Orange Retains Policy on Teaching Evolution

The conservative majority on the Orange Unified School District voted 4 to 3 Thursday night to back off a proposal designed to reiterate that the theory of evolution is just that--a theory.

The four-member conservative majority sought a minor addition in the language of the district policy--modeled on the state Education Code--in an attempt to lessen the credibility of evolution, a theory some trustees contend is inferior to creationism in explaining human origins.

The state code limits instruction to accepted scientific “fact, hypothesis and theory.” The board sought to add the phrase “such as evolution,” in an attempt to treat it as merely an example of what may be taught.

But board members said they doubted they had the authority to make such a change.

“Not to cave in,” said board member Bill Lewis, who proposed the change, “but there is no point spending taxpayer money to fight the Supreme Court and the state.”

Voting to not change the policy were trustees James Fearns, Rick Ledemsa, Robert H. Viviano and Lewis. Trustees Martin Jacobson, Max Reissmueller and Maureen Aschoff voted for making the change.

Fearns, who opposed altering the state code, expressed relief over the conservative majority abandoning the proposal. But Fearns worried about the majority’s ultimate goals.

“I think it’s a backdoor way to get creationism into the classroom,” Fearns said. “Their agenda is unfolding now. They are treading in very treacherous waters here.”

Conservative Christians have enjoyed little success in winning community and judicial support for creationism in the public schools. In 1994, two trustees of a Christian conservative majority in Vista were recalled after trying to have creationism taught alongside evolution. Also, court decisions have repeatedly upheld the prohibition of teaching creationism in science classrooms.

The Orange Unified proposal arose from a routine update by district officials of school policies, which range from regulating student bicycle use to smoking on campus.

Even if the additional phrase were tacked onto the state Education Code, it would not have altered the way evolution is taught, Orange Unified officials said.

“Those three words would not have changed anything,” said Neil McKinnon, a former science teacher and the district’s assistant superintendent for education.

A spokeswoman for Orange Unified’s 1,200 teachers union attacked the proposal as ill-conceived. Sheryl Stevens, executive director of Orange Unified’s Education Assn., said district teachers have always taught evolution as theory and will continue to do so.

“We don’t need the board to tell us how to do our jobs,” Stevens said. “This proposal just shows how little they know about what we do in the classroom.”

Other critics argue the proposal denigrates evolution by presenting it as “just a theory,” thereby rendering it as equally plausible--or less so--than creationism. Further, critics worry, such proposals may frighten some teachers into modifying their lectures.

“If you want to protect kids from evolution, just intimidate the teachers,” said Eugenie C. Scott, executive director of the Berkeley-based National Center for Science Education. “It works like a charm. . . . By calling attention to evolution, you are raising a red flag to evolution, you are putting teachers on notice that this is controversial.”