This year marks the centennial of the notorious Scopes trial. The trial played out in 1925 in Dayton, Tennessee, and addressed the question whether a state could ban the teaching of e - - - - - - - - (rhymes with “revolution”) in its public schools. This month the people of Iowa caught a whiff of that episode due to a proposed revision of state standards on science education.
The current science standard for Iowa public school students in grades 9-12 appears in a section of the standards subtitled “Unity and Diversity.” The standard specifically uses the word “e - - - - - - - -” in its biology section, and states that students who demonstrate understanding of the topic can “communicate scientific information that common ancestry and biological e - - - - - - - - are supported by multiple lines of empirical evidence.”
It adds that the students can “construct an explanation based on evidence that the process of e - - - - - - - - primarily results from four factors . . . ,” and then details what the four factors are.
The first draft of the Iowa Department of Education’s revision of that section substitutes the phrase “biological change” for “e - - - - - - - -” whenever “e - - - - - - - -” raises its head.
There’s no logical reason for the change. If “biological change” means the same thing, why not use the universally understood designation of “e - - - - - - - -?”
The only reason for the proposed change is that “e - - - - - - - -,” for a religious minority of Iowans, is objectionable, and therefore should be excised from official terminology.
The 1925 Scopes trial was officially The State of Tennessee v. John Thomas Scopes. The decision found Scopes, a Dayton High School science teacher, guilty of violating Tennessee’s “Butler Act,” which prohibited teaching e - - - - - - - - in public schools. The district court fined him $100 ($1,700 in 2025 dollars), but the Tennessee Supreme Court overturned the judgment on a technicality.
The new proposed Iowa standard resulted from the work of a 37-member committee of individuals with relevant science and education backgrounds. But after the committee, which worked diligently and carefully, submitted its recommendations, someone or someones in the Department of Education (or higher up) changed the committee’s wording to eliminate the word “e - - - - - - - -,” which the committee had left unchanged in the proposed new standard, and substituted the term “biological change” instead.
Many committee members were surprised that the Department had changed their wording. Some spoke in opposition to the change.
(Note: the proposed new science standard, as stated by the Department, also would substitute “climate trends” for the current “climate c - - - - -” (rhymes with “range”) in its wording. Similar reason.)
A 1968 U.S. Supreme Court decision in a case entitled “Epperson v. Arkansas” has relevance to the Iowa situation. “Epperson” arose from an Arkansas law that prohibited the teaching of human evolution in its public schools.
The Supreme Court decision, which was unanimous, ruled otherwise. The majority opinion found that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits a state from requiring “that teaching and learning must be tailored to the principles or prohibitions of any religious sect or dogma.” (Justice Hugo Black concurred in the decision, but issued his own rationale.)
Thereafter some local jurisdictions decided to require the teaching of “creation science” alongside e - - - - - - - - if e - - - - - - - - was being taught. But In 1987, in Edwards v. Aguillard, the Supreme Court ruled that practice unconstitutional as well.
The state of Iowa follows a phased-in process in revising educational standards. As I understand it, the revision committee’s recommendations are submitted to the Department of Education, which then collects public comment on the proposals. Dozens of Iowans have already given their opinions to the Department on the deletion of word “e - - - - - - - -.” The deadline for submitting feedback was Feb. 3.
Then the department will name a second standards review team, which will examine the feedback and recommend changes to the standards, with the public’s comments as a factor. The second standards team will present its recommendation to the Department of Education, which in turn will present its recommendation to the State Board of Education. At that point there will be another chance for public feedback, and at a “final read” the board will decide what standards will be adopted.
To reiterate: the proposed change to the Iowa science education standard doesn’t change what should be taught, except that the word “e - - - - - - - -” shall not be used to describe it.
To put it bluntly, the final decision of State Board of Education on this issue will provide a clue to how much power conservative Christians wield in Iowa government.
Rick Morain is a reporter and columnist with the Jefferson Herald.
Comments
No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here