Critical thinking
(In response to Becky Rubenstrunk’s March 8 column, “Advocates push anti-global warming message in schools.”)
I saw the link to Ms. Rubenstrunk’s column on the State Press Facebook page, but was sorely disappointed once I had finished it.
She was clearly disgusted at the thought of having to teach children the other side of an argument about two things she claims are scientific fact (or at least, consensus): evolution and global warming. She claims that by attempting to have teachers teach both sides, state legislatures and school districts are trying to get around the separation of church and state. There are a few problems with this.
First, the term “separation of church and state” never appears in the Constitution or any other governing document in this fair country. There is an Establishment Clause, but teaching the science of intelligent design (and there is plenty of science behind it, make no mistake about it) is not establishing a state religion. It is teaching kids to critically analyze what they are taught. Which leads to the second point: Even if Ms. Rubenstruck wanted to insist that the science of intelligent design is dubious or questionable, could it not be used as an instrument of explaining scientific method? If evolution and global warming are so scientifically sound, then they should hold up to this type of scrutiny — which is an essential part of the scientific method.
Third, evolution is a theory. It has never been proven without a doubt because it cannot be recreated in a laboratory. Sure, there are examples of microevolution all around us, but survival of the fittest is quite different from the evolution they teach in biology classes. Even Charles Darwin himself never sought to explain anything other than variations within a species.
I am not saying that we should teach religion in schools. There is a time and a place, and school is not either one of them. But if you want to teach kids to think for themselves, critically analyze what they are told and overall learn to be better, more informed citizens, wouldn’t it make sense to teach a broad spectrum of ideas and let kids make decisions for themselves?
I am curious as to whether Ms. Rubenstrunk has ever looked at the so-called science of “anti-global warming advocates” and “evolution deniers.” If she has not, it hardly seems fair to discount it as false and unsupported if she has not even looked at it. If she has, I’m curious how she does not see that there are many well-respected scientists who agree with “evolution deniers” that there might be an alternative explanation.
I myself cannot speak for “anti-global warming advocates” or their science, as I do not know much about it myself. But I would at least investigate it before I wrote such a scathing column.
Janne Gaub
ASU alumna Cut out antiquated techniques
(In response to Maxfield Barker’s March 2 article, “PETA takes on ASU.”)
ASU faculty and administrators are largely to blame for the callous and ignorant manner in which some students are addressing the issue of animals being tormented and killed for classroom biology experiments. Their inaction on this issue has been disappointing and is fueling students’ misconceptions about the nature of 21st century science education.
For teaching principles of biology to students, the choice is not between cutting up animals or cutting up humans. Prestigious universities around the world have been increasingly replacing the cruel and crude use of animals in classroom teaching experiments with non-animal alternatives like interactive computer software, sophisticated humanlike mannequins and safe, non-invasive human-based experiments. There have been dozens of comparative studies conducted on the subject and nearly every single one has found students who use alternatives learn as well as, and in most cases better, than those who cut up animals.
To the benefit of students and animals, deadly experiments on rabbits, frogs and other animals in ASU courses could be replaced tomorrow if the school had the political will to do so.
In 2010, when Pew Research Center polls show that almost 60 percent of adults under 30 oppose animal experimentation, more than 90 percent of medical schools no longer use live animal labs to train med students, some universities have completely eliminated undergrad live animal labs, and there is no shortage of effective non-animal teaching methods available, the pieces are all in place for ASU to modernize its curriculum and show its students that they need not harm animals to become successful scientists.
Olivia Gallo
Undergraduate Discrepancies in wealth lead to plutocracy
Recently the Supreme Court overturned a century-old ruling that limited the amount corporations, labor unions, and special interest groups could spend to support specific political candidates. Predictably, the argument that monetary donations constitute an expression of ideals and are therefore free speech was used as justification.
Reactions of disbelief and anger were immediate among citizens holding any respect for American democracy, or at least what is left of it. The ruling is unfortunate, but hopefully this will finally tear the sham from the face of our society and reveal a reality that is as unpleasant as it is undeniably true — that we live in a plutocracy. In fact, our country hasn’t been anything else.
Since our nation’s inception those with wealth have had unique access to governmental centers of power. Policy and government action reflected this fact then as it does today. From legalized chattel slavery to the Ludlow Massacre to the current financial bailout, this historical theme is stable and irrefutable.
The vast differentiation of wealth in our society, which has been constant in our nation’s history, guarantees plutocratic governance. The recent court ruling simply widens the avenue for wealth to permeate and distort our supposed “socially democratic” government.
So what we’re seeing is not a new crisis due to a few bad apples in the Supreme Court or anything that superficial.
It’s the continued, failed synthesis of capitalism — an undemocratic economic system based on stratified levels of power, resulting in exploitation, class conflict, and so forth — with a government that is supposed to be democratic and treat every citizen equally.
Hopefully the ruling’s plutocratic augmentations will be accompanied by a serious, outraged recognition of how far we really are from having a truly democratic society — both socially and economically. Until then, our undemocratic history just continues itself.
Brian Hennigan Undergraduate
