred during discussions and debates that have emerged from a relatively "non-controversial" lesson.
You see, I teach middle school, and middle-schoolers are trying to figure out who they are and how they feel. If they are not allowed to make connections and hear many different perspectives (some that may be offensive to certain religions and parents),how are they going to become critical thinkers? I want my students to be critical thinkers who can respect opposing opinions and offensive topics, not compliant little children who depend on adults to make decisions for them.
I teach in a multicultural classroom where some of my students, if in their home country, would probably not choose to be around (or be allowed to be with) some of their classmates. If I can not express multiple perspectives and I get hauled before the HRC (which could easily happen with this bill), how does this help my students? They lose a dedicated, veteran teacher and learn that censorship is alive and well in their new country as well as their old country.
My students and I are under the belief that the HRC is necessary to stop discrimination and encourage democracy (their words, not mine). Their educators need to be open minded and fully explore issues through discussions. How does Bill 44, in the section that talks about teachers being brought before the HRC for "offending" certain groups, help teach children about democracy? Some of the best learning happens in our lives because we are offended.
I really believe in the public school system. If certain parents want limited perspectives taught, we have a variety of private schools to suit their religious or cultural beliefs - or they can start their own. Private schools are already heavily funded by our government (more on that at another time and place)so parents can choose that option if they want that kind of environment. Public schools have to remain a place for open discussion even though these discussions may be seen as "disruptive and offensive" to some. The key to all of this - mutual respect.
Please encourage your colleagues to amend this bill.
Sincerely,
Tracey Bowes - proud middle school teacher and mom
We all know that great teachers work WITH students; they do far more than simply deliver the curriculum. They read the room, assess the needs and address issues as they arise. I've spoken with Excellence in Teaching award recipients, as I know you have, and, without an exception, I would characterize them as innovative, flexible and responsive. When a situation arises, where a child uses the word "gay" as an insult, they seize upon the opportunity to teach about acceptance and homophobia. They do not let it pass. How will Bill 44 restrict excellent teachers? How will it make them second-guess themselves and, even if only for a moment, wonder: Should I be sending home advance notices on this? Will someone think this is a Human Rights violation? I am concerned the doubt that this Bill has stirred up, the confusion, and perhaps the misunderstandings will far outweigh the benefits. Our schools are dealing with this issue well already. We have mechanisms in place. Why is Bill 44 required?
I truly appreciate your replies Mr. Hancock. If I can say one nice thing about several members of your caucus is the growing reach into cyberspace and the active participation. In a province where electoral turnout is dropping below 40%, it is good to see some action by the ruling party to engage the populous.
However, I don't feel you adequately addressed any of your commentators whose concerns can be summed up as follows: Why does the Conservative caucus feel these rights need to be enshrined in the Human Rights Legislation and not just enforced with the School Act? Has the School Act failed to protect religious sensitivities thus far? Until you can clearly answer that question, you will be faced with speculation about ulterior motives (evolution opt-outs) and scepticism from all directions.
Further, while you cede the point that there is a legitimate fear behind the possibility that teachers and school boards will be hauled before Tribunals, you state that "there will need to be clear definition in regulation and policy around the process and circumstances for notice and for resolution within the education system of any dispute long before the Human Rights Commission had any engagement," yet your government has provided no insight or evidence that it is also developing such regulations or policies. Offer up some regulations or evidence that the Tribunals won't be abused (as they have already been in some free speech cases), and perhaps people will start trusting politicians again.
Finally, I really must ask, why does this government continually feel the need to go against the will of the people of Alberta? Outside the aforementioned fundamentalist segments of your supporters, who is in favour of this bill? No one I've talked to, heard, or read supports it. You have no mandate for these changes (I don't recall it being a part of your campaign promises), so why not put it to a vote?
Restricting a teacher's ability to speak about certain topics has the danger of silencing them when it comes to "controversial topics." At best this is problematic in an academic setting, where topics will be avoided or skimmed rather than rigorously examined. At worst, this will encourage staff members to stay silent when issues concerning "controversial topics" arise. At times in schools, issues of sexual orientation are brought forth as a direct result of some sort of marginalization that occurs in the school setting. For example, when a student is being harassed by other students for being (or being perceived as) gay or lesbian, it might not be uncommon for a teacher to discuss issues of homophobia in order to foster a safe community, where acceptance and tolerance is expected. Would that teacher need to send a form home for that? And what if some of the students who were responsible for the bullying were to 'opt' out? Traditionally gay and lesbian youth have been linked to higher suicide rates. How can school be a safe place for these students when their peers are able to 'opt out' of any kind of discussion that might address homophobia? Likewise, what might happen if a student asks a married gay male teacher if he has a "wife"? Will that teacher need to send home a form to be able to say that he is married to man? How is that not a violation of his rights when clearly no heterosexual teacher has needed to do the same thing thus far?
Human right are enshrined in order to protect marginalized groups. There is a need for our society to look out for those minority groups that have been historically and recently discriminated against. As you and your government have repeatedly said earlier, parents have not been a marginalized group. They have had processes and procedures to deal with school situations that have been proven successful by any of the PTA groups in Alberta that have been vocal on this issue. In your defense of this bill you have basically proved that it is unnecessary.
This bill was clearly meant to limit the protection and rights of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender individuals. The fact that our provincial government is using the term 'human rights' to target an already marginialized group is dangerously Orwellian, shamelessly discriminatory and disgustingly embarrassing.
The passages from the film "Jesus Christ Superstar" which you used to introduce your thoughts serves well as a seque for my comments.
I once had a student who misuderstood that film and was additionally deeply offended by it. The result was a conference with the parents who believed I was intolerant of their beliefs and trying to influence their child accordingly. I answered the charge explaining that I'm mandated to teach tolerance,and that had been the goal of my teachings. This was met with an angry assertion that the parents and the child were tolerant of others, just unwilling to be exposed to those things of which they were, tolerant.
If that strikes you as ironic, stand-by: the family was a deeply Christian family.
Bill 44 encourages this kind of absurdity in which we will teach tolerance to those who are willing to be tolerant, while the intolerant proclaim themselves victims and withdraw.
I suggest that sections of Bill 44 are exactly the opposite of what we need. The bill promises to promotes tolerance, but then allows the intolerant ones to opt-out. Instead of this inverted legislation, we must continue to ensure education remains mandatory for everyone. A rich education should be viewed as the right of every child; it's for that reason that school is mandatory -- Bill 44, however, creates a loophole through which a child's rights can be denied, and society's hopes frustrated.
Maybe we can't outlaw ignorance and its companion: fear. But we don't have to meet them half-way with impotent compromises.
Besides, for the family who opted-out of my lessons, the present system worked. They protested, the child was removed from the classroom and her ignorance remained intact. She was not in the classroom to share and listen as other students, Muslim, Bhuddist, Hindu, Sikh, Jew, and Christian, all broadened their understanding of Easter and the global village in which we all reside.
No, she didn't participate, and neither did any of the other students. The lesson was halted. I was asked to find some other way of dealing with Easter that didn't involve religion. Figure that one out.
Parents do not need more options, but educators certainly do not need legislation which, like Bill 44, implies that they, the government and the majority of the community are irrevocably instilling evils in the minds of children. Educators need a government willing to support them when they are doing what they have been mandated to do; Bill 44 undermines this. Educators need a government willing to support a child's right to take another step away from ignorance and the fear it breeds; parents sometimes fear these rights. Educators need a government which refuses to turn public education into a six-item buffet of acceptable, safe, and exclusively familiar ideas.
It is against the law for parents to opt-out of providing their children with reasonable care, proper nutrition, protective clothing, warm shelter, physical and emotional security. That list should include a modern Education. No one should be allowed to raise children on lies.
Listen to the open line portion of CBC Radio one Wildrose today on Bill 44. Go to You Tube and search for Cambridge Strategies. The show is in three parts and runs a total of 30 minutes or so.
It seems to me a vast number of valid comments didn't make the screening process to be included and therefore weren't addressed by you
As a long time constituent of yours, who has indeed voted for you, I am somewhat offended that you chose to exclude many views that dissent from your own.
Remember sir, that you are seeking re-election in an somewhat urban riding where the mainstream opinion differs from that of the government on this one. Indeed Edmonton-Whitemud is home to a great number of professionals in the applied science that think this policy is, at best, bunk. You can chose to disregard or minimize the opinions of your constituents, I suppose, but we will get our say come the next election.