Published in Skeptical Inquirer (Vol. 21, No. 1, January-February 1997), a semimonthly national magazine discussing and promoting the role of science and reason in modern society. It is the official journal of the Committee For the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP).This spring, the school district of Lakewood, Ohio, a large, prosperous, well-educated suburb of Cleveland, found itself forced to issue a letter to all district teachers forbidding the teaching of Creation "Science" in its classrooms.
Faced with a threatened lawsuit from the American Civil Liberties Union and significant public pressure and media attention, the district administration took action to prevent both of its full-time high school physics teachers from teaching "Creation Science." a statement to the press saying the teaching of Creationism in the high school class was "wrong and regrettable." But, interestingly, few, if any complaints came from parents or students in the class primarily responsible for the tempest.
For five years, Lakewood High School physics teacher, Mark Wisniewski has been teaching an administration-approved curriculum that included a section in which students were assigned two papers exploring the genesis and impact of their own "world view" and how these views shape their interpretations of the debate between "Creation Science" and the scientific views of the origin of life and the universe. Wisniewski, who acknowledges that he is a Creationist, claims "I tailored the entire thing to the philosophy of Lakewood High School, I thought I was following that philosophy." The districts other high school physics teacher also expounded his own Creationist philosophy in an informal way in his classes but did not formally include references in his curriculum.
Jennifer Whearty, who took Wisniewski's class as a senior last year, wrote the editorial in the Lakewood High School paper praising Wisniewski's teaching which attracted the attention of the Cleveland media. Her editorial praised his "innovative way of teaching" and she says she is upset that her support of Wisniewski's class started the chain of events that banned his teaching. Claiming the news reports and community reaction was blown out of proportion, she said "He never stood on a soap box and never made us feel like we were in Bible study...The philosophical element is what made it special. (Wisniewski) wanted us to make up our own minds more than spoon-feed us like other educators.".
Wisneiwski argues that the first of the two assignments under fire was to get students to examine "What do I believe, where did I get the belief from and they had to try to find some kind of support for their ideas. There were no right or wrong ideas."
The second of the two papers in question, Wisniewski said, was to give students "a handle on how this "world view" affects interpretation of evidence. "I tried to find something in the science arena and the creation-evolution debate fits like a glove" Wisniewski said. Asked if any other issue might illustrate his point as well without bringing religious debates into the classroom, Wisniewski argued that it is important that the dispute goes to core beliefs or the example wouldn't really hit home. He said his goal was to teach students how to interpret data on their own and not just "memorize and regurgitate the favorite interpretation of the teacher."
Wisniewski said he graded on how well the ideas were supported, not the answer the student ultimately gave. He said he gave evolutionists 'A's and gave low grades to creationists.
Wisniewski says he is a bit mystified by public reaction and press reports after the story broke. Arguing this section of the curriculum is only about 4% of his course. "The articles make it sound like a continuous, day-to-day thing," he said. Arguing that the class was designed for college bound juniors and seniors, Wisniewski said "You mean to tell me I'm going to warp their tender little minds?"
By all accounts, Wisniewski is considered by both students and school staff as a popular and excellent teacher Lakewood Schools Superintendent Dr. Joseph Madak confirmed Wisniewski's claim that only one complaint about the course reached the administration five years ago the first year the unit was added to the course. That complaint was discussed with a vice principal at the high school who convinced the parent to wait a while to see how the class proceeded. That parent never came back, according to Madak's investigation. (Madak became superintendent only last year.) Madak also confirmed that several school board members had children in Wisniewski's class but said that he, himself, was not aware of this unit of study until the Cleveland Plain Dealer, Cleveland's primary newspaper broke the story.
Suddenly calls began flooding the administration, Madak said, both supporting and complaining about Wisniewski's creationist teachings. Madak said that even of these calls, most were from people living outside the community, some threatening to call the ACLU, others naming groups who would help the district defend teaching Creationism.
Madak said, however, the primary reasoning behind his ban of this unit and any teaching of Creation "Science" was legal. He said that after the story broke, he brought in outside council to help with his investigation and evaluation of what was being taught and how it fit with Supreme Court rulings on the subject. "Our legal people put all that together and determined it was inappropriate as taught in our high school," Madak said, "The decision was based on our responsibility to follow the law." Madak claims that the threatened ACLU lawsuit played only a small role in his decision but convinced him that anything done by the administration had to be done in strict accordance with law. He noted that he is not an expert on what legally constitutes teaching religion in school and said until he heard the lawyer's recommendation, he really didn't know whether the controversial aspects of Wisniewski's curriculum might be legal.
Madak said that "Those of us who would like to see youngsters study creationism" should assure that it is taught in churches and synagogues and "not put the schools in the middle." Asked if he included himself in that us, whether or not he was a creationist, Madak declined to answer.
Raymond Vasvari, an ACLU lawyer who has worked on other "Creation Science" cases, believes that despite what Madak said, his threat of a lawsuit is what pushed the administration to take action. He said that the administration and school board knew Creationism was being taught at the high school and that the district was dragging its feet even after the issue became public. "The board had a silent policy supporting these teachings," he said, "At what point does inaction become silent approval?"
Vasvari said he threatened to sue to make sure the board did not equivocate but made a policy statement to all staff that Wisniewski's curriculum was "not just questionable and an exercise n poor judgment but a violation of the first amendment."
Arguing that any discussion of creation science in the classroom was state sponsored religion, Vasvari said "As a teacher, he is not just another man passing on his ideas, he is an agent of the state." "Rightly or wrongly, we have made a decision as a society to separate government and religion from each other and to insulate them from each other for their mutual benefit."