Slashdot Mirror


Gilbert, AZ Censors Biology Books the Old-Fashioned Way

nbauman writes The Gilbert, AZ school board has voted to tear out a page from Campbell's Biology (a standard highly-recommended textbook that many doctors and scientists fondly remember), because it discusses contraception without also discussing adoption. Julie Smith, a member of the Gilbert Public Schools governing board, said that she was a Catholic and "we do not contracept." Smith convinced the board that Campbell's violates Arizona law to teach "preference, encouragement and support to childbirth and adoption" over abortion. The Arizona Education Department decided that the pages didn't violate Arizona law, but nevermind. Rachel Maddow generously risked hassles for copyright violation and posted the missing pages as a service to Arizona honors biology students.

28 of 289 comments (clear)

  1. Baby meet bathwater by damn_registrars · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It appears the school board didn't care about what was on the other side of the same page? Most textbooks I have seen are printed on both sides, so they just threw out two pages of of the book. I have used Campbell in the past (though not the current edition) and I suspect by the time the book reached the second side of that page they were no longer talking about contraception or abortion.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re:Baby meet bathwater by gander666 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is Arizona you are talking about. The whiny religitards, and their republican puppets get their way, be damned.So glad I was able to move away. Even gladder that I didn't have kids in their schools.

      The real sad thing is that the schools in SE Phoenix are a lot better funded and better than the public schools back here in my hometown of San Jose (I moved back about four months ago. My colleagues with kids are appalled at the fact that they have to pay extra money for sports and music programs to participate. All paid for in Chandler schools near Phoenix. Crazy)

      --
      Suppose you were an idiot and suppose you were a member of Congress ... but I repeat myself. - Mark T
  2. What the hell is... by Nutria · · Score: 1, Insightful

    contraception doing in a Biology textbook? Shouldn't that be taught in Health class?

    --
    "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    1. Re:What the hell is... by v1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      contraception doing in a Biology textbook? Shouldn't that be taught in Health class?

      I can see a small crossover in biology and contraception, since contraceptives do interact with biology. Not so much for the condom, but very much so for the pill ("how does it work?") and then getting into male contraception, and also sterilization (tube tying in both genders) I can see where that has a biology application.

      But adoption, how the heck does that belong in a biology textbook???

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
  3. Under the guise of loophole and law. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How Long before religion puts us back into the dark ages? No scientific book should be censored, simply added to as our understanding evolves, they may not agree to teach the subject without the addtion of adoption, but that is not a biological process as contraception is....

    1. Re:Under the guise of loophole and law. by Smallpond · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No censoring is happening. By doing this they have ensured that every student in that class will go find the missing page and read it. The point is that we are in the internet age, not the dark ages. You can't hide information.

  4. She's proselytizing ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 5, Insightful

    “I’m Catholic; we do not contracept,” Ms. Smith said. “It is a grave sin.” By including those pages in the curriculum, she added, “you have violated my religious rights.”

    Her agenda is to make everyone Catholic.

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    1. Re:She's proselytizing ... by TheReaperD · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Isn't that supposed to be the agenda of every Catholic? (and most other religions)

      --
      "Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
    2. Re:She's proselytizing ... by theronb · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "I'm Catholic; we do not contracept," Ms. Smith said. "It is a grave sin. By including those pages in the curriculum", she added, "you have violated my religious rights."

      Where do people get this idea that presenting facts or even opinions that they don't like constitutes a violation of their rights? How are we to have any kind of informed discussion in this country? Oh, I forgot - they don't want informed discussion.

    3. Re:She's proselytizing ... by khallow · · Score: 1, Insightful

      And do you have a reason you disagree with me? I thought you were going to actually quote relevant history before I saw the link to the Crusades. The Church did have a list of censored books that lasted till 1966.

      But no, you link to the crusades which were never relevant to book censorship and which ended in the 15th Century over 600 years ago. That's a pretty lame response.

      Either way, that was then, this is now.

  5. This could be turned in to a good thing. by davmoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This will all but guarantee that every student in the school system will read the page the school board is removing. Everyone knows that the quickest way to encourage a teen to seek out and read something is to remove it or ban it and tell them its not permitted.

    --
    I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
  6. Remind me again by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

    why we let religious loonies dictate what can and what can't be taught. Separation of church and state my ass!

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:Remind me again by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We let people determine what can be taught. Very few people are free of ideologies, whether they be religious or secular. Find me a living, breathing human being who has no personal biases, and I'll ask the doctors why a patient with absolutely no higher brain function hasn't been taken off life support.

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    2. Re:Remind me again by Runaway1956 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well - the state shouldn't even be in the education system. Local school boards are supposed to run their own schools. This entire discussion should only be of local concern, and neither the state capital nor Washington should have any voice in the matter. Take away all those funds offered by the state and the feds - cool. LOCAL funds should be used exclusively. Local people pay local taxes, and decide locally where to build the schools, what to teach, and whether there will be sports, clubs, tutoring, and other extra-curricular activities. Of course, those extra-curriculars are totally unnecessary for an education.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    3. Re:Remind me again by currently_awake · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The situation is worse at the local level. It's fairly easy for the dominant religious group to control a small town and mandate prayer classes etc.

    4. Re:Remind me again by Hognoxious · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If the board truly fucks up - the locals suffer, the board gets shit canned, and a new board takes a stab at getting things right.

      By then the damage has been done - they've spewed out a bunch of imbeciles like you. And once those imbeciles can vote, you'll find that the new board is very much like the old board.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  7. hm. by vomitology · · Score: 5, Insightful

    om the original article:
    “I’m Catholic; we do not contracept,” Ms. Smith said. “It is a grave sin.” By including those pages in the curriculum, she added, “you have violated my religious rights.”

    “I’m American; we do not censor education,” vomitology said. “It is a grave sin.” By removing those pages in the curriculum, he added, “you have violated children's educational rights.”

    FTFY

    --
    ~Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit, but Wisdom is knowing not to put it in a fruit salad.
  8. Re:Slashdot, once again... by BonThomme · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The science of contraception is a liberal world view?

    Well, that explains a great deal...

  9. so is sex before mirage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    by her logic sex before mirage is wrong therefor why teach kids at all ? when they are married then the priest has a sit down with you. No but seriously protect yourselves from STI's and unwanted pregnancy wrap the toll yeah fool !

  10. Re:Slashdot, once again... by wolrahnaes · · Score: 5, Insightful

    But if it was about questioning global warming info being removed there would be crickets.

    Well yeah, because the only place such discussion would likely be would be in a science book, and what's in a science book should be supported by evidence. The kind of "questioning global warming" that people like you mean is not supported by evidence, it's distorting evidence, and does not belong in a science book.

    As Colbert put best, "reality has a well-known liberal bias". It comes from being willing to actually ask questions and observe the world to find our answers, rather than an unwavering loyalty to an ideology. In this case these fucknuts are taking their religious beliefs, based on nothing, and prioritizing them over actual science. That's not political in any way, that's just fucking idiots. Unfortunately for those who are politically conservative but aren't insane the "conservative" party has spent 20 years courting the religious morons in every possible way and happily set themselves up for this kind of shit.

    --
    I used to get high on life, but I developed a tolerance. Now I need something stronger.
  11. Re:Slashdot, once again... by ultranova · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The science of contraception is a liberal world view?

    In the war between our tribe and our enemy there can be no neutral ground. Any claim that isn't part of our tribe's identity and thus a pure, sweet truth, must be part of our enemy's and thus a vile, contemptuous lie. There can be no compromise with such Pure Evil. There can be no giving up any part of our cause, no show of weakness by ever admitting we were wrong. No matter what the cost to actual human beings, we will get our way.

    But hey, at least people can change their ideological tribe, so it's a step up from ethnic ones!

    --

    Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  12. Re:Slashdot, once again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Well it's "News for Nerds, stuff that matters".

    Let me elaborate.
    The US is still, regardless of an individuals feelings towards it as a nation, the most influential nation with respect to sciences, technology and geo politics.
    People like me from Europe, but also plenty of your fellow countrypeople from other states, are somewhat uneasy towards large areas of the US that are dominated by, to us, strange religious tendencies. At times it can feel like parts of the US aren't all that different to the Taliban in their general attitude, albeit the details differ vastly of course.

    Now when things like this redaction of text books occurs, it lights up like a warning light that the, oh let's call them Christiban just for the fun of it, might be making inroads again.

    And the US's position towards science, technology and teaching of science is of utmost importance for the rest of the world due to the US's massive influence in these fields. Noone can ignore it.

    In closing I'd also like to notice that anyone scared by the actual Taliban, that group of not so terribly well funded Reactionaries in a overall not so terribly important part of the world, should realize that they are a trivial non-issue that a fully Talibanized ("Christibanized") US would pose.
    Fantastically funded, large armed forces, nuclear weapons, a megapower... if that became in it's total a state dominated by relgious fundamentalists like that chick from that school board... that's a thought to shiver in fear of.

  13. Re: Slashdot, once again... by Mordok-DestroyerOfWo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And this (extremely insightful) explanation is why so many United Statsians are so terrified of our own country. We are seemingly just a few votes away from a tyranny of the vocal religious minority. Give a fundamentalist a few thousand nuclear missiles and the most expensive army the world has ever known, and brown people around the world start to get nervous. But we have to do it, because terrorists, or freedom, or something!

    --
    "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
  14. Re:Slashdot, once again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The parent did not use capitalization correctly. Yes, you consider yourself conservative, but allowing people to do drugs is not a Conservative (TM) position, it is a Liberal (TM) position. In fact, it is the intersection of liberal and conservative called libertarian. But, hey, those are just labels used to demonize and divide.

    By the way, your argument falls apart in many ways, but mostly when kids are involved. Let's say mommy and daddy sit at home shooting up heroine (you shoot heroine, not LSD) and don't take care of their kids. Consequences, right? We put mommy and daddy in jail for child neglect and abuse. Great, now what do we do with the kids? Is it right to give them to some religious charity that will just indoctrinate them? Maybe there isn't a secular charity around to help. So, do we just tell the kids: "Oh well, mommy and daddy had to face consequences. You're on your own. Good luck." Or do we do something for them? If we do something for them with public money, that gives us control over what people put in their bodies, no? And, we have to do something for them because decades of history now show that you just perpetuate the problem by punishing the kids through punishing the parents.

    Or, do we treat it like a public health issue, and get mommy and daddy treatment instead of taking them away from their kids? In which case, who pays for the treatment? We could put them in NarcAnon, but that doesn't really work and its a cult anyway. Again there might be some religious charities that will indoctrinate them. There might be some public charities. But that's really the problem with charities, they're unreliable, some are cults, and some indoctrinate into religions. So, we pay for it. Which, again, gives us some control over what goes in people's bodies, no? And, we end up doing that through taxation and regulation on what is available instead of an outright ban which hasn't worked at all.

    We could be like Portugal and completely legalize everything. But, Portugal poured all of their former drug law enforcement dollars into public health treatment. There's no way in hell we would ever pour anywhere near 10% of what we currently put into drug law enforcement into public health treatment because we are a very punitive society (as evidence by your execution remark). So, we have to make a choice. And that choice is to not be a libertarian "paradise" that lets people put whatever in their bodies whenever for whatever reason.

  15. Re:Slashdot, once again... by Teun · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Very well worded, my compliments.

    I have no problem with conservative politics but can't stand their unwillingness to accept facts that don't agree with the broken parts of their philosophy.

    What is wrong in the AZ debate is that they (the religious extremists) are mixing biology (science) and their personal beliefs.

    --
    "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
  16. Re:Slashdot, once again... by diamondmagic · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Only if by "liberal" do you mean in the traditional sense of liberty and the Enlightenment period's understanding of the scientific method. It does not hold true for the American layman's use of the term for an ideology. For such pesudoscientific nonsense as eugenics, anti-vaccination, anti-GMO, "alternative" medicine, state censorship of violence in media, and complete ignorance of economics, you can't get much worse than American progressivism.

  17. Re:Religion is the last straw by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The general sentiment is that in the USSR, the people at least knew their government was bullshitting them, but in the US, they succeeded. The people actually believe that they're living in paradise while in reality they are trapped in a hellhole.

    I live in the U.S. I've also spent significant time living outside of the U.S. I agree with you that there are many, many things about the U.S. to criticize, and elements of its foreign policy are quite criminal.

    However, your statement there is more than a little extreme. Many U.S. citizens do recognize that there are serious flaws (a lot of them post frequently on Slashdot, for example), though admittedly the pro-American rhetoric is stupid and ignorant at times.

    On the other hand, I think compared to many years of life under the USSR, Americans are not "trapped in a hellhole." The USSR was in existence for roughly 70 years. Of those 70 years, the first 30 under Stalin experienced not only random purges and murders from the government, but largescale famines, along with economic and political uncertainty. For the last 15 years or so of the USSR, there was a gradual decline that saw economic conditions, shortages, etc. that are unlike anything generally seen in the U.S.

    So, yeah, basically if by the "USSR" you want to only count the 25 years or so from the late 50s to the early 70s when conditions were pretty good, yeah the U.S. currently isn't much better than that.

    But to say that U.S. people are gullible or dumb because they don't recognize -- unlike the USSR -- that the government is bad... well, we don't have random purges of people we know happening every other week... ya know, like Stalin did. In case you're unaware, Stalin ordered the murder of what historians estimate to be between 20 and 60 million people, most of them his own countrymen.

    When everybody knows someone who "was disappeared" by the government, you can bet that citizens would become more suspicious of anything that government says.

    In contrast, it's only in the past few years that it's become somewhat acceptable for the President of the U.S. to outright kill American citizens without a trial. Our leaders haven't deliberately killed tens of millions of citizens.

    The only similar period in the U.S. that experienced turmoil on the level of most of the history of the USSR was probably during the Great Depression. So 10-15 years of the past century, compared to most years in the entire history of the USSR. And even then, the government wasn't going around killing people.

    So yeah, I think some Americans are deluded about how "great" their country is, and they don't realize how many things have decayed or what rights have been restricted. But to call it a "hellhole" compared to the USSR where the citizens were smart enough to recognize how bad they had it... well, if the U.S. actually ever gets as bad as the world of Stalinist purges, I bet the American people would be smart enough to have the kind of cynicism you expect.

  18. Bathwater too hot for you, eh? by fyngyrz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Troll? Au contraire. There is zero contemporaneous evidence for the existence of Jesus. Everything, and I mean everything, is some kind of report from people who never met Jesus, either by timing of birth against the story (Tacitus, Suetonius, Josephus, etc.) or as a consequence of first being introduced within the context of a story in a cobbled-together book, no part of which can we trace back any further than about 200 years after the story it tells about him ends.

    On top of that, the cult that claims he existed has destroyed any customary grant of credibility they might have gained by reporting other historical events accurately, by inserting reports of walking on water, turning water into (copious amounts of) wine, magical healing (we *still* can't heal leprosy), raising the dead, and so on.

    I am definitely outside the bounds of politically correct speech. Especially in the overwhelmingly superstitious USA. But I am in no way trolling. I'm just reporting the facts. If the facts upset you, perhaps you should do some additional thinking.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.