Scopes in reverse

I am sitting in a hotel room in Dayton, Tennessee where I will be attending a conference tomorrow. In 1925, Dayton provided the backdrop for the Scopes Monkey Trial. In March of that year, the Tennessee legislature made it illegal to teach evolution in the school. John Scopes, Dayton's biology teacher at the time, was convinced by two local leaders to challenge the law by teaching evolution. Apparently, the plan was initially hatched as a publicity stunt, to bring some attention to Rhea County. The case ended up becoming one of the most well-known trials in American history. Scopes was prosecuted by former presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan and was defended by Clarence Darrow. The defense was funded by the American Civil Liberties Union. The media coverage reportedly exceeded any event up to that time. Scopes was convicted and fined, though the fine was overturned by the supreme court on a technicality.

The Scopes case was, in many ways, about academic freedom. The restrictions on academic freedom were set forth by a government relying upon distinctly Christian values. After Scopes, however, American society gradually switched to an increasingly secular approach to education. Over time, several landmark court cases made teaching creation or intelligent design either difficult or illegal.

The freedoms that the ACLU were trying to protect have now come full circle. Individuals who even allow for the possibility of intelligent design are excluded from academia. For example, Richard Sternberg, former editor of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, authorized an article authored by Stephen Meyer that had been favorably peer reviewed. Because this article discussed intelligent design, Sternberg was marginalized and defamed by his colleagues--not based upon the merits of the article, but rather, because it allowed for a supernatural explanation.

I heard of a recent similar example of limiting academic freedom. Greg Koukl was recently asked to give a talk entitled, "Is it intolerant to say Jesus is the only way?", as part of a sanctioned event at a college in Calgary. The posters were removed by the university and not allowed to be re-posted because the title was considered divisive and negative. Even more striking was the fact that administrators concluded the posters had racial overtones because a subtitle read, "Is choosing a religion merely a matter of preference, like chocolate vs. vanilla? Or is it about something much more serious?" This line of reasoning (claiming racism) is inane. One does not need to look far to identify many more examples of this sort of academic exclusion.

The groups that were once fighting to be heard are now employing the same restrictions that were once leveled against them. Now that their voice dominates, they refuse to allow dissenting voices to be heard. So much for civil liberty.