What the Actual Hell, Ohio?
You may not know it. I’m an Ohio native. Born and raised. And although I’ve now lived in New York as long as I ever lived in Ohio, I still have some emotional ties to the Buckeye state. But my home state is making it harder and harder….
In November 2019, the Ohio House of Representatives passed a bill that would require teachers to count as “correct” any “incorrect” answer, if the correct answer were to violate the student’s religious beliefs. This so-called “Student Religious Liberties Act” will now be sent over to the Senate, which has a Republican majority.
For example, I’ve written elsewhere here about Flat Earthers. For religious reasons, they believe that the Earth is flat (and that space and stars and planets and gravity are all lies). So, a student who is a flat Earther (or, whose parents are flat Earthers) takes a science test. Let’s call this student Adam. A question on his science test asks: “What shape is the planet Earth?” While the teacher would have taught that the Earth is a sphere, and while I suspect most students would have written that the Earth is a sphere, Adam would write: “Flat.” He might add the detail that it is covered by a dome.
We’ve known for thousands of years that the Earth is a sphere. We can demonstrate it in a whole variety of ways. And, yet, this science teacher cannot count “flat” as incorrect. Under the new law, marking it as incorrect would violate Adam’s religious liberty.
Or, in another subject, what if a test in American Civics were to ask: “Can a woman be President of the US?” While most students would and should answer, “Yes,” while our religious objector might well answer, “No, for God said that woman should serve man and never take a leadership role.” If that answer stems from a religious tenet, they that answer cannot be marked incorrect. In fact, women fought long and hard for legal citizenship, for the right to vote, for the right to hold public office. That is a fundamental tenet of US society (even if the practice is not fully realized). What would it mean for our society if an entire swath of the populace can reject that ideal?
My first response to reading this law was: “#$%@%* #*(&$^*(&#^@.”
But beyond my first response, what are the stakes here?
One, we would be collapsing the separation of church and state. The founders were very clear about this. And for a reason. Public policy cannot and should not be driven by religious doctrine. School curricula should be based in accepted facts, in data-driven strategies, and in best practices. School curricula should be based in the tenets of individual equality and opportunity. This law opens the classroom to a standard-less curriculum. What if a science classroom has 20 students, and 15 of them hold divergent religious beliefs? Does that science test now have 15 different sets of answers? Or, as I suspect in the Ohio case, does it only accommodate the religiously held beliefs of Christians?
Two, this law would further our movement toward a post-fact society. How would future societies build computers, or cell phone systems, or GPS tracking, or any of a thousand other technologies that enable our current technological world if they do not accept simple, basic scientific facts? How would they create treatments for diseases if they do not accept the basic facts of biology and cause-and-effect? They can’t. The world as we know would be impossible. Granted, we have issues. But I have no interest in a wholly pre-technological society. Even the Taliban fighters holed up in caves had technology.
Three, we would condemn these students to limited career options. Students like Adam who believe that the Earth is flat will not be entering any of the tech industries. They will not be computer programmers. They will not be engineers. They will not be phone or cable techs. And they will not be doctors and nurses. Instead, they will likely be self-employed. I have nothing against being self-employed. I see a thousand ways that that is a good option. But, if someone is educated, then self-employed is one option among many. Students like Adam would not be willing to accept all citizens as equal members of society. Those biased could include sex, gender, race, sexuality, religion—or any other element that constituted a “religious liberty.”
No, thanks. While we can hope that the Ohio Senate will reject this dangerous bill. If they pass it, we can vote in legislators who understand the importance of a school curriculum based on the principles of the Constitution, not a religious text.
Ritch Calvin is an Associate Professor of Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies at SUNY Stony Brook. He is the author of Feminist Epistemology and Feminist Science Fiction and editor of a collection of essays on Gilmore Girls.
