Discovery Institute Files Public Records Request in OSU Evolution Academic Freedom Case

Discovery Institute [of Seattle] has filed a public records request with the Ohio State University (OSU) seeking all documents related to Darwinist attacks on OSU doctoral candidate Bryan Leonard. The request was submitted under the Ohio Public Records Act.

In June, Leonard's dissertation defense in the area of science education was suddenly postponed after three Darwinist professors [O the horror!] at OSU attacked Leonard's dissertation research because it analyzed how teaching students evidence for and against macroevolution impacted student beliefs. According to a news report in The Columbus Dispatch, the professors admitted at the time that they had not read Leonard's dissertation.

"We are concerned that Leonard is being targeted for unfair and possibly illegal treatment because of his viewpoint about evolution, in violation of his First Amendment rights," said Dr. John West, Associate Director of the Center for Science and Culture at Discovery Institute.

"We are further concerned that university officials may have been improperly influenced in their actions by outside Darwinist pressure groups who are trying to destroy Leonard's career because of his support for teaching scientific criticisms of Darwin's theory."

Leonard, who is a high school biology teacher as well as a graduate student, helped draft Ohio's innovative "Critical Analysis of Evolution" lesson plan adopted last year for use in schools statewide by the Ohio State Board of Education. In May of 2005, Leonard also testified in favor of new science standards being drafted in Kansas that would cover scientific criticisms of evolutionary theory.

The public records request was submitted by attorney Seth Cooper, a Senior Program Analyst in Public Policy & Legal Affairs at Discovery Institute.

"We are requesting all communications to and from university officials involving Mr. Leonard's Ph.D. candidacy in order to determine if university officials have violated his rights," said Cooper. "We also want to determine the extent to which university actions may have resulted from a coordinated campaign by outside pressure groups to deprive Leonard of his academic freedom and his constitutional rights."

Next you will no doubt be posting the written account of this story, the vast supporting archaeological evidence, and the eyewitness accounts of several hundred people who testify to a man who verified the truth of the story by performing miracles, including resurrecting dead people, and who himself was very publicly resurrected.

Sorry, can't do that. But I have talked to people who tell the following story. Are you suggesting they are lying? Or???

The Creation of Men and Women

When the world was finished, there were as yet no people, but the Bald Eagle was chief of the animals. He saw that the world was incomplete and decided to make some human beings. So he took some clay and modeled the figure of a man and laid him on the ground. At first he was very small but he grew rapidly until he reached normal size. But as yet he had no life; he was still asleep. Then the Bald Eagle stood and admired his work. "It is impossible," he said, "that he should be left alone; he must have a mate." So he pulled out a feather and laid it beside the sleeping man. Then he left them and went off a short distance, for he knew that a woman was being formed from the feather. But the man was still asleep and did not know what was happening. When the Bald Eagle decided that the woman was about completed, he returned, awoke the man by flapping his wings over him and flew away.
The man opened his eyes and stared at the woman. "What does this mean?" he asked/ "I thought I was alone!" Then the Bald Eagle returned and said with a smile, "I see you have a mate! Have you had intercourse with her?" "No," replied he man, for he and the woman knew nothing about each other. Then the Bald Eagle called to Coyote who happened to be going by and said to him, "Do you see that woman? Try her first!" Coyote was quite willing and complied, but immediately afterwards lay down and died. The Bald Eagle went away and left Coyote dead, but presently returned and revived him. "How did it work?" said the Bald Eagle. "Pretty well, but it nearly kills a man!" replied Coyote. "Will you try it again?" said the Bald Eagle. Coyote agreed, and tried again, and this time survived. Then the Bald Eagle turned to the man and said, "She is all right now; you and she are to live together.
Salinan Indian creation story, south-central California

STATEMENT BY BRYAN LEONARD'S DISSERTATION COMMITTEE

We are concerned and dismayed by recent attacks against OSU doctoral candidate Bryan Leonard. A gifted high school biology teacher, Mr. Leonard is at the final stage of his doctoral work at OSU in science education. He previously passed his written and oral examinations in 2002, as well as successfully defending his dissertation proposal in 2003. His dissertation committee had approved his dissertation draft this spring, and his final defense of his dissertation had been scheduled for June 6.

At the last minute, certain persons in the OSU community appeared to be trying to derail Mr. Leonard's candidacy using highly questionable tactics. Rather than first contact his dissertation committee or dissertation advisor directly with any concerns they might have had, they have campaigned against Mr. Leonard in the news media and on blog sites. We regard this public effort to defame a currently enrolled graduate student to be a serious breach of professional ethics. Furthermore, this is a violation of the courtesy and respect all OSU students have the right to expect from OSU faculty and staff. If these persons have legitimate concerns, they ought to be raised through proper university channels, not in the media.

Rather than respond in the media to unfounded attacks, we have been attempting to work through the proper channels at the university in an effort to resolve the situation. Unfortunately, inaccurate and inappropriate quotes by university officials concerning Mr. Leonard continue to be recycled in the media and on the internet. Many of these quotes misrepresent or mischaracterize the actions and integrity of both Bryan and his committee members. As a result, we feel that we must issue a public statement to clear the record on the following points:

(1) The Ethics of Mr. Leonard's Research. It has been alleged by three OSU professors at that Mr. Leonard's dissertation was “unethical human subject experimentation” because it examines the question: "When students are taught the scientific data both supporting and challenging macroevolution, do they maintain or change their beliefs over time?" According to the Columbus Dispatch, these professors acknowledge they have not read Mr. Leonard's dissertation, but they believe that Mr. Leonard's dissertation research must have been "unethical" because there are no valid scientific criticisms of evolution. "As such," they allege, "it involves deliberate miseducation of these students, a practice we regard as unethical." It is important to note that the professors' argument is not with Mr. Leonard but with the Ohio State Board of Education, which, contrary to their views, adopted both a science standard and a model curriculum last year encouraging teachers to teach about "how scientists continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory.") Ohio Standards, Life Sciences, Benchmark H)" It is absurd to claim that Mr. Leonard is being unethical merely for following the state's official policy in this area.

We also want to be clear that Mr. Leonard followed all university guidelines in obtaining appropriate student and parental consent for his research. Not only was Mr. Leonard’s research proposal approved by OSU's Institutional Review Board, but Mr. Leonard received permission by all parties necessary for him to conduct the educational research in his high school. Claims that Mr. Leonard's research was unethical are without any basis in fact. In contrast, three OSU professors and the Acting Dean of the OSU Graduate School have publicly claimed that there is evidence of unethical practice; yet, none of them have ever seen the Institutional Review Board application documents.

(2) The Composition of Mr. Leonard's Dissertation Committee. It has been alleged that Mr. Leonard's dissertation committee is improper either because it did not have two members from the science education area or because its committee members did not have relevant backgrounds. Here are the facts:

Mr. Leonard's original advisor was a professor from the science education program. After that professor left OSU for another university, a new dissertation advisor was required. Prof. Paul Post, who teaches in the Mathematics, Science, and Technology Education (MSAT) section of the School of Teaching and Learning, was selected after Mr. Leonard called the graduate school office to check on the regulations relating to the selection of a new advisor. Mr. Leonard was told at that time (either in late 2002 or early 2003) that the only requirement was that his new advisor must be in the School of Teaching and Learning (T&L) and must have the rank of category P. Prof. Post met these requirements.

Dissertation committee members were carefully selected based on their expertise in the areas of teaching a variety of different science classes including a college level biology course that included evolution related lessons. They were also selected for their expertise in their involvement with the Ohio Academic Content Science and Technology Standards. For example, Prof. Glen Needham served on the science writing advisory committee for the model science curriculum adopted last year by the Ohio State Board of Education. He also has had experience in several science education enrichment programs for Ohio public schools.

At every stage of the committee-forming process Mr. Leonard consulted with his advisor and with the appropriate university offices for guidance on the make-up of his committee. No one from the university ever expressed any concerns to Mr. Leonard during the process that his committee needed two members from the science education area. In fact, Mr. Leonard was given what now appears to be erroneous information by the relevant university offices. When a vacancy occurred on his committee earlier this year, Mr. Leonard contacted both the graduate school and the T&L office to check with them regarding any applicable rules and regulations for choosing a replacement. The graduate school office again said that the only requirement as far as they were concerned was that Mr. Leonard's advisor needed to be in Teaching and Learning (which he is) and to have a category P rank. The selection of other members of the committee was up to Mr. Leonard in consultation with his advisor. The T&L office told Mr. Leonard that they follow the graduate school standards, so whatever he was told by the graduate school was the relevant standard. Mr. Leonard called the T&L office a second time in order to confirm this information, and he was told the same thing. Nothing was said about a requirement that two members, or any members, of his committee must be from the science education section of MSAT.

Although we have now learned of an apparent policy within T&L that there be two members from science education on science education dissertation committees, it does not appear that this policy is either widely known or consistently applied. First, as already mentioned, when Mr. Leonard repeatedly sought guidance from the appropriate university offices earlier this year and in 2002 or 2003, he was not informed of any such policy. Second, we have now learned of several other science education dissertation committees over the past few years that apparently did not have two members from the science education section. Also, the dissertation committee was approved by the Graduate Studies Committee for the College of Education, which is supposed to check for compliance to various policies (T&L is a subdivision of the College of Education). Given these facts, it would be grossly unfair to selectively and retroactively apply this policy to Mr. Leonard at the very last moment of his dissertation process.

3. The replacement of Mr. Leonard’s original Graduate Faculty Representative (G.F.R). It has been publicly reported that Mr. Leonard's original Graduate Faculty Representative withdrew herself and therefore had to be replaced. In truth, she was removed at the last minute by the Graduate School in a highly irregular procedure without any consultation of Mr. Leonard's advisor, his dissertation committee, or Mr. Leonard.

4. The nature of Mr. Leonard's research. There seems to be a misunderstanding of the nature and scope of Mr. Leonard's research project. Mr. Leonard does not teach intelligent design in his classes. Nor does his research project examine the truth or falsity of evolutionary theory. Instead, it looks at the impact on students of teaching a curriculum that includes scientific information and interpretations for and against macroevolutonary theory (an approach called for in the Ohio science standards). Mr. Leonard's research is directed toward student learning and pedagogy, not on the merits of the scientific debate over evolution.

All students, whatever their viewpoint, have the right to be treated with respect, and OSU professors have the obligation to safeguard the academic freedom not only of themselves but of their students. We urge fellow members of the OSU community to remember this fact in the present instance, and we urge the news media to be more responsible before carelessly publishing unfounded claims harmful to the reputation of a student.

Sincerely,
Robert DiSilvestro
Ph.D. Biochemistry, Professor of Human Nutrition
Glen R. Needham
Ph.D. Associate Professor of Entomology

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.