Opinion: Los Alamitos Unified is Defending an Absurd View on Global Warming

The Los Alamitos Unified School District school board have taken plenty of heat for .

So they’re crying foul. Today, according to , who originally reported LAUSD’s action,

…[D]istrict officials suggested critics were "politicizing" and misinterpreting Los Alamitos Unified's policy on teaching "controversial issues."

"We are not trying to micromanage teachers," board member Diana Hill said Saturday morning.

Board President Karen Russell, a former science teacher, said she "absolutely believes in global warming," but nevertheless thinks it's important to challenge students and teach them “another side” of the issue.

Yeah, but the guy who spearheaded the new “both sides” policy wasn’t thinking about “challenging” students. He’s a conservative Republican who believes global climate change is a “crock of crap,” the product of liberalism, not science.

Board member Jeffrey Barke, a doctor, led the charge, saying he thought climate change was a crock and didn't want "liberal" teachers indoctrinating young minds.

     It turns out that Dr. Barke is thin-skinned:

“I should’ve chosen my words better," Barke said Saturday, "but I don’t think I deserve having people question my medical license and sending me derogatory comments or personal attacks."

Barke described some of the criticism as “silly” and “offensive,” including suggestions that skepticism toward climate change is akin to denying the moon landing or the Holocaust.

But he thinks he’s got some real science on his side:

“There are flaws in the data that concern global warming and I respectfully disagree that more than 90 percent of scientists believe global warming exists,” he said. “There are hundreds of reputable scientists such as Bjorn Lomborg and Ian Plimer who deny the causes and concerns of global warming.”

Pagaza notes—correctly—that Lomborg in fact acknowledges that global warming “is real and man-made.” And Lomborg is not a natural scientist; he’s a political scientist at a business school.

And Plimer? Pagaza informs us that this geologist's skepticism “has been lambasted by other scientists.” That’s putting it mildly.

So, again, Barke is all sizzle and no steak.

Pagaza also quotes incoming Superintendent Sherry Kropp:

"We want our students to develop into complex, critical thinkers who are able to discern fact, opinion, science, etc. The board’s interest is that courses present a balanced curriculum that represents multiple perspectives of controversial issues…."

The LAUSD wants students to develop into “complex” thinkers? What on earth does that mean? The remarks is, at best, confused.

Students should, says Kropp, be able to “discern fact, opinion, science, etc.” –Sure, but anyone who can do that ipso facto knows that the “opinion” that the evidence for global warming is poor is false and that scientific efforts to account for the empirical data inclines one to suppose that global warming is real and that human activity is causing it.

Kropp offers rhetoric, not logic. It’s guff like hers that gives administrators a bad name.

And just what is a “balanced” curriculum? What is supposed to be balanced with what? I don’t believe that this LAUSD crew are capable of giving a coherent answer to that question.

* * *

At this point, the LAUSD Barkesters have made these remarks, among others:

• “I believe my role in the board is to represent the conservative [position] and I’m not a big fan of global warming.” (Barke)

• “[I]f we leave it to teachers to impose their liberal views, then it would make for an unbalanced lesson.” (Barke)

• “An unbalanced lesson would portray only one side. All we want is to have teachers teach the various scientific theories out there.” (Kropp)

• “We define a topic to be controversial if it has more than one widely held view.” (Kropp)

• “If the textbook talks about the evil adventures of humanity, we want teachers to describe an opposing view.” (Barke)

• “Teachers and textbooks are biased.” (Barke) (All from .)

AN IDENTIFIABLE VIEW

These remarks imply a particular view: that (1) instructors should teach “balanced” lessons and (2) balance is a matter of teaching “both sides” of a controversy—(3) where “controversy” is relative to the political sphere, not the scientific. Call it the “political balance” (PB) view of sound instruction.

Contrary to Barke, this view does indeed imply that, if a significant minority (or, indeed a majority) of citizens denies a view embraced by the relevant authorities, then instructors ought to teach that contra-authority view.

And that means that Social Studies teachers should teach when discussing President Obama.

Absurd.

The Barkesters deny that they are “micromanaging” teachers. But, of course, that’s exactly what they’re doing, for they’re prepared to tell (or are telling) instructors what to teach in the classroom. Simply denying it isn’t an argument.

I recall a similar episode, fifteen years ago, in the (then-) Saddleback Community College District. Trustee Steven Frogue, a Holocaust denier (according to many of his Foothill High School students, and judging by some of his remarks to the media), questioned a course about the Holocaust:

But Richard Prystowsky, who last year began teaching "Understanding the Holocaust" at Irvine Valley College, said he was shocked when [trustee Steve] Frogue raised questions about his course and his brief involvement with the ADL. Prystowsky once assisted the ADL on an oral history of the Holocaust. (LA Times)

Hey, lots of people agreed with Frogue. After a while, members of Orange County’s Institute for Historical Review started coming to meetings, defending the guy and shouting, "The Holocaust never happened!"

As you know, whether or not the Holocaust happened is “controversial.”