The Washington Post

An article in the Style section of today's Washington Post asks the question, why are Virginia voters so uninterested in this year's -- or any year's -- gubernatorial election?

In "Virginia's Quadrennial Dilemma: Whosis or Whatsizname?," Post reporter Linton Weeks turns to a number of old hands at Virginia politics to explore the issue: former Governor Jim Gilmore. VCU political scientist and Rolodex regular Robert Holsworth. Library of Virginia historian Brent Tarter. The late V. O. Key. And me.

As the winner of a Tony Award might say, I am honored to be in such distinguished company.

Seriously, though, I knew Weeks' article was coming, because he interviewed me twice over the telephone last week. I'm pleased to say that most of what I told him made it into print, either as a quotation or as a paraphrase.

Weeks begins his article with a summary of the reasons given for the decline in voter interest by his panel of experts:

First of all, the election is always held in an off-off year -- that is, a yawner of a year when there are no national elections. So you don't have anybody at the top of the ticket -- presidential or congressional candidates -- to make you get out of bed and put on your voting shoes. This year the election is on Nov. 8.

The bottom of the ticket doesn't look too sexy either. Of the 100 state delegate races, most of the candidates are incumbents who are running unopposed.

Virginia is the only state in America that does not allow a governor to run for a second term, so there are never any incumbents in the race. You are always being introduced to new politicians and you're never dashing down to the polling booth to keep your candidate in office or to run the other rascal out. The two gubernatorial front-runners are virtually unknown in many parts of the state.

As befits a Style-section article, Weeks makes some analogies with pop-culture images and then gets into the meatiest part of his analysis:

Over and over you hear the same plaint from voters. Like Coke and Pepsi, Wal-Mart and Kmart, Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen -- Kilgore and Kaine are so genetically, generically similar that it's tough to tell them apart. They may be the most uniform candidates since sliced bread.

Virginians might also be politicked out. Rick Sincere, chairman of the Charlottesville Electoral Board, speaks of his state's election fatigue. There is at least one election every year in Virginia, whether it's local, state or federal. In some communities there are two elections every other year. "And that's not even counting primaries," he says.

Sincere believes that one salient reason for the statewide dearth of enthusiasm in the gubernatorial contest is the "lack of competition in down-ticket races."

In other words, there are not a lot of contentious local contests. "Unless you've got someone talking about those issues that are close to home," Sincere says, "you're not going to get people to come out to the polls."

He says that over the years gerrymandering has created districts that favor incumbent officials and discourage competition. He thinks that a nonpartisan redistricting system, such as what Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is proposing in California or the one that already exists in Iowa, might partially solve the problem of off-off ennui.

Other proposed solutions include moving the governor's race to another year that might have more national interest. And allowing governors to serve for a second term.

"People think this is such an important tradition," Sincere says of the Virginia gubernatorial system, "and if it ain't broke don't fix it. Although there a lot of people who would say it is broke."

Then I learned something I never knew before -- one of those things Michael Feldman on Wisconsin Public Radio's Whad' Ya Know? would call "Things* *You Should Have Learned in School (had you been paying attention)." In looking at Virginia elections through history, Weeks reveals that V. O. Key's full name was "Vladimer Orlando Key." That's like finding out Kramer's first name is Cosmo.

The things you miss in civics class.

Teenage Angst

Social conservatives have responded to last week's Time magazine cover story on gay teenagers, "The Battle Over Gay Teens" (chronicled here just a few days ago).

The compilers of a collection of quotations and paraphrases from the Time article, Robert Knight and Benjamin Frichtl, use their platform to evoke the incendiary image of "recruitment" as the purpose of organizations like GLSEN, an organization of gay and gay-friendly teachers, and the Point Foundation, a charity that offers scholarships to high-achieving gay and lesbian college students. They end their "report" with this sentence, no doubt intended to bring out the torches and pitchforks:

Clearly, the homosexual movement's effort to recruit children has never been stronger than it is now.

They also mischaracterize what was reported in Time. For instance, Knight and Frichtl say (note the placement of quotation marks), attributed to the Time article:

The average age of kids “coming out” as homosexual has “dropped to 10 for gays and 12 for lesbians,” according to the chair of Cornell University’s human-development program.

This is what correspondent John Cloud actually wrote in Time magazine:

The average gay person now comes out just before or after graduating high school, according to The New Gay Teenager, a book Harvard University Press published this summer.

This is followed a few paragraphs later by:

In the 1960s, gay men recalled first desiring other males at an average age of 14; it was 17 for lesbians. By the '90s, the average had dropped to 10 for gays and 12 for lesbians, according to more than a dozen studies reviewed by the author of The New Gay Teenager, Ritch Savin-Williams, who chairs Cornell's human-development department.

There is a big, big difference with beginning to get an inkling that you might be gay and actually admitting it to yourself and to others, that is, "coming out." Knight and Frichtl either don't know the difference or are purposefully misrepresenting what was reported in Time in order to arouse prurient emotions in their readers. Anyone who goes through the process of coming out knows that it takes years from that first inkling coming to the surface and the moment that one has the courage to say to another person, "Yep, I'm gay."

Knight and Frichtl also note:

At a youth retreat, the Point Foundation gave out gift bags to students containing, among other things, “a DVD of the film Hedwig and the Angry Inch, in which a teenage boy is masturbated by an adult” and “the Aug. 16 issue of the gay magazine The Advocate, whose cover featured a shirtless man and blared, SUMMER SEX ISSUE.”

Set aside for a moment that they exaggerate the explicitness of that scene in Hedwig and the Angry Inch (I've seen the play, but not the movie, and while the play is suggestive, it is not pornographic by any definition), or that The Advocate is no more provocative than People or Entertainment Weekly -- and mostly far milder and, pardon me, more boring. By using the phrase "youth retreat" in the context of talking about an article about gay teenagers, Knight and Frichtl may mislead their readers to believe that the DVD and magazine were given to high school students or younger teens. In fact, the "retreat" was for college students -- all legal adults -- who had received the prestigious and highly-competitive academic scholarships from the Point Foundation.

Knight and Frichtl go on, after mentioning how the Time report includes information about the discredited ex-gay movement:

But the overall impact of the article helps validate the idea of “gay kids,” and will undoubtedly induce some to act out their sexual curiosity since so many others appear to be doing so. The constant focus on homosexuality becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, much as TIME’s frequent articles during the 1960s and 1970s about the “growing phenomenon” of illicit drug use helped spur some kids to try marijuana and LSD.

I would be curious to see the evidence that articles in a news magazine like Time contributed to the drug culture of the 1960s and '70s. I find it highly unlikely that such evidence exists.

Even if it did, the idea that Time could, with a single article, "induce" kids to become gay is laughable. It is as laughable as the idea that someone can be "recruited into homosexuality."

The teenagers described in Time are already gay; they were gay long before any reporter found them to interview; and whether they were born that way or not, being homosexual is an immutable characteristic. One cannot be persuaded to be gay or straight.

Social conservatives have a real fear that gay kids -- and gay adults, for that matter -- are being treated with the dignity and respect that all people deserve, rather than, as in years past, treated with derision and violence. They may vent about articles like that in Time last week, but they are just whistling past the graveyard.

Andrew Sullivan writes about "The End of Gay Culture" in the current issue of The New Republic, saying in part:

The new anti-gay fervor is a response to the growing probability that the world will one day treat gay and straight as interchangeable humans and citizens rather than as estranged others. It is the end of gay culture--not its endurance--that threatens the old order. It is the fact that, across the state of Massachusetts, "gay marriage" has just been abolished. The marriage licenses gay couples receive are indistinguishable from those given to straight couples. On paper, the difference is now history. In the real world, the consequences of that are still unfolding.

Since people like Knight and Frichtl are obsessed with sex, they fail to see the richness of the lives of individual gay men and lesbians, and of the communities they have built in the face of what was until recently unremitting hostility (coming from the likes of Knight and Frichtl, only they were far more numerous and vocal). Near the conclusion of his article, Sullivan writes:

Rick Sincere & Andrew Sullivan

And, when you see the internalized defensiveness of gays still living in the shadow of social hostility, any nostalgia one might feel for the loss of gay culture dissipates. Some still echo critic Philip Larkin's jest that he worried about the American civil rights movement because it was ruining jazz. But the flipness of that remark is the point, and the mood today is less genuine regret--let alone a desire to return to those days--than a kind of wistfulness for a past that was probably less glamorous or unified than it now appears. It is indeed hard not to feel some sadness at the end of a rich, distinct culture built by pioneers who braved greater ostracism than today's generation will ever fully understand. But, if there is a real choice between a culture built on oppression and a culture built on freedom, the decision is an easy one. Gay culture was once primarily about pain and tragedy, because that is what heterosexuals imposed on gay people, and that was, in part, what gay people experienced. Gay culture was once primarily about sex, because that was how heterosexuals defined gay lives. But gay life, like straight life, is now and always has been about happiness as well as pain; it is about triumph as well as tragedy; it is about love and family as well as sex. It took generations to find the self-worth to move toward achieving this reality in all its forms--and an epidemiological catastrophe to accelerate it. If the end of gay culture means that we have a new complexity to grapple with and a new, less cramped humanity to embrace, then regret seems almost a rebuke to those countless generations who could only dream of the liberty so many now enjoy.

John Cloud's article in Time illustrates the "end of gay culture" that matters so much to Sullivan. Cloud writes:

Because he routinely sees young gays on MTV or even at school, a 14-year-old may now feel comfortable telling friends that he likes other boys, but that doesn't mean he is ready to enfold himself in a gay identity. "Today so many kids who are gay, they don't like Cher. They aren't part of the whole subculture," says Michael Glatze, 30, editor in chief of YGA Magazine. "They feel like they belong in their faith, in their families."
"Increasingly, these kids are like straight kids," says Savin-Williams. "Straight kids don't define themselves by sexuality, even though sexuality is a huge part of who they are. Of course they want to have sex, but they don't say, 'It is what I am.'" He believes young gays are moving toward a "postgay" identity. "Just because they're gay, they don't have to march in a parade. Part of it is political. Part is personal, developmental."
The political part is what worries Glatze. "I don't think the gay movement understands the extent to which the next generation just wants to be normal kids. The people who are getting that are the Christian right," he says.

The idea of "post-gay" may be what is most fearsome to social conservatives -- the idea that everyone be treated equally, with no substantial social significance to the terms "gay" or "straight." Instead, we'll all just be Americans. No more "other" -- just "us."

Maybe I'm Naïve?

The local TV stations -- WVIR Channel 29 and WCAV Channel 19 -- had reports on their 11:00 o'clock news broadcasts about a forum that discussed the referendum for an elected school board in Charlottesville. Neither report has reached the stations' web sites, however, but I did find this blurb on WINA-AM radio's site:

A Thursday night forum brought out the pros and cons of an elected city school board. The issue will be decided by Charlottesville voters on November 8th. Former county supervisor Charles Martin spoke in favor of keeping appointed school boards. Martin says an elected board would cut down on the number of people willing to serve. He says many people don't realize the time and expense that must be devoted to campaigning. Martin also says changing the system could create bad blood between the school board and city council when a board member promises something that the city can't fund. UVA faculty member Jeffrey Rossman supports elected school boards. Rossman says diversity would continue with an elected board. He points out that African- American candidates received the most votes in the city council elections of 1996, 2000 and 2004. Rossman says an elected board would be more responsive to the needs of the community.

WINA continues to note, without details, that the local chapter of the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People) has endorsed an elected school board and is urging people to vote "yes" on the referendum.

Fortunately, some details were available through a news release distributed by Citizens for an Elected School Board, the organization led by UVA faculty member Jeffrey Rossman and Charlottesville City Councilor Rob Schilling, announcing the NAACP decision:

CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA, October 13, 2005 – The Charlottesville Albemarle Branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People has endorsed Charlottesville’s elected school board referendum. Dr. M. Rick Turner, president of the local NAACP, said the endorsement vote was unanimous.

Charlottesville City Councilor Rob Schilling, who helped to coordinate the bipartisan effort behind the referendum, was pleased with the endorsement.

"I'm grateful for the NAACP's thorough consideration of the elected school board referendum and their resulting endorsement," Schilling said. "I appreciate the diligence of the NAACP's membership in familiarizing themselves with the intricacies of this important issue."

Jeffrey Rossman, a University of Virginia professor and the initiator of the referendum petition, sees the endorsement as answering a question raised by some members of the community.

"Many thoughtful individuals have asked me: Is an elected school board in Charlottesville going to be diverse? The endorsement of the referendum by the local chapter of the NAACP suggests to me that the answer is: Yes, an elected board will be diverse. The city's voters are committed to diversity — African-American candidates have consistently been the top vote-getters in recent city council elections — and there are many well-qualified minority candidates who would make excellent school board members," Rossman said. "The residents of Charlottesville can vote in favor of the referendum on November 8th with confidence that our school board will continue to reflect the community it represents."

The elected school board referendum question will appear on Charlottesville’s November 8 general election ballot.

In answer to a question I posed in a previous posting, both candidates for the 57th District House of Delegates race, Tom McCrystal (R) and David Toscano (D), have endorsed elected school boards for Charlottesville, where both of them live and work. As reported by Bob Gibson in the Daily Progress on October 6:

Both candidates in the Nov. 8 election endorsed switching to an elected School Board for Charlottesville.

"It's really, really important," McCrystal said of the success of the Nov. 8 city referendum on the School Board. He said the events of the past year in the city school system have made elected school boards "absolutely critical" and added they should be ward-based.

Toscano, like McCrystal, said he had recently come to favor an elected board. "For a long time I was opposed," he said, "but I’ve changed my mind." The Democrat said he favors electing City Council at large but is not wedded to a particular method of electing the School Board.

McCrystal, by the way, has been endorsed by former New Jersey Governor and federal EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman, who did some campaigning with the state legislative candidate along Charlottesville's downtown mall last month.

Late-breaking: The Daily Progress has a report on last night's elected-school-board forum by James Fernald in this morning's editions. It says, in part:

Rossman noted that 78 percent of Virginia localities have moved to an elected school board and none has switched back. He thinks it would be a good move for Charlottesville. "We have a density here of civic-minded individuals. Call me naïve, but I have deep faith in Charlottesville voters."

Rock the Vote

On Thursday, October 13, Governor Mark Warner (D-Virginia) will announce that he is directing the State Board of Elections to expand the state's Emergency Absentee Voting Program to include, in addition to military personnel stationed abroad, any registered voter from Virginia who is stationed, living, visiting or engaged in disaster relief in parts of the Gulf region affected by Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita. This will permit election officials to send absentee ballots by fax or email to those voters qualified to receive them in those fashions.

According to unofficial instructions sent by the State Board of Elections to General Registrars:

These qualified Virginia voters may e-mail or fax their request for an absentee ballot, receive the ballot and return envelope via e-mail, print and vote the ballot and return by mail. This method will dramatically reduced the time it takes for our qualified Virginia voters to cast an absentee ballot. All Virginia localities are required to participate.

Those who are eligible to participate in the program must meet these criteria and follow these instructions:

The voter must be currently registered to vote in Virginia.

The voter must be stationed, living, visiting or engaged in disaster relief in parts of the Gulf region affected by Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita.

The voter must record the name of the city, state and if known, the zip code where they are currently stationed, living, visiting or engaged in disaster relief in parts of the Gulf region affected by Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita on their completed absentee ballot application.

The voter must request their absentee ballot using one of the following applications: Federal Post Card Application or Virginia Absentee Ballot Application.

The voter must provide the registrar with a current, working email address or fax number.

This information is recorded on the absentee ballot application.

The voter must send the completed application to the Registrar’s office in the city or county where their Virginia residence is located.

If the above requirements are not met, do not send their ballot by email.

Application must be received no later than 5:00 PM Eastern Standard Time on Thursday, November 3rd, [2005].

Further information will be available from local registrars' offices after Governor Warner formally announces this initiative.

Love Makes the World Go 'Round

Until a few weeks ago, I had never even heard the term "blog carnival." Now I learn that there are many of them.

Beside the Virginia Blog Carnival, which this week features my post on evolution and creationism (and last week featured my post on Tom DeLay), there is the Carnival of Liberty, now in its 15th week. In addition, the TTLB ÜberCarnival lists more than 15 different blog carnivals -- and I am sure there are more.

The 36th Carnival of Education was kind enough to feature my posting from early yesterday morning, "At Seventeen," described like this:

Rick Sincere is (I believe) a new contributor to the Carnival. He's in Virginia, blogs at Rick Sincere News and Thoughts, and this week offers a post that was inspired by the Time Magazine cover story on gay teenagers. Rick reminds readers that coming out can actually save someone from years of psychological turmoil. He's got much more to say than will fit in this little blurb.

The Carnival of Education has more than three dozen entries divided into these seven categories: higher education, homeschooling, education policy, survival guide for students (and parents), survival guide for teachers, technology and testing, and teaching and learning.

Next week, the Carnival of Education will be hosted by the Education Wonks, which also hosted the 35th edition last week. (That post also has links to all the previous education carnivals.)

At Seventeen

Today, October 11, is "National Coming Out Day," which commemorates the first national march on Washington for gay rights, an event that occurred in October 1979. The purpose of National Coming Out Day is to encourage gay men and lesbians to "come out" of their hidden closets of sexuality and admit, to themselves and their friends and relations, who they really are. The benefits of coming out are explained in this week's Chicago Free Press by Paul Varnell:

There is a kind of moral obligation to come out, because coming out helps advance gay equality. It educates more people about the fact that they know and associate on an ordinary basis with a gay person and that gays are pretty normal people, not exotic creatures who lead some bizarre “lifestyle.” This information is always new for some people, and the more gays they learn that they know, the more successfully that message is reinforced.

It is useful to keep in mind too that coming out benefits the other person. It helps disabuse him or her of misimpressions and false beliefs. Knowing the truth is always better than believing lies, distortions, or mistaken views of any sort, so countering those is a virtuous act. If you think of coming out as doing the other person a favor, it may seem more plausible.

The other kind of reason to come out is psychological. There is definitely a liberating effect to coming out—initially, and with each subsequent person. You no longer have to lie or evade important facts about your social or romantic life. You no longer have to remember who knows and who does not know. And most of all, you are no longer hiding. You begin engaging the world as a fully integrated person, not just parts of a person.

Coming out to someone can, to many people’s surprise, actually enhance the quality of friendships and casual social relationships. You sometimes find that people you feared might have a negative reaction volunteer that they have a gay relative. Or they say they thought maybe you were gay, but they didn’t know how to bring it up, because you didn’t seem to want to talk about it. Or they may say they feel they know you better now and are glad that you told them.

(This article, like many others by Paul Varnell, is quite likely to end up in the archives of the Independent Gay Forum.)

Perhaps not coincidentally, Time magazine's October 10 cover story focuses on gay teenagers, noting the surprising rate at which these young people are coming out:

Kids are disclosing their homosexuality with unprecedented regularity--and they are doing so much younger. The average gay person now comes out just before or after graduating high school, according to The New Gay Teenager, a book Harvard University Press published this summer. The book quotes a Penn State study of 350 young people from 59 gay groups that found that the mean age at which lesbians first have sexual contact with other girls is 16; it's just 14 for gay boys. In 1997 there were approximately 100 gay-straight alliances (GSAs)--clubs for gay and gay-friendly kids--on U.S. high school campuses. Today there are at least 3,000 GSAs--nearly 1 in 10 high schools has one--according to the Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network (GLSEN, say "glisten"), which registers and advises GSAs. In the 2004-05 academic year, GSAs were established at U.S. schools at the rate of three per day.

The article talks about two different ways for addressing the problems and challenges faced by gay and lesbian teenagers.

One approach is that of the Point Foundation, which provides scholarships to prospective gay college students who have faced unusual hardship or adversity while growing up:

Launched in 2001, Point gives lavish (often full-ride) scholarships to gay students. It is one of the few national groups conceived explicitly to help gay kids, and it is a leading example of how the gay movement is responding to the emergence this decade of hundreds of thousands of openly gay youths.

The other approach is favored by some members of the so-called religious right and is an outgrowth of the discredited ex-gay movement.

On talk radio, on the Internet and in churches, social conservatives' canniest strategy for combatting the emergence of gay youth is to highlight the existence of people who battle--and, some claim, overcome-- their homosexual attractions. Because kids often see their sexuality as riverine and murky--multiple studies have found most teens with same-sex attractions have had sex with both boys and girls--conservatives hope their "ex-gay" message will keep some of those kids from embracing a gay identity. And they aren't aiming the message just at teens. On one of its websites, the Christian group Focus on the Family has warned that boys as young as 5 may show signs of "gender confusion" and require "professional help."

It's important to note that nearly all mental-health professionals agree that trying to reject one's homosexual impulses will usually be fruitless and depressing--and can lead to suicide, according to Dr. Jack Drescher of the American Psychiatric Association, who has studied programs that attempt to alter sexuality. Last month Tennessee officials charged that one of the longest-running evangelical ministries for gays, Love in Action of Memphis, Tenn., was operating unlicensed mental-health facilities. The state said Love in Action must close two residential homes--which include beds for teenagers--or apply for a license. (The ministry's attorney, Nate Kellum, said in an e-mail that the licensure requirement "is intended for facilities that treat mental illness" and not for a "faith-based institution like Love in Action.")

Few young gays actually want to change: six surveys in The New Gay Teenager found that an average of just 13% of young people with same-sex attractions would prefer to be straight. Nonetheless, gay kids trying to change can find unprecedented resources. As recently as the late '90s, Exodus International, the premier organization for Christians battling same-sex attractions, had no youth program. Today, according to president Alan Chambers, the group spends a quarter of its $1 million budget on Exodus Youth; about 80 of Exodus' 125 North American ministries offer help to adolescents. More than 1,000 youths have visited an Exodus-affiliated website called live hope.org to post messages and read articles like "Homosexual Myths" (No. 2: People are born gay). The website, which started as a modest Texas chat board in the late '90s, now gets referrals from scores of churches in 45 countries. "Twenty years ago, most churches wouldn't even let Exodus in the door," says Scott Davis, director of Exodus Youth. "Now there are open doors all across the country."

The level of success these groups can expect to find is suggested by an off-hand comment made by Time's John Cloud, who reported on a conference for teenagers Exodus is seeking to change:

I met very few at the conference who claimed to be completely straight. (At least two of the young men--one 21, the other 18--hooked up that week and still keep in touch.)

Intriguingly, the fresh-faced teenager featured on Time's cover, is comfortable being gay yet attended the Exodus conference out of a desire to learn more about his peers who are not so comfortable about themselves -- or their gay acquaintances:

For their part, several of the young Exodus Christians seemed more stereotypically gay--"I love that Prada bag!" a 16-year-old boy at the Youth Day squealed several times--than some of the Point scholars who had been out for years. Others had gone to Exodus with no intention of going straight. Corey Clark, 18, belongs to his GSA at Governor Mifflin Senior High in Shillington, Pa., and says he sees nothing wrong with being gay. He attended Youth Day because he wanted to better understand his evangelical church and friends who say gays should change. "Actually," he says, "I've heard so many good things about gay pride"--in the media and at school--"but I hadn't heard directly about the downside."

Another Corey, this one in Virginia, may have stepped into a minefield in his quest to establish a Gay-Straight Alliance (GSA) at a rural Virginia high school. So far he has nimbly avoided the hazards laid in his neighborhood.

By way of background, earlier this year, a Virginia state legislator, Delegate Glenn Weatherholtz, introduced a bill intended to ban GSAs from schools in the commonwealth. Weatherholtz's bill, which failed and which would have conflicted with the federal Equal Access Act (passed, ironically, to protect student-initiated religious clubs, such as Bible-study groups, in government schools), was stimulated by a controversy over the creation of a GSA at Harrisonburg High School.

According to an email sent by Equality Virginia, a statewide lobbying group, to the Metro Weekly, a Washington-based news magazine:

On Thursday, February 17, the Senate Education and Health Committee is expected to vote on HB 2868, introduced by Del. Glenn Weatherholtz (R-Harrisonburg), that will allow discrimination against Gay Straight Alliances (GSAs) based on fear and misinformation about the nature of these organizations. You are receiving this alert since your Senator sits on this Committee. Please write your Senator today and urge him or her to oppose this mean-spirited, discrminatory measure. . . .

The bill, which was filed after a GSA formed at Harrisonburg High school, was modified on the House side from a outright ban on any group justifying or supporting a lifestyle having to do with sexual behavior. As amended, it now would allow individual school boards to discriminate against GSAs by stating, "local school boards in their discretion may prohibit school facilities from being used by any student club or other student group that encourages or promotes sexual activity by unmarried minor students." While GSAs technically would not be affected by this law -- since no GSA "encourages or promotes sexual activity,"-- if passed, it would allow discrimination through misinformation and prejudice about these groups to block a GSA from forming, forcing the school board to face expensive and protracted litigation as the groups sue to form under the federal Equal Access Act.

The Harrisonburg school board responded to the threat of a GSA in its community by passing a rule that required all students who wanted to belong to student clubs to also get a permission slip from their parents. This proposal was met with some opposition, naturally. Chay Lee of WHSV-TV reported:

A rule that would require parents to sign off on their kids joining clubs at a local school has some people up in arms.

The gay and lesbian advocate group, Equality Virginia, has sent a letter to the Harrisonburg School Board expressing its concerns. The rule was proposed by Doctor Cathy Dlusher, and she believes it will help bring parents closer to their children.

The group feels this rule will discourage kids from joining.

"I think a parental consent policy would severely inhibit people who would need to attend a gay and straight alliance meeting; parents are the last usually to know about their children's sexual orientation; in fact, children are most afraid of the reaction of their parents," says Dr. Christine Robinson.

Despite opposition, the school board approved the policy at its meeting on December 7, 2004.

Delegate Weatherholtz, who represents the Harrisonburg area in the General Assembly, felt that this measure was not sufficient. According to the Augusta Free Press, the proposed bill would add:

a subsection D to the already existing Section 22.1-79.3 of the state code relating to policies regarding access to public schools.

"In the exercise of their authority to protect the well-being of students as recognized by federal law pursuant to 20 U.S.C. Section 4071 (f), local school boards providing equal access and fair opportunity to use school facilities or to distribute literature shall not allow such access or opportunity to use such school facilities or to distribute literature to any club or other group that is focused on supporting, assisting or justifying any lifestyle involving sexual behavior," the proposed code addition reads.

The measure was put into the legislative hopper on Friday morning with 34 copatrons having signed on - including 33 members of the Virginia House of Delegates and one senator, Harrisonburg Republican Mark Obenshain.

The bill subsequently passed the House Committee on Education by a vote of 22 to 0 and the House Courts of Justice Committee by a vote of 19 to 0, before being passed by the full House of Delegates by a vote of 95 to 0. (Where was Adam Ebbin that day?)

When Weatherholtz's proposal reached the state Senate, however, it found itself in a cul-de-sac known as the Senate Committee on Education and Health, which killed it on a 9 to 6 vote. (The vote was technically to "pass by" the bill "indefinitely," a form of tabling, so there were 9 "ayes" and 6 "nays.")

Fast forward a few months for a look at what's happening in Rockingham County, close by to Harrisonburg but apparently a world away.

At Turner Ashby High School in Bridgewater, 17-year-old senior Corey L. Loucks, Jr., is the president of a new Gay-Straight Alliance. According to Corey -- whose prom date was one of the subjects of my May 7 article, "Prom Season" -- there was very little opposition from faculty, parents, students, or administrators.

Corey aspires to become a psychiatrist; his top choices for college are the University of Virginia and George Mason University. He is an active student who belies the image of the withdrawn, bullied gay teenager. He probably does not need the support and fraternity that a GSA provides as much as some of his peers might; perhaps that is why he is assertive enough to lay the groundwork for the group himself.

Corey sings bass in the TA Singers, is co-president of the French Club, serves on the Student Advisory Committee (which advises the school administration on things Turner Ashby needs, such as drinking fountains that should be repaired), competes on the Scholastic Bowl team, and participates in a group called "Youth and Government." (According to the TAHS web site, "The Youth and Government Club is open to any student who wishes to be of service to their school and community. Members are expected to develop leadership qualities and to participate in all club activities. The Youth and Government Club makes available opportunities for students to participate in the Model Judiciary, Model Executive, and Model General Assembly programs.")

In short, Corey Loucks is exactly the kind of student the Point Foundation looks for in allocating its scholarship awards. As John Cloud explains in his Time cover story:

By the late '90s, [Bruce] Lindstrom was talking about the idea of a scholarship program with his boyfriend Carl Strickland (who is 29 years younger) and with his old friend John Pence, a San Francisco gallery owner and former social aide to Lyndon Johnson. One night in 2001 at Lindstrom and Strickland's home--which they call the Point because it sits on a promontory on the Nevada side of Lake Tahoe--the three christened the Point Foundation. Since then, some 5,000 young gays have applied, and 47 Point scholars have been named.

Lindstrom sees the United Negro College Fund and the Rhodes scholarships as his models, and in order to win, Point candidates must prove both academic success and commitment to gay causes. Not surprisingly, many also have biographies resembling Lindstrom's--they come from conservative families that haven't immediately accepted them. Candidates must write an essay on "how you feel you have been marginalized because of your sexual orientation." When scholars were called upon to introduce themselves at the retreat, many offered heartbreaking stories of family repudiation. It was routine to hear sniffling during these presentations, especially from adults.

Back in Rockingham County, Corey says the Turner Ashby GSA will have its first meeting during the third week of October. Asked what kind of activities the GSA will have, he told me: "We plan to have and AIDS benefit with bands where the money goes to AIDS research, we want to adopt a road, and we hope to have other fundraisers for local charities."

That doesn't sound like the sort of "sex club" or "dating service" feared by Virginia legislators or Harrisonburg school board members. No wonder Corey and his friends had no problem getting approval from the Turner Ashby administration or the Rockingham County school board.

The path was not completely obstacle free. Corey told me that "last year we had an anti-GSA petition going around against us and kids calling me names and saying I'm going to hell." One faculty member, Mike Stover, who teaches world history, also objected. According to Corey, "he said that it was wrong and it shouldn't be a club but he can't stop it because of the laws."

The group's faculty advisor, Rebecca Bonds, also sponsors the school's chapter of Family, Career, and Community Leaders of America (FCCLA), or what was formerly known as Future Homemakers of America. Corey describes Bonds, who teaches "family and consumer sciences" (earlier generations called this "Home Economics," or HomeEc), as "awesome." No doubt.

Until the GSA actually meets a few times, we can't know how many members will attend regularly. Corey estimates that "15 to 40 kids" have expressed interest.

GLSEN lists just over 60 Gay-Straight Alliances in Virginia (including the new one at Turner Ashby High School). Some are at private schools, others at government schools. Most seem to be in suburban Northern Virginia -- Arlington and Fairfax counties, in particular -- but the list includes Christiansburg and Western Albemarle High Schools, which are each pretty far from "inside the Beltway."

Students like Corey Loucks deserve kudos for ignoring the objections of uninformed and busybody legislators and moving forward to create the kind of environment in which all students, regardless of sexual orientation, can grow and thrive -- and, frankly, enjoy a normal high school career without fear of being bullied and beat up.



Be sure to visit my CafePress store for gifts and novelty items!
Read my blog on Kindle!
Follow my tweets on Twitter!

Beautiful Candy

The Sixth Virginia Blog Carnival is now available for reference at Too Conservative.

Previous Virginia blogger carnivals have been hosted by Kenton Ngo, Norm Leahy, Brian Patton, Chad Dotson, and Not Larry Sabato.

Future carnivals will be hosted by northerncrown (October 17), Sophistpundit (October 24), River City Rapids (October 31), and Hans Mast (November 7).

When I Found You, Part 4

Every few weeks, I take a look at who is visiting this blog and share with you, my loyal readers, some of the more -- how shall I put this? -- eccentric search terms that bring people here.

You may be also interested to learn the most popular search terms that people use to Google their way to this vicinity. Here are the top ten search strings from among our last 1,ooo visitors:

fecr virginia

dave moffatt

dave moffatt gay

fecr 571

aaron carter pot

fecr in virginia

aaron carter smoking

aaron carter marijuana

rick sincere

dave moffatt nude

Notice some patterns there? Some repeated words and phrases? So do I.

Now, I'm flattered that my own name would make the list -- and to be in such company as Aaron Carter and Dave Moffatt! Considering that the Aaron Carter pot-smoking story is months old -- I first blogged about it in March, with an update in late April, and nothing since then -- I am amazed each day when I see those two postings at or near the top of the list of what people are reading.

As for Dave Moffatt -- well, I can only thank my Canadian readers (as well as many in Thailand, the Philippines, Poland, and Brazil) for coming here to learn about their favorite Canadian Idol contestant.

Apparently a telemarketing/polling firm in Northern Virginia rouses enough curiosity -- or ire -- among the recipients of its call recipients that they Google the number that shows up on their caller IDs and find my remarks about Attorney General candidate Bob McDonnell's campaign. Whether they find those remarks useful or informative, I can't say.

Now, as for the odd and the inscrutable, here we go. Make of these what you will:

"+1"@yahoo.com email addresses of all the clergy men and high priests who are ceo's and owners of firms in america "2005"

ayn rand we the living notes purple monkey

ayn randy "yahoo.com"

david crockett's homecoming queen 2005

emanate dominion controversy

"jack abramoff" bagel signatures

jerry kilgore cinderella ban

king john sings magna carta

"l. douglas wilder" + "paper moon"

magna carta prom pictures

most famous things in gabon

urban renewal/slum clearance in north korea

And my favorites, for the sheer contrariness of them:

kilgore "keep gays out of schools"

tim kaine "gays out of our schools"

(By the way, Tim Kaine changed the wording of his infamous "keep gays out of our schools" commercial. The narrator now says "keep gang members out of our schools," enunciated clearly. A lot of people, apparently, misunderstood "gangs" as "gays" and the campaign caught wind of this. Thanks to Waldo Jaquith for bringing me up to date on this.)

Like a Rolling Stone

The Rolling Stones, the world's most successful sexegenarian rock band, appeared in Charlottesville tonight, bringing international attention to our sleepy college town in the most unanticipated fashion.

I did not attend the concert myself. I saw the Stones live at RFK Stadium in Washington about 10 years ago, taken by my British friend, Adam Morris, who was interning at the Heritage Foundation that summer. (Gay conservatives and libertarians always seem to find each other, even when separated by an ocean; the nexus is invariably Nigel Ashford.) In my life I have only seen two stadium concerts -- that one by the Stones and another by Paul McCartney, both at RFK -- and one indoor arena concert, by Madonna at MCI Arena about 5 years ago. (I don't think the 9:30 Club, where I saw The Moffatts perform in June 1999, counts as an arena, and neither does Meriwether Post Pavilion, where I saw Jackson Browne in concert more years ago than I care to remember.)

What I remember most about that concert is not so much the music but the audience. One of three concerts, the stadium was not full -- perhaps only two-thirds of the seats were taken. But the make-up of the audience is what struck me: mostly early teenagers and people who appeared to be their grandparents. Not many people in their 20s and 30s, but plenty aged 13-15 and 55-65. It was odd. Odder still was seeing the geezers passing joints to each other and to their grandkids.

At about 9:10, I decided to take a walk toward Scott Stadium to see how things were going. I could faintly hear the music from my front lawn -- a bit more than a mile from Stadium Road -- and the sound grew more audible with each step I took. Faint as it was, I could clearly hear "Ruby Tuesday" as I trekked up the hill toward Shamrock Road.

I arrived outside the stadium about 9:30. (The Stones had been scheduled to take the stage at 8:30; I don't know if they began on time.) Just as I reached my destination with plans to listen for a while, everything went quiet. I figured the band was taking a break between sets, so I looped around and came home.

When I turned on the 11:00 news on Channel 16, however, I learned that the concert had been halted for almost an hour due to a bomb threat. (Is there something ironic about a bomb scare at a concert designed to promote a new CD recording called "A Bigger Bang"?) Fortunately, no explosive devices were found and no one was injured, just inconvenienced.

As the Irish Examiner reported:

The Rolling Stones interrupted their show at the University of Virginia’s Scott Stadium early today, as police officers and three bomb-sniffing dogs searched the stage.

The show resumed after about a 30-minute break last night. University, state and city police did not immediately return phone calls about the incident in Charlottesville and no announcements were made to the audience about the reason for the break.

About eight songs into the show, frontman Mick Jagger announced that authorities had told the band to take a 10-minute break. The stage and about the first 20 rows of spectators were cleared until police finished their work.

According to Melissa Ruggieri, the reviewer in the Richmond Times-Dispatch, the Stones (not to mention the police and some 50,000 fans) handled the interruption with aplomb:

Give the Stones credit for handling the night's unexpected snafus with the type of effortless grace and experience that can only come from four decades of performing. Their set-closing "(I Can't Get No) Satisfaction" was as exuberant and tight as "Start Me Up" a long three hours earlier, with even [Keith] Richards windmilling and stomping across the stage like a kid on his playground.

That, ladies and gentlemen, is the work of genuine legends.

That kind of professionalism stands in contrast to the reporting team at WVIR-TV, the most popular broadcast news outlet in the Charlottesville media market. The on-air correspondents were falling all over each other for several days in trying to outdo each other by working in references to Rolling Stones' songs into their copy. The efforts reached a head to day, with four to five song references insinuated into a 45-second report, often with the poorest connection to what was actually being said. Really, they gave us some of the saddest puns you've ever heard.

All in all, it was a good night not to be driving near Charlottesville.

A Sword and a Rose and a Cape

The mysterious Not Larry Sabato is the host for this week's Carnival of the Virginia Bloggers. This, the fifth in the series, shows the wide range of views and topics covered by bloggers who live in, or write about, Virginia. Not Larry Sabato chose my article on Tom DeLay, "If I Had a Hammer," as the best representation of my work for the week.

Previous Virginia blogger carnivals have been hosted by Kenton Ngo, Norm Leahy, Brian Patton, and Chad Dotson.

Future carnivals will be hosted at Too Conservative (October 10), northerncrown (October 17), Sophistpundit (October 24), and River City Rapids (October 31).

(If you're confused about the relation of this blog entry's headline and the topic, click the headline's hyperlink.)

What Wonder Doth His Work Reveal

I came across a disturbing article in the Outlook section of Sunday's Washington Post. Written by Scott Keeter, director of survey research at the Pew Research Center, it bears the headline "What's Not Evolving Is Public Opinion" and its topic is the number of Americans who reject modern science in favor of a religious explanation for the origin of life and the universe.

The number is astounding -- astoundingly high. Keeter writes:

Regardless of how questions are posed, polls consistently find that 40 to nearly 50 percent of the public accepts a biblical creationist account of life's origins, while slightly more accept the idea of evolution. For example, in a recent Pew poll, 42 percent agreed that "humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time," while 48 percent believe that "humans and other living things have evolved over time."

Even though it used different wording, a Gallup Poll last year found virtually the same split: 45 percent agreed that "God created human beings pretty much in the present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so," while 51 percent thought that "humans developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life." Gallup first asked that question in 1982, and found 44 percent choosing the creationist option and 47 percent endorsing evolution.

That's right: A large plurality of Americans believe, against all evidence, that the earth was created ex nihilo within the last ten millenia.

Are these people willfully ignorant or just plain stupid?

I had thought that these beliefs were limited to a small number of eccentrics. Instead, I discover, through articles like this, that government schools are failing miserably at conveying the discoveries of science that have taken place over the past 200 years. I'm surprised that there aren't Advanced Placement tests being offered in astrology and alchemy.

Of course, I was educated in private, Catholic schools. In my first theology class as a freshman at Marquette University High School in Milwaukee, our initial unit was on Genesis. We learned the four literary sources -- Elohist, Yahwist, Priestly, and (later) Deuteronomic -- of the first five books of the Bible (the Torah, that is, or Pentateuch), and we learned that the first chapter of Genesis ("In the beginning ...") is a hymn of praise for God's creation written in the Elohist tradition, while the second creation story -- yes, there are two -- about Adam and Eve is in the Yahwist tradition. (In the first creation story, man is the last thing God creates. In the second creation story, man is the first thing God creates.) We also studied Jerome Lawrence and Robert E. Lee's play, Inherit the Wind, a fictional portrayal of the Scopes Monkey Trial, so we could better understand how rational thought might sometimes come into conflict with religious belief.

To this day I am grateful to Father Chuck Burns, S.J., for starting us off on a path that appreciates rather than denigrates human intellect. (Of course, down the hall, in a separate unit of the same introductory theology course, another priest used a slide show to demonstrate graphically the difference between circumcised and uncircumcised penises. But that topic comes up in a later chapter of Genesis, so it may not be relevant here.)

In college, including in courses called "Judaism" and "Introduction to Biblical Literature," these lessons were confirmed and expanded upon. I didn't need to take evolutionary biology to understand the mythological nature of the Biblical creation story; theology was sufficient.

Naif that I am, I thought most people learned these things in school. That's why I could be amused reading about the self-appointed docent in Denver, for instance, who does "biblically correct" tours of a natural history museum there. According to an article in the Denver Post:

God made dinosaurs on the sixth day of Creation, the same day he made people, according to Rusty Carter's interpretation of the Bible.

"The word 'dinosaur' was not invented back then, but in Job 38, there's two large creatures, behemoth and leviathan," said Carter, director of the Littleton-based Biblically Correct Tours, as he prepared to give his first tour of the school year.

Either or both creatures were probably dinosaurs, he said.

Nineteen kids trailed behind Carter on Saturday morning at the Denver Museum of Nature & Science, most of them nodding knowingly as their tour guide pointed out flaws in exhibits.

"What do you guys think? Is the world really 4.5 billion years old?" Carter asked. "Nonsense!" one girl called out. The adults in the group smiled....

Biblically Correct's tours cost $5 a person plus entrance fees, and most of Carter's clients are from Christian schools, churches or home schools.

P. T. Barnum would be proud. There really is a sucker born every minute.

But Denver is not alone, and there are a lot of suckers out there. The Washington Post reported last month ("In Evolution Debate, Creationists Are Breaking New Ground," September 25) on a full-fledged museum near Cincinnati, being built at a cost of $25 million and dedicated to passing off the creation myth as scientific fact:

The guide, a soft-spoken fellow with a scholarly aspect, walks through the halls of this handsome, half-finished museum and points to the sculpture of a young velociraptor.

"We're placing this one in the hall that explains the post-Flood world," explains the guide. "When dinosaurs lived with man."

A reporter has a question or two about this dinosaur-man business, but Mark Looy -- the guide and a vice president at the museum -- already has walked over to the lifelike head of a T. rex, with its three-inch teeth and carnivore's grin.

"We call him our 'missionary lizard,' " Looy says. "When people realize the T. rex lived in Eden, it will lead us to a discussion of the gospel. The T. rex once was a vegetarian, too."

"Dinosaurs lived with man"? These are people whose idea of an instructional video is an episode of The Flintstones.

It would all be laughable if it weren't all so frightening. That upwards of 40 percent of Americans are ignorant of -- or choose to ignore -- everything learned since the Enlightenment about geology, paleontology, genetics, biology, and astrophysics is astonishing.

It's like they've never opened a book, never seen a documentary on the Discovery Channel, never paid attention to the annual Nobel prizes in physiology or chemistry. Do they also hold to a Ptolemaic, pre-Copernican view that posits the sun moves around the earth along with the moon and the stars? What do they make of the discovery of the tenth planet in our solar system (if they know what the "solar system" is), Xena and her moon, Gabrielle? (Is that the first planet-moon combination named for a lesbian couple?)

Lest anyone think this is a conservative/liberal debate or religious-believer/non-believer debate, I think just a few references will disarm that notion.

John Derbyshire is a Burkean conservative who writes for National Review. He is as disturbed as I am at the prospect of teaching myth as science in our schools. Reacting to this summer's off-hand comment by President George W. Bush that so-called "intelligent design" theory should be taught in science classrooms, Derbyshire wrote:

This is Bush at his muddle-headed worst, conferring all the authority of the presidency on the teaching of pseudoscience in science classes. Why stop with Intelligent Design (the theory that life on earth has developed by a series of supernatural miracles performed by the God of the Christian Bible, for which it is pointless to seek any naturalistic explanation)? Why not teach the little ones astrology? Lysenkoism? Orgonomy? Dianetics? Reflexology? Dowsing and radiesthesia? Forteanism? Velikovskianism? Lawsonomy? Secrets of the Great Pyramid? ESP and psychokinesis? Atlantis and Lemuria? The Hollow Earth Theory? Does the President have any idea, does he have any idea, how many varieties of pseudoscientific flapdoodle there are in the world? If you are going to teach one, why not teach the rest? Shouldn’t all sides be “properly taught”? To give our kids, you know, a rounded picture? Has the President scrutinized Velikovsky’s theories? Can he refute them? Can you?

And every buncombe theory — every one of those species of twaddle that I listed — has, or at some point had, as many adherents as Intelligent Design.

Derbyshire continues:

I think intelligent teenagers should also be given some acquaintance with pseudoscience, just so that they might learn to spot it when they see it. A copy of that excellent magazine Skeptical Inquirer ought to be available in any good high school library, along with books like Gardner’s [ Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science]. I am not sure that either pseudoscience or its refutation has any place in the science classroom, though. These things properly belong in Social Studies, if anywhere outside the library.

And what should we teach our kids in biology classes, concerning the development of living things on earth? We should teach them Darwinism, on exactly the same arguments. There is no doubt this is consensus science. When the Intelligent Design people flourished a list of 400 scientists who were skeptical of the Theory of Evolution, the National Center for Science Education launched “Project Steve,” in which they asked for affirmation of the contrary view, but only from scientists named Steve. (Which they estimate to be about one percent of all U.S. scientists.) The Steve-O-Meter stands at 577 as of this July 8, implying around 57,000 scientists on the orthodox side. That’s consensus science. When the I.D. support roster has 57,000 names on it, drop me a line.

And Darwinism ought to be taught conservatively, without skepticism or equivocation, which will only confuse young minds. Darwinism is the essential foundation for all of modern biology and genomics, and offers a convincing explanation for all the phenomena we can observe in the life sciences. It may be that, as we get to finer levels of detail, we shall find gaps and discrepancies in Darwinism that need new theories to explain them. This is a normal thing in science, and new theories will be worked out to plug the gaps, as happened with Newtonism a hundred years ago. If this happens, nobody — no responsible scientist — will be running round tearing his hair, howling “Darwinism is a theory in crisis!” any more than the publication of Einstein’s great papers a hundred years ago caused physicists to make bonfires of the Principia. The new theories, once tested and validated, will be welcomed and incorporated, as Einstein’s and Planck’s were. And very likely our high schools will just go on teaching Darwinism, as mine taught me Newtonism fifty years after Einstein’s revolution. They will be right to do so, in my opinion, just as my schoolmasters were right.

On the religious question, I have already indicated how, through my own experience, I learned that the Catholic church teaches there is no contradiction between the church's doctrine and scientific teaching about evolution. As explained by Mark Brumley, editor of Catholic Dossier, in a 1996 article about Pope John Paul II and evolution:

To paraphrase Santayana: Newspapers ignorant of history are condemned to reprint it. How else should we interpret the recent headline, describing Pope John Paul II's address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, "Pope Says Evolution Compatible with Faith"?

There's not much "news" there. Fifty years ago Pope Pius XII said almost the same thing in the encyclical Humani generis: "The Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, insofar as it inquiries into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter."

Pope John Paul, Brumley wrote,

said that evolution, so far as it concerns man's bodily origins, is really a theological non-issue. With certain qualifications such as God's ultimate role in man's creation, the direct creation of the human soul by God and man's inherent dignity as a person, the theory of evolution needn't be seen as contrary to Christian revelation.

And it's not like Catholics are alone among Christians -- or religious believers in general -- in holding that the scientific body of knowledge related to evolution is not contrary to religious faith. Washington Post blogger Joel Achenbach points to an article by Presbyterian minister Henry Brinton:

He believes religion and science ask different questions (why and how, respectively), and he has no troubled [sic] reconciling evolution with his deep faith in the guidance of God. He believes that creationism (aka Intelligent Design) has no place in a science curriculum. This is obviously a high-stakes issue for the pastor of a Christian church, and his article strikes me as not only lucid but courageous.

Achenbach quotes Brinton's article as saying:

It's a tenet of my faith that there is divine intelligence at work in every aspect of the universe. Where I differ from some Christians is in my acceptance of evolution as a part of God's creative plan. I think natural selection fits very nicely with the Ten Commandments, for instance: Break the rule about adultery, and you will find your longevity threatened by a sexually transmitted disease or a jealous husband; and, on the positive side, it appears to me that love and altruistic actions generally enhance a life, rather than diminish it. There's an elegant simplicity to natural selection that fits very well with the concept of a God who's willing to take His time with us, and let us face the logical consequences of our actions, both bad and good.

Getting back to my original point, should we see the results of the Pew and Gallup polls as evidence that government schools are abject failures when it comes to teaching science?

The Associated Press reported in December 2000:

American high school 12th graders scored near the bottom of all nations - out performing only Cyprus and South Africa. A comparison of the high-school elite - those who took physics and advanced math - showed American tied for the bottom. William Schmidt of Michigan State University said, "for sometime now, Americans have comforted themselves when confronted with such bad news about their education system by believing that our better students compare favorably with the better students in other nations - but, this test again bursts another myth."

Writing for the American Society for Clinical Investigation in 2002, Alan Dove noted:

For years, tests and surveys have highlighted a paradox in American science education: the nation that leads the world in research brings up the rear in public understanding of science. How can this be?

The Third International Mathematics and Science Study, begun in 1995, yielded an important insight. Comparing the educational systems of 50 countries, the study found that US students scored near the top of the group at the fourth-grade level. Unfortunately, it’s all downhill after that. By the eighth grade, the American students drop into the average group, and they almost reach the global bottom by the time they finish high school.

The US research enterprise compensates for this nosedive by focusing on undergraduate and graduate student training. This approach explains the paradox in which an ample pool of highly qualified scientists drives competitive research while the general public remains largely ignorant.

Dove seems to think that one solution to the problem would be more federal funding for, and interference in, local education. I think the opposite: We need to get rid of the federal Department of Education, promote more private schooling (which, because it is better at engaging parents, students, and teachers in a joint enterprise, always engenders higher standards and higher expectations and, consequently, better results), and urge families to abandon government schools that are more interested in feeding the bureaucratic maw than in educating pupils.

Whatever choices we make, we have to overcome this woeful ignorance that manifests itself in calls for teaching creation "science" in schools instead of real science. Especially since it's pretty clear that the teaching of real science is dismally lacking as it is.

My final question is: Why do the believers in a literal view of the biblical story creation have such little respect for the greatest of God's creations, the human intellect? There is no contradiction between religious belief and the scientific search for knowledge. None.