139
140

We are the director and executive producer of "The Revisionaries," a documentary about the Texas Board of Education that is "[c]razier than you thought!" Ask us anything. (self.IAmA)

submitted by vdewan

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on
sorted by:
best
best
top
new
hot
controversial
old
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]donmcleroy 2 points3 points  (11 children)

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

This is Don McLeroy.

Summary: The religious conservatives inserted the phrase "separation of church and state into the standards. You do not give them credit; this is a serious flaw in your movie.

Thus, the film leaves the viewer with the false impression that the religious conservatives wanted to exclude and downplay the phrase "separation of church and state."

Yet, it was the conservatives that ultimately led the effort to accurately include that phrase in the standards. (Mavis's motion, made months earlier, did not include the phrase and was considered by the board to be an inaccurate standard on the first amendment. Your film accurately represents that debate; your film does not, however, accurately present the ultimate resolution of this issue.) The final wording adopted reads:

(G) examine the reasons the Founding Fathers protected religious freedom in America and guaranteed its free exercise by saying that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," and compare and contrast this to the phrase "separation of church and state."

To fix the film, you could simply add a "chalkboard graphic" stating something like: The board ultimately adopted a conservative-sponsored amendment to include the phrase "separation of church and state" in the government standards.

Why not add the graphic?

The reason this is such a big deal, is that the left side of America truly believes: 1. that religious convictions are inimical to freedom, 2. that religious conservatives are against separation of church and state, 3. that religious conservatives want to set up a theocracy, 4. that the GREATEST threat to America are the religious convictions of religious conservatives 5. that (in TFN's own words the religious conservatives goal is "to promote their [the religious conservatives] own narrow religious beliefs over all others...") 6. and that religious conservatives are opposed to it even when the EXACT opposite is true: 1. Jesus initiated the principle of "separation of church and state" when he stated "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar and to God the things that are God's." Mt 22:21, ,and 2. the church in America had basically disestablished itself in the Great Awakening when Wesley and Whitfield preached across established church boundaries of colonial America.

Don McLeroy Former Chair Texas State Board of Edcuation

[–]vdewan[S] 7 points8 points  (8 children)

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Hi Don! Welcome. Thanks for answering questions here!

I have always had an issue with the amendment you are discussing. While you did insert the phrase "separation of church and state," I believe this amendment actually attempts to undermine the concept rather than than promote it. Specifically, you require students to "compare and contrast" the language of the First Amendment with the phrase "separation of church and state."

Of course the phrase "separation of church and state" is not in the First Amendment, but neither are a number of other concepts that we now hold dear as a nation -- the Constitution needs to be read in the context of the 200+ years of Supreme Court jurisprudence that followed. And I believe that the amendment does not provide the complete story. In 1947, in Everson v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court gave Jefferson's words constitutional significance, quoting the famous phrase in its opinion. Will students also learn this? Will they learn about Marbury vs. Madison and the concept that it is up to the Supreme Court to interpret the constitution? Will they learn about the concept of stare decisis, the policy of courts to abide by or adhere to principles established by decisions in earlier cases? Because of this, I think the amendment does not tell the full story and is a disservice to Texas students.

[–]donmcleroy -3 points-2 points  (4 children)

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Words are important.

I am amazed that a standard that requires the students to know the actual language of the Constitution that has provided us this incredible freedom of religion that we cherish in the United Staes could be controversial.

Plus, it also requires the students to relate these words to the non-Constitutional but popular language "separation of church and state."

How can this be bad?

[–]vdewan[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The issue I have with the amendment is that in order to relate the words of the Constitution to the "non-Constitutional but popular language 'separation of church and state'" one must study of 200 years of Supreme Court jurisprudence. I spent a year in law school doing this. I think the way the amendment is phrased indicates, at least to me, an attempt to discredit the phrase. I hope that I'm wrong.

[–]Brokenshatner 2 points3 points  (0 children)

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

First, thank you Dr. McLeroy for taking part in this AMA.

Having heard some buzz about the documentary on NPR and watched the trailers online, I was excited to see this post. I was even more excited to see OP's edit that you had joined the conversation.

Everything the film makers have said or written depicts you as a very sincere and reasonable man, even if you're one whose views on religion and education I'd disagree with pretty frequently. It's for this reason that I'm disappointed to read this comment of yours. Nobody finds the inclusion of the wording of the Constitution controversial. Nobody. Do you sincerely believe that the inclusion of the 'compare and contrast' language can be read at all neutrally? If so, your devaluing of jurisprudence and the role of the courts is even more out of step with... well... reality, than I had thought possible. When you say, "How can this be bad?" I just don't see how you hope to be taken seriously.

As a secondary science teacher here in Texas, one whose coworkers regularly read "teach all valid scientific theories," but take away "teach all theories," I've got to call foul. This intentionally vague language you're claiming credit for inserting - it does much more to sow mistrust of science than it does to encourage honest inquiry. It incentivizes belittling established theories, rather than actually getting into the meat of how those theories were arrived at, much less how they work. The blatant use of what I see as 'backdoor' language in state guidelines does little but help close the minds of young people in the years before I'm charged with teaching them critical thinking and problem solving skills. If our state were really serious about catching up to the rest of the nation, and world, in STEM education, we would probably start by calling off our war on science.

I love that I get to spend an entire day each school year talking about how "theory" means one thing to a scientist, and another to a news anchor. But I hate that I have to start having that conversation with a group of hostile little warriors for Christ or Vishnu or FSM, rather than a room of knowledge-hungry little creatures.

[–]carkoon 1 point2 points  (0 children)

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Plus, it also requires the students to relate these words to the non-Constitutional but popular language "separation of church and state." How can this be bad?

Pre-service teacher here:

First, I'd like to thank you for taking time to respond on this thread!

As a teacher, my classroom concern would be dealing with what I see as somewhat vague language in the standard. The "seperation of church and state" originally talked about by Jefferson was declarative and powerful, but also vague as well. No one really knew to what extend the state and the church could co-operate or coincide, which is why I also consider the past two hundred years of relevant court cases to be so important.

Examining the phrase "separation of church and state" on its own makes the line seem so definite and static, when the line has moved and shifted over the years. Even today, the line between the two is fuzzy in certain areas such as student participation in school events due to their religious beliefs and the awarding of grants to religious institutions for secular purposes. Without an examination of the judicial tests to the phrase "separation of church and state", these exceptions to what would otherwise seem like an iron-clad rule seem absurd.

Much like "freedom of speech" needs to be examined by relevant court cases to understand the extent that speech is protected, "separation of church and state" needs to be examined in order to understand precisely where the line is and is not drawn today. History is as much about understanding where we came from as it is about making connections to today, which is why I feel this must not be addressed in the standards.

[–]rumpusroom 18 points19 points  (0 children)

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Mr. McLeroy, you should be ashamed of yourself for politicizing education standards.

[–]bemery 0 points1 point  (0 children)

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Why do humans have wisdom teeth?