“I was in Nashville, Tennessee last year. After the show I went to a Waffle House. I'm not proud of it, I was hungry. And I'm alone, I'm eating and I'm reading a book, right? Waitress walks over to me: 'Hey, whatcha readin' for?' Isn't that the weirdest fuckin' question you've ever heard? Not what am I reading, but what am I reading FOR? Well, goddamnit, ya stumped me! Why do I read? Well . . . hmmm...I dunno...I guess I read for a lot of reasons and the main one is so I don't end up being a fuckin' waffle waitress.”
― Bill Hicks
Nature of the Offense
Oh, Tennessee, why must we do this? Seriously, I'm starting to feel like I'm taking shots at an aircraft carrier with a Nerf gun. This state is such an impenetrable fortress of stupid that if their public school system could teach students which way to turn the pages of a book, they would lead the nation in yearly improvement on a percentage scale. Nevertheless, they have chosen to further cripple the lifetime earning potential of their children with a new law enabling public school teachers to include anti-evolution material in the science curriculum.
Here's Bo Watson, the idiot state senator who sponsored the bill, discussing the merits of the new law. Don't worry if you can't stand to watch the whole thing; I'll filter the shit diamonds from the rest of his verbal sewage below.
I sent the following letter to State Senator Watson (because I'm not going to dignify him with just "senator") as an expression of my disgust.
The Letter
Dear State Senator Watson,
Congratulations on getting your now-infamous "Monkey Bill" passed! Now that I've written the obligatory polite opening sentence, allow me to go into detail about how much I hate that spineless piece of kindling you and your fellow "Christian Conservatives" rammed up the tailpipes of Tennessee's science teachers.
As someone who teaches science at the collegiate level, I find myself constantly working to undo the damage done by public school systems who believe in the "scientific weaknesses" of things like evolution and climate change. You want to know why American schoolchildren are falling further and further behind "the other countries" (as you put it) in science? Because teachers are being forced to either waste time discussing "alternative theories" to established science, or leave it out altogether. I saw an interview you gave recently, in which you attempted to defend the bill, and explain why my viewpoint is not valid. I'd like to go through some of the points you made, and maybe try to stimulate some of that "critical thinking" you're so big on all of us doing.
1. You want science teachers to be able to incorporate "all the information from the internet" when students bring it in. I spent a little time looking up scientific theories online, and found a few for your consideration:
-1 X -1 = -1 and Jews are evil.
The sun is the only luminous body in the universe, and everything else we see is due to "space mirrors."
Dark matter is actually caused by trillions of supermassive free-floating planets that formed in the first fractions of a second after the big bang.
The age of the Universe is given precisely in the Qur'an. I'm pretty sure the whole "Jews are evil" thing can be found in this one as well.
State senator Watson, which of these theories would you like to teach Tennessee students in order to boost their science education above "the other countries?"
2. You said that you did not mean for the Monkey Bill to encourage creationism or climate change denial in particular, but that those topics were simply meant to illustrate "common areas of debate." Where, exactly, are these topics common areas of debate? At a Koch brothers meeting, certainly, or perhaps the comments section of a Fox News article. But not in a scientific research journal.
Real comment from a news site.
Perhaps we should use our science classes to debate issues that are truly argued on a frequent basis, like "do you think Bo Watson can read?" or "is Tennessee the worst state ever?" Actually, I'm just kidding about that last one. Nobody debates it.
3. You claim this bill will "improve a teacher's confidence" when answering students' scientific questions. No doubt about that one. I'm sure the next time a student raises her hand in class and asks about a hot-topic debate like "how can we know the universe is really expanding when it is at least equally plausible to conclude that the luminosity of a Type Ia supernova is not constant in time?" the teacher will say "Hey, I may be an underpaid, overworked public high school teacher who majored in dramatic performance in college, but a bunch of conservative Christians in the Tennessee state legislature just passed a vague law encouraging the discussion of scientific strengths and weaknesses in the classroom. I GOT THIS!"
"I have genital herpes, and a degree from DeVry! Let's tackle the tough stuff, yeah?"
4. You say a major consequence of your bill will be that students will be able to "disseminate" credible information from non-credible. Did you mean "differentiate?" Oh wait! The law hasn't taken effect yet. I'll email you again in a few months, when your bill will allow me to ask the hard-hitting questions.
5. The final benefit you point out is that your bill will prevent the ACLU from "beating down the doors" of any teacher who dares to answer a student's question on creationism. It's funny, in all the years before your bill, I never had an ACLU member beating on my door. You know who does show up uninvited at my place? Religious nuts like you. How is your bill handling THAT?
Don't get me wrong, it's not that I don't think your legislation doesn't have a place. It does. You know that Sunday School class you teach? Take it there.
Sincerely,
The Angry Customer
Graduate Researcher
Department of Astronomy
The University of (redacted)
The Response
As with the other two letters to the Confederate Stronghold of Tennessee, this one seems to have fallen on
State of Tennessee, Final Grade: F-
