Textbook Selection in Texas:
An Issue of Separation of Church and State
Steven D. Schafersman, Ph.D.
President, Texas Citizens for Science
The Texas Lyceum
Austin, July 13, 2007
The United States Constitution
The Bill of Rights: First Amendment

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

Establishment Clause




Separationist Interpretation (strict separation, no aid)
Accommodationist Interpretation (some aid permitted, such as
for health, safety, transportation, etc.)
Both interpretations are Non-Preferentialist (cannot prefer one
religion over another or religion over non-religion)
Free Exercise Clause
Separation of Church and State



False Claim: There is nothing in the Constitution or Bill of Rights
about separation of church and state. The Establishment Clause
only prohibits Congress from establishing a national religion, so
government can promote religious agendas.
“I don't believe there's such a thing as the separation of church and
state. In fact, the First Amendment to the Constitution actually calls
on the United States Congress to make sure, to ensure that people
are allowed to practice their religion.” Texas Rep. Leo Berman
Truth: Separation of Church and State is a metaphor of the
Establishment Clause. “In the words of Jefferson, the clause against
establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of
separation between church and State.’” Justice Hugo Black
Fourteenth Amendment



“No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall
any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the
equal protection of the laws.”
Under the “Incorporation Doctrine,” the Supreme Court has held
since 1868 that the protections of the Bill of Rights apply to state,
county, and municipal governments, even though the Amendments
state that they apply only to Congress.
Decades were required to make freedom from religious
establishment a reality. The process continues today.
Religion and Non-Religion



False Claim: The Establishment Clause only prohibits preference of
one religion over another, not religion over non-religion, so
governments can promote—through legislation and statute—broadly
religious goals and agendas.
“Freedom of religion should not be mistaken for freedom from
religion.” Governor Rick Perry
Truth: “Government should not prefer one religion to another, or
religion to irreligion.” Justice David Souter, Justice Hugo Black, etc.,
in several Supreme Court decisions. The slightest empathy or
reflectance would demonstrate why freedom from religion is
necessary. Individuals such as Gov. Perry presumably wish to be
free from other religions so they can practice their own.
Religious and Secular



False Claim: When religion is removed from the public schools, it is
replaced by a “religion of secularism,” which hurts religious students.
“We don't need to shield our children from religious expression and
allow them to only be exposed to the religion of secularism in our
schools.” Governor Rick Perry
Truth: The U.S. Constitution requires that our various governments
and government institutions—such as public schools—must be
secular. Secularism is the middle, neutral state between religion and
anti-religion. Individuals can choose to be religious, non-religious
(secular), or anti-religious, but the state must be secular by law.
Establishment vs. Free Expression
Picture of Jesus with the Bible on the wall of
the courthouse in Slidell, Louisiana
Establishment vs. Free Expression

False Claim: The Constitution permits and protects religious practice
and speech, but some organizations are wrongfully attacking the
rights of citizens to pray and express their religion as they wish.

"[The ACLU is] one of the worst attackers of religious speech in
America," Gary McCaleb, senior legal counsel for the Alliance
Defense Fund, told ABC News about the Slidell, LA, courthouse case.
http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=3426795&page=1&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312

Truth: The Free Expression clause of the U.S. Constitution protects
individual religious practice and speech, but the Establishment
Clause prohibits or limits what a government can say or do regarding
religion. Conflating individual religious expression and government
expression to confuse citizens about the laws regarding church-state
separation is a deliberate misrepresentation, usually indulged in to
demonize the opposition.
The Problem

Public officials I term the “4Rs”—Radical Religious Right
Republicans—aggressively use the power of their state
offices to force their sectarian religious values and
beliefs onto moderate citizens and secular institutions.






Censorship of public school textbooks, especially biology texts
Vouchers for private schools—almost all are religious schools
Proselytization of students using Bible study classes (HB 1287)
Requiring recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance with “under God”
phrase, requiring a “moment of silence,” and adding “under God”
to the Texas Pledge (HB 1034)
Forcing religious speech on captive student audiences under the
guise of “freedom of religious expression” (HB 3678)
Abstinence only; against stem cell research; extorting faith-based
pre-marriage counseling; attempts to ban abortion, etc.
Texas Constitution and Vouchers



Article 1 - BILL OF RIGHTS
Section 7 - APPROPRIATIONS FOR SECTARIAN PURPOSES
“No money shall be appropriated, or drawn from the Treasury for the
benefit of any sect, or religious society, theological or religious
seminary; nor shall property belonging to the State be appropriated
for any such purposes.”

Over half the states have had a statewide referendum on the
question of giving public tax money to private religious schools. In
every case, vouchers failed by a 2-1 margin. The same would occur
in Texas if the legislature would allow a vote.

City councils and state legislatures have tried to implement limited
voucher programs, but most of these have failed in state and federal
court decisions; e.g., Florida.
School Vouchers – An Accommodation

Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 2002 (narrow 5-4 SC decision)




Valid secular purpose (e.g., assistance to failing public schools)
Public financial assistance is neutral, not directed to religious
schools (but almost all private schools are religious)
Public financial assistance given to parents, not schools (but it
quickly goes to schools)
Results:



Voucher programs focus on meeting Supreme Court guidelines
Voucher proposals for “failing” urban schools, autistic students, etc.
Legislative efforts and ploys to cause public schools to fail: underfunding schools, over-testing students, delaying teachers salary
raises, requiring “teacher accountability,” charter schools, virtual
academies, promoting home-schooling, etc.
WHY?
Why do the 4Rs engage in their blatant unconstitutional activity?

They want to counter the Constitutional secular and neutral nature of
government institutions, especially the public school system, which
they perceive as anti-religious.

They wish to reinforce the almost pervasive religious proselytization of
children in Texas society, so to do their part in their evangelical
mission.

They know they can succeed in steps, by keeping the pressure on and
gradually winning small victories, ultimately winning larger victories.

Courts may rule against them, but courts can change, and precedents
can be overturned. After all, stare decisis is dead. So is hypocrisy.
Who are the Radical Religious Right
Republicans in Texas doing the most damage
to our Constitutional liberties?






Governor Rick Perry
House Speaker Tom Craddick
Representative Warren Chisum
Representative Charlie Howard
Former Rep. Kent Grusendorf
Super Lobbyist James Leininger
Texas Representative Warren Chisum
Bible curriculum bill, religious expression bill, marriage counseling bill, anti-gay
marriage bill, sex education written consent bill, pro-textbook censorship bill, etc.





“Especially as Republicans, as long as we do those things [writing
legislation that promotes an extreme religious agenda], we kind of
keep our faith-based constituents out there encouraged that we're
doing the right thing. It is political ... as well it should be.”
“They expect us to do those kinds of things when we come down
here, and I'm proud to do it.”
“I'm a Christian, and I believe in creation. You ought to teach
creation as well as the fact of evolution [because] all of those kinds
of sciences have holes in them.”
“The bill applies to the Bible as a text that has historical and literary
value. [The] Quran is a religious philosophy, not of historical or
literary value, which is what the Bible is being taught for.”
Religion “governs just about everything I do.”
Chisum Apologized for a Memo’s Anti-Semitic
Content, But Not Its Anti-Science Content.
Textbook Censorship was common and
is still ongoing in Texas.

Biology, earth science, environmental science, history, economics,
civics, social studies, literature, health education, and many other
textbooks—including the dictionary—have been censored by the
radical religious right majority on the State Board of Education for
decades, and education in Texas has suffered, especially science
education.

The topic of evolution in biology textbooks was especially damaged
in the 1960s and 1970s, when the subject was watered-down,
relegated to insignificance, and even removed from some textbooks.
Anti-evolution disclaimers were stamped in biology texts!

Efforts began in 1980 to challenge the censorship problem.
Texas Citizens for Science (1980-present), People for the American Way
(1982-1994), National Center for Science Education (1984-present), and the
Texas Freedom Network (1994-present) have worked to correct the
textbook censorship problem in Texas for the last quarter century.

TCS and PFAW were able to have the anti-evolution stamps
removed from biology textbooks in 1983.

TCS and PFAW were able to get the topic of evolution restored to its
important scientific place in the science curriculum standards and
biology textbooks in 1988.


Publicity from TCS and PFAW’s activity led the Texas Legislature in
1995 to strip the SBOE of its power to censor textbooks in secret, by
private negotiation with publishers. Only factual errors could now be
corrected.
TCS and TFN worked to adopt the finest biology textbooks in the
history of Texas in 2003. (We failed in 2004 with the health texts.)
In 2005, Warren Chisum and Charlie Howard tried to
restore the power of the SBOE to censor textbooks.
(Howard has tried to do this every session.)


They failed (because the Texas Legislature doesn’t really like the
SBOE, since it has given Texas a bad reputation). But science
textbooks continue to be censored by unscrupulous SBOE members
who aggressively and mendaciously define “factual errors” to suit
their purposes. For example, in 2002 an environmental science text
was rejected because its statement that “humans and industrial
plants cause pollution” was determined to be a “factual error.”
Creationists in 2003 attempted to convince a majority of the SBOE
that content about evolution and the chemical origin of life in biology
texts up for adoption was factually in error. Scientists and business
leaders worked together to thwart them, and reliable biology texts
were adopted.
The Textbook Adoption System is Still Broken
The Texas SBOE still has too much power.

Science textbook publishers engage in self-censorship, anticipating what
content the Texas SBOE will permit.

An abstinence-only policy was implicitly mandated by the SBOE.

The topic of contraception was omitted from all health education
textbooks in 2004, despite the facts that
 over 60% of Texas high school students engage in sexual activity,
 Texas has one of the highest teenage illegitimate pregnancy rates, and
 Texas has one of the highest teenage STD and HIV rates.

The politically-appointed Texas Commissioner of Health refused to
intervene or say anything, despite TCS’s written requests.
There is no law requiring that accurate and reliable
science be taught or pseudoscience to not be taught
in public schools.



Instead, every significant court case involving creationism and
intelligent design was decided in science and society’s favor on the
basis of a First Amendment, Establishment Clause violation.
Every court concluded that the defendants tried to force sectarian
religion into science classrooms (or keep evolution out of them).
Evolution v. Creationism or Intelligent Design Creationism Cases:






Epperson v. Arkansas, 1968 (Supreme Court: anti-evolution law overturned)
Wright v. Houston ISD, 1972 (District Court: evolution ruled not a secular religion)
McLean v. Arkansas, 1982 (District Court: balanced treatment law overturned;
creation science not science, but a religious doctrine)
Edwards v. Aguillard, 1987 (Supreme Court: equal-time law overturned; creation
science ruled not legitimate science)
Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish, 1997 (District Court: disclaimer law overturned)
Kitzmiller v. Dover, 2005 (District Court: disclaimer law overturned; intelligent design
ruled to be creationism, a religious doctrine)
Conclusions





The accuracy and reliability of our country’s science education
system depends on a Constitutional clause that prohibits the
establishment of religion!
Textbook censorship is just one part of a much larger problem
involving the promotion of sectarian religion by public officials.
“Human civilization becomes more and more a race between
education and catastrophe.” H.G. Wells, The Outline of History
The Texas 4Rs are courting catastrophe by gaming the system to
achieve their sectarian self-interests. They regularly pervert science
education (and other cultural values) by using the powers of their
offices to legislate fundamentalist Protestant Christian doctrines that
Texas secular public institutions must accept.
By opposing them and working to protect science education, I, on
the other hand, am working to preserve humanity and civilization.