According to the Columbus Dispatch (‘Ohio's chilling new pro-ignorance bill,’ March 21), proposed Ohio Senate Bill 83 would be an attack on higher education in the state. “From prohibiting diversity, equity, and inclusion training for university employees and students, to prohibiting collective bargaining, Senate Bill 83 is an attempt to radically skew oversight of higher education, truncate the self-leadership of Ohio’s universities and colleges, and shortchange the university experience.”
Now, a new wrinkle has been added. According to the Ohio Capital Journal (‘Ohio higher-ed bill would require instructors to teach ‘both sides’ on climate change,’ March 27) “Ohio college and university instructors could be barred from teaching climate science without also including false or misleading counterpoints under the sprawling higher education bill.” That’s because climate science is considered by the bill’s sponsor, Sen. Jerry Cirino, to be “controversial.” Public colleges and universities would need to guarantee that faculty and staff will “not seek to inculcate any social, political, or religious point of view.”
Yes, climate change certainly is controversial. And we can't have that inculcation going on! There are two sides to every story, so let’s consider the debate in question here. On one side, we have scientists from all over the world who have spent their entire lives studying climate systems, collecting data, and conducting experiments. They have concluded that climate change is real, it's caused by human activity, and it's already having devastating effects on our planet. On the other side, we have politicians, talk show hosts, and bloggers who think that climate change is a hoax because it fits their worldview and that of their fossil fuel donors. They ignore the mountains of evidence that support the scientific consensus and instead choose to believe in conspiracy theories and pseudoscience. But then, who needs evidence and logic when you can just stick your head in the sand and pretend that everything is fine? Who needs to listen to scientists when you can just listen to your favorite talk radio host who has never set foot in a university science classroom?
What other scientific subjects ought to be considered “controversial” by SB 83? Here are some suggestions.
The so-called ‘Spherical Earth Theory’ has two sides. On one side, we have the overwhelming scientific consensus that the earth is round, supported by centuries of evidence and experimentation. On the other side, we have a handful of conspiracy theorists who think that the earth is flat because they once saw a YouTube video that convinced them. Both points of view need to be taught so that students can form their own conclusions.
The Moon Landing Hoax that you knew would be coming. Some people believe that the United States government faked the Apollo moon landing in 1969. Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, they believe that the footage was staged and that the astronauts never actually set foot on the moon. Debate this!
Then there’s the Vaccination Debate. There is a small but vocal group of people who believe that vaccines are harmful and can cause autism, despite overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary. They often rely on anecdotal evidence and conspiracy theories to support their views, ignoring the overwhelming evidence that vaccines are safe and effective. Ignore for the moment that without public health, we’d still be in the Dark Ages. Ignore the fact that vaccines have saved millions, perhaps even billions of lives. There are two sides to the controversy, so both should be taught.
We shouldn’t be at all concerned about what our university students will be learning if SB 83 becomes law. We shouldn’t worry about our state colleges and universities falling (further) behind the rest of the world because they teach pseudo-science. Our Republican State Senators have Ohio’s best interests at heart.
