Don't let it worry you. It's always helpful to zero in on the facts.
I've also been looking at the "Staff Analysis" which is accessable from the link I gave earlie (post 81). They point out something which is interesting (underlining is mine):
These principles conform to long-standing principles of academic freedom and responsibility expressed in current policies. By codifying them in law, however, the bill may shift the responsibility to determine whether or not a student’s or faculty member’s freedom has been infringed from professional faculty self-governance to institutional or judicial governance. The principles of academic freedom enumerated in the bill are:Nothing in the analysis discusses evolution or any other scientific subject. But if this (or something like it) becomes law in Florida, we may expect all kinds of litigation about the alleged freedom of students to demand that various fringe concepts be treated with "respect" by their professors.• The right of students to expect:o A learning environment in which they will have access to a broad range of scholarly opinion;• The right of faculty to expect:
o That they will be graded solely on merit;
o That their academic freedom and the quality of their education will not be infringed upon by instructors who persistently introduce unrelated controversial matter into the classroom;
o That their freedoms of speech, expression, assembly, and conscience will not be infringed;
o That their student fee funds are distributed on a viewpoint-neutral basis; and
o To be fully informed of their rights and their institution’s grievance procedures.o Academic freedom in the classroom in discussing their subjects, with the responsibility that they make their students aware of serious scholarly viewpoints;
o That they will not be discriminated against on the basis of their political or religious beliefs; and
o To be fully informed of their rights and their institution’s grievance procedures.
You're right when you're right. And you're right.
This may be "called forth" by people looking for a lawsuit to keep them from working, but it is not meant to credit or discredit either evolution or ID.
It DOES support that if a student can argue for ID, they would be in the right to get the grade the class suck-up gets.
I think this means (even if you do disagree with ID) that most of the IDers here would get A's according to the level of research and time put into arguements for their point of view.
The proposed law is a thinly veiled threat that students can use to slack off in class and then demand a decent grade. All the student need do is mouth off a few beliefs that are at odds with what the professor is teaching, and then at the end of the semester there will be an unspoken threat that if the slacker doesn't get a decent grade, the prof will be dragged into court and accused of "disrespecting" the student's fringe beliefs.
This law will do the exact opposite of what it is nominally intended to do; it will cast a chill over the classroom, and no professor will dare discuss things that have the faintest chance of "offending" some student's fringe beliefs.
Imagine, for example, a professor teaching a math course, in which a student suddenly jumps up and interrupts the class to announce that "imaginary numbers are the work of Satan." And repeats this behavior during the course of the semester. Naturally, the student refuses to do any homework or test problems involving complex variables. At the end of the semester, what is the professor supposed to do with regard to this student's grade? Flunk him for failure to do the work, or pass him in order to avoid being fodder for a court case against himself?
The solution to tyrannical professors lies in the market place, not the legislature: don't matriclate to schools where tyrannical professors hold sway, and if you do, transfer out.
I wonder how the anti-i (or those who doubt the reality of imaginary numbers) would use this bill. Or those who think that obviously Sin(2*x)=2*Sin(x) .