Textbook Guideline Urged to Alter View of Evolution

To placate a “vocal segment” of the religious right, Supt. of Public Instruction Bill Honig is proposing to alter a recommended guideline for science textbooks so it will no longer refer to evolution as “scientific fact.”

Honig said he will offer the change to the State Board of Education this week. It appears that a majority of the board will endorse the modification.

The change is part of a behind-the-scenes compromise fashioned by Honig and Board President Francis Laufenberg to satisfy conservative board members who were expected to block final approval of the document authored by a committee of scientists and educators.

Although characterized by Honig as a mere “clarification” of the guidelines, the compromise nevertheless mirrors many of the demands made by religious groups espousing the biblical version of the origin of man known as creationism.

The compromise specifically calls for the removal of references to a precedent-setting U.S. Supreme Court decision and a National Academy of Science booklet that both question the scientific validity of the creationist theory.

At the same time, it provides for an expansion of the guideline to include the observation that “some people reject the theory of evolution purely on the basis of religious faith” and that these “personal beliefs should be respected and not demeaned.”

Late last week Honig said he expects to formally present the compromise to the board when it meets this week to make a final decision on the textbook guideline or framework.

“I assume that they (board members) adopt it and that’s it,” he said. “I think it’ll be an overwhelming vote.”

For weeks the nine-member board has been at the center of a struggle between religious groups wanting modifications which would leave room for teachers to present alternative theories on the development of life, particularly creationism, and scientific and anti-censorship organizations fighting to retain the strong pro-evolution wording in the proposal.

Leaders of the Traditional Values Coalition, an advocate for the teaching of creationism, immediately interpreted the new agreement as a “very significant victory.” Their prime opponent, the civil libertarian group People for the American Way, complained that textbook publishers may see the changes as a signal to water down their presentation of evolutionary theory.

“It shows that what we went after was reasonable,” said the Rev. Louis P. Sheldon, who heads the Anaheim-based Traditional Values Coalition.

Michael Hudson, western director for People for the American Way, disagreed, saying it showed the board’s vulnerability to “right wing political pressure.”

“There can be no doubt about the reason these changes were made and that’s to appease the religious right,” he said.

But Honig, who has been a strong advocate for more academically demanding textbooks, vehemently insisted that the proposed changes do not alter in any way the original intent of the framework. Even with the deletions, he said, the guideline would still remain a “very powerful document.”

He accused the two sides of “getting all involved politically” when the prime goal of the compromise was only to clarify the document.

“This is the board’s role to look at the document, clean it up, make sure it’s clear and take points of view that are raised and sharpen the language. It’s not changing the philosophy or strategy at all. It’s just clarifying the language,” he said.

However, in an Oct. 23 internal memorandum to Laufenberg, Honig took a different tack.

“My interest, like yours, is to preserve the intent and substance of this (evolution) section of the framework while finding a suitable compromise that will appeal to the vocal segment of the population defending ‘Christian’ values,” he wrote the board president. “Please let me know if there are any subtle changes which you feel are still necessary.”

Earlier in the memorandum he noted, “If we can agree on these changes and foreclose any additional challenges to these pages, I believe we can find support from the science education community and the public at large.”

The adoption of the new 187-page framework is expected to have nationwide significance because California, as one of the country’s largest textbook purchasers, usually has a major influence on how teaching materials are written. New textbook guidelines are adopted every seven years in the state through a long process that begins with the establishment of an overall policy by the board.

The California Curriculum Commission prepares a detailed framework, but the Board of Education itself makes the final decision on what will be included in the framework. Publishers use the framework as a guide for writing the textbooks. The textbooks are then submitted to the board, which draws up a list of accepted books. Local school districts must make their selections from that list.

Last winter the Board of Education approved a policy that was considered a victory for the evolutionists. The policy required that only scientific fact, hypothesis and theory should be presented in science textbooks, and religious beliefs “not subject to scientific test and refutation” should be discussed in a social science curriculum.

Since that unanimous decision, however, four members who voted for the policy have left the board, and other members have made statements indicating that evolution should not be too strongly emphasized. And creationists have argued that teaching evolution as the only theory of the origin of mankind would violate a provision in the board policy that “nothing shall be taught dogmatically.”

Laufenberg--a former Long Beach school superintendent--maintained in an interview last week that while the board continues to support the teaching of evolution, he and several board members feel the commission’s version of the framework is too strongly worded in spots and needed modifying.

“My feeling from the beginning was that true scientists are very objective and methodical. They aren’t advocates,” he said. “We were concerned about the tone. A lot of it was in the tone of advocacy.”

Another board member, Joseph Stein, said he believes the curriculum commission did not adhere to earlier requests by the board for deletions of references to evolution as “accepted fact.”

“I don’t think they carried out the wishes of the board with respect to the changes that were requested,” he said. “I think the board now will make modifications. I wouldn’t hesitate to say I’m in favor of them.”

Commission Chairman Dan Chernow, a Los Angeles businessman, said the document had been thoroughly reviewed by dozens of scientists and educators before it was unanimously approved by his panel in September.

The National Science Teachers Assn., the National Education Assn., the American Federation of Teachers and the American Assn. of University Professors were among those urging the board to approve the guideline as passed by the curriculum commission.