As I noted, I really don’t see Minnesota’s bill as slipping into the same territory as the others. It doesn’t single out evolution or even biology, and it also at least provides some language that suggests that considerations of merit (”serious scholarly opinion”). Presumably that would allow governing boards to at least require some evidence of merit and serious publication support on behalf of a view before a professor can lecture on the merits of timecubism.

Of course you’re right, Bad.

To me, the bigger difference is that the Minnesota bill is not concerned with K-12 schools at all, but only Higher Education.

Still, the injection of that bill into the discussion raises the question of the relationship between the K-12 legislation and the David Horowitz-inspired college students’ “Bills of Rights.”

In both cases, the schools and colleges would claim they already have ways of ensuring proper education. University departments and disciplines do have ways of dealing with wayward instructors.

What these laws would do is to shift the legal burdens of who can do what and how. Probably the greater effect is simply intimidation — especially at the K-12 level.

The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board is having a much harder time disposing of a petition from the Creation Science Institute for accreditation (hence, licensing of science teachers) for their distance education degree in “science education,” because of a Supreme Court decision limiting their power to interfere with theology curricula. This is the kind of environmental influence, if you will, that I think we’re dealing with here.

Anyway, Thanks for your post!