There's a marvelous law in Great Britain prohibiting the "promotion of partisan political views in the teaching of any subject in the school" that is about to be tested by a lorry driver trying to prevent Al Gore's schlockumentary "An Inconvenient Truth" from being forced on English children.
Why hasn't someone in America done the same thing?
While you ponder, it was reported in Thursday's Telegraph (emphasis added throughout, h/t Marc Morano):
"I care about the environment as much as the next man," says [Stewart Dimmock, 45, a lorry driver and school governor from Kent]. "However, I am determined to prevent my children from being subjected to political spin in the classroom."
Sounds like Dimmock should be writing for NewsBusters. But I digress:
You might think there ought to be a law against this - and there is. Section 406(1)(b) of the Education Act 1996 says that local education authorities, school governing bodies and head teachers "shall forbid... the promotion of partisan political views in the teaching of any subject in the school".
And if political issues are brought to the attention of pupils while they are at a maintained school, the authority, the governors and the head are required by the next section of the Act to take "such steps as are reasonably practicable to secure that... they are offered a balanced presentation of opposing views".
Sounds reasonable, wouldn't you agree? As such, maybe schools should either be banned from presenting the film, or required to also show "The Great Global Warming Swindle" to offer balance.
But there's more:
Mr Dimmock's lawyers are trying to prevent the film being shown in schools. At this stage, they are asking for permission to challenge the Schools Secretary's decision to distribute it. This was refused in July after a written application. But if permission is granted at an oral hearing next Thursday, the judge is expected to consider the merits of Mr Dimmock's application for judicial review straight away.
[...]
According to his solicitor, Mr Dimmock accepts that the planet is getting hotter; he is not trying to prevent climate change being taught in schools. What he does not accept is that sending out a 93-minute film made by the former vice-president of the United States is the right way to do it.
"Gore has gone on record as saying he believes it is appropriate to over-represent the facts to get his message across," says [John Day, Mr Dimmock's solicitor]. "One of the very clear inferences from the Gore film is that areas such as Bangladesh will be under water by the end of the century. He is talking about sea levels rising by 20 feet."
But this is not backed up by the IPCC, the solicitor says. Their view is that sea levels will rise by 1.3 feet over the next 100 years. A rise of 20ft would require rising temperatures to continue for millennia.
"This film is a very powerful piece of work, says Mr Day. "There is a real risk that children are going to gulp on this and just digest it and accept it."
Much like American media members, most Democrats, and virtually all Hollywoodans. But I again digress, and sincerely hate it when that happens:
Michael Sparkes, also from the law firm Malletts, adds that Mr Gore's central premise - that carbon dioxide emissions are causing the recently observed global warming - is taken by the film as proved.
"There is no discussion of the fact that the climate is changing naturally all the time, whether warming or cooling," he said.
He questions the examples given in the film, suggesting that there are often local causes for shrinking lakes and melting glaciers.
Mr Dimmock's lawyers will therefore argue that distributing this film to schools is either unlawful under section 406 of the 1996 Act or unlawful because it does not offer the balance required by section 407.
Gotta love them Brits, especially the piece's conclusion:
Whether the written guidance is enough to balance the impact of Mr Gore's undoubtedly political views will no doubt be at the heart of next week's hearing. But is the debate over the science of climate change "well and truly over"? Not a chance.
Wouldn't it be wonderful if American journalists were willing to admit there isn't a chance the debate over the science of climate change is well and truly over?
A man can dream, can't he?
Give 'em hell, Stewy!
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
lorry driver
September 20, 2007 - 09:18 ET by Dr_Liberty"lorry driver" - he he, they have such cute names for things over there.
Of course, we have Minnie Driver and Minnie Mouse over here, so I guess they could chuckle at us.
<insert witty signature here>
And what would they think
September 20, 2007 - 10:29 ET by Dan The Man 2And what would they think of Peter Lory?
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
Why don't we have a law like that?
September 20, 2007 - 09:27 ET by Dee BunkIf Gore's film is used in schools it should be used as how to recognize fact from propaganda by stopping it repeatedly to show all of it's inaccuracies.
The real question to ask, is...
September 20, 2007 - 09:33 ET by sarcasmoWhy do we fund schools which apparently require us to consider passing a law like that?
I can think of a history course where I'd ONLY teach the truth, but it would upset partisans here of the left and right in an excruciating manner if y'all knew I was being paid to teach it with your taxes. That's how I feel now about socialist schools, which tend NOT to teach the truth and yet are funded with my taxes.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Because we have to
September 20, 2007 - 12:15 ET by be_objectiveWhy do we fund public schools? Because we are forced to pay taxes. Public schools are nothing more than liberal indoctrination camps. They dont teach kids to think with reason and logic, but to "feel" for the plight of the polar bear and its shrinking habitat, to "fear" that cities will flood and super storms will devistate there homes. so who is it that is "playing on our fears" by over representing facts (lying)? And as to history, it is not taught in a chronological comprehensive maner, explaining how the events of one era affected the next. but instead events are hand picked and interpreted in a liberal view point and not given any historical context. The government needs to get out of the "education" business, private schools are the way to go.
"In any compromise between good and evil, only evil can profit." Ayn Rand
The truth
September 21, 2007 - 06:17 ET by Unsane"I can think of a history course where I'd ONLY teach the truth..."
Thank the teaching gods that you are not. The more you'd proclaim that you were only teaching the truth, the faster your pupils shoud run.
The funny thing about the truth is that it never needs to be qualified or proclaimed. As Henry Rollins once said/sang, "The truth ain't nothin' but the truth." The truth just is. Therefore, when people begin claiming what they know is the truth, the more I cringe, and the more I recommend people get prepared to get lied to.
Another thing about history which you fail completely to understand (shocker!) is that while we KNOW what happened, and when, and how (mostly), the WHY is always debated, and is the source of the greatest controversy. At which point you begin to enter discussions of historiography.
As for education: the current university system where both public and private institutions across the country compete for student's dollars should be something of a model for how our grade schools work. Sure, the government could be involved...but ONLY if they actually COMPETE with other institutions, both public and private. It works for our universities. There is a reason why, as bad as our grade schools are, the colleges and universities in this country are consistently ranked as the best in the world.
WWPD?
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
P.S. If we don't attend the online rally, will our names be taken down so that we may be forbidden food rations if Paul becomes President?
Teaching
September 20, 2007 - 10:09 ET by iveseenitallRight.There is very little "teaching" going on in government-funded schools. It's 90% left-wing pap. And right,Dee, a good teacher would stop the fillm from time to time and encourage discussion. But this might help students think, a real "no-no" in schools today.
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
Worse!
September 21, 2007 - 06:20 ET by UnsaneI would argue that its worse than that.
The public schools are glorified nurseries and centers for babysitting. High schools in particular are more concerned that their students have a GREAT social environment and lots and lots of "extracurricular activites" rather than have (gulp!) academic programs and classes that teach and value critical thinking.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
I haven't seen it, but, my kids have...
September 20, 2007 - 10:50 ET by rx4musicI wouldn't PAY to see AIT, but, both of my kids were subjected to it at school multiple times. My high school aged daughter saw it in Civics class, English, and an EcoScience class. My middle-school aged son saw it during a Heatlh class and once during a rain day in P.E. Fortunately, my kids are smart enough to see through the BS and BOTH of them said it was really stupid and passed it off as a total waste of their time. (Did I mention they are both smart kids? Straight A's all around and I couldn't be more proud!). :-)
"I used to be disgusted, but now, I try to be amused..."- E. Costello
What possible relevance to
September 20, 2007 - 11:01 ET by Dan The Man 2What possible relevance to English does this film have unless they aere perhaps looking at its fact checking in the vein of journalism. And PE? In my PE class we watched films about health not documentaries. This is a foreboding that they show these things. My sone said to me the other day to watch the truther film about 911. Ohh Vey.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
Unfortunately, battling
September 20, 2007 - 11:36 ET by TruthMattersUnfortunately, battling schools (and politicians) take up a significant amount of the normal Joe's time. Thank you Noel for your efforts and keep pressing the issue.
This is a repost of my initial salvo at the schools...
I actually had one of my kid's teachers last year show Al Gore's movie. The following is an excerpt of my letter back to the teacher. I expect more of the same from teachers this year, thus my request for more help.
Although I am a Professional Environmental Engineer, I admit that I am not an expert on the issue of global warming. However; to borrow words from someone else, I support the principle that young people should be educated, not propagandized -- and I know something about what that means.
One of the most important differences between education and propaganda is how they deal with great controversies.
In education, students are taught about the controversies. In propaganda, they are shielded from them.
In education, students are taught both sides of the important debates. In propaganda, they are taught only one.
In education, students are taught both the strengths and the weaknesses of the officially favored theory. In propaganda, they are taught only its strengths.
In short, education is the training of minds, while propaganda is the training of prejudices. In a democratic republic, the public schools should not propagandize, but educate.
The mandatory curriculum guidelines for Texas, called Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS), agree with me. As we find in the science section of these guidelines, students must learn to "analyze, review, and critique scientific explanations, including hypotheses and theories, as to their strengths and weaknesses using scientific evidence and information." - 19 TAC Chapter 112.7(b)(3)(a)
If the TEKS guidelines agree with me, then what is the issue? The issue is that although students should be taught about both sides of a scientific theoretical controversy, your assignment, based on the description in your permission request, appears to only present one side and are shielded from the weaknesses contained in Al Gore’s video. How can a 5th grade student write a critique about assertions made in a global warming video without having anything to compare and contrast the assertions to? Your permission/assignment sheet gave no indication as to how, if any, the views counter to Al Gore’s video would be taught. In addition, it is not clear what alternate assignment is available to the student should they choose not to view the video.
If the theory of global warming is to be taught in your classroom, I urge that the topic should be taught like the other sciences and like other controversial theories -- with honesty about both sides.
To the Honorable members of the Board:
When classroom activities and/or textbooks are biased, you (and the Texas Education Agency) are the check and balance. If global warming is to be taught within PISD, I urge you to require that the scientific data to both sides of this controversy be taught and that not one side be suppressed. To do so would be not only good training in science, but good education in citizenship.
Why just Ogre Al's
September 20, 2007 - 12:45 ET by Senior ChiefWhy just Ogre Al's inconvenient lie? How about our British friends stop the Islamic invasion of their schools- and maybe our school system too- when they're trying to change the language of their textbooks so not to offend muslim students.
Well, at least they're acting on it.