Having -- somewhat inadvertently --  set off the interesting and sometimes
heated discussion on science and intelligent design as an improbable
example of what might not be allowed in the classroom under the proposed
Academic Rights legislation, imagine what alternative explanations might
need exploration in a history, literature, social science, or art class?
These are the very areas mentioned in the legislation, not the so-called
"hard" sciences, which some of us apparently consider soft after all.

Since "controversial" topics must be avoided, none of the recent "opinions"
expressed on Raven could be discussed in class, for fear of creating a
"hostile" environment for that student in the back row with a complaint
form to fill out.

I have always thought we should have a General Education course devoted
solely to banned books; if a book has an idea so threatening that some
folks want it suppressed, then it must therefore be important. I had a
professor who proclaimed that we would study only the controversies in
history, not the explanations generally accepted. That is what makes
working at a university different and exciting; we deal with ideas,
regardless of their broad acceptance by the community. If community
approval is required, then the university is indeed just a forum for
"indoctrination." Academic Freedom means Professors should be free to
pursue ideas.

Here's my idea. If we accept intelligent design theory, that all things are
created by a higher being, then science and modern scientists, including
those who say the observable physical record supports some theory of
evolution, are also the product of intelligent design. Logically, they
cannot be otherwise, unless...uh-oh...they are creatures of Satan!

Richard Rice