Class Two - March 2: Similar Conflicts - Global Warming

There are parallels between the intellectual freedom issues raised in Inherit the Wind and the current battle over global warming. The Union of Concerned Scientists provides information and analysis here about "contrarians" - skeptic organizations who reject the widely accepted conclusions about global warming. In many cases, it's not Christian fundamentalists who are fighting scientists. It's corporate interests or extreme right-wing groups like Rev. Sung Myung Moon's Unification Church.

Media Matters for America took issue this week with the Washington Post and columnist George Will for his alleged misuse of data and distortion of statements by climate experts to suggest that human-caused global warming is not occurring. You can read more details here.

Now for a more lighthearted look at the issue, courtesy of The Big Picture:

The more observant of you will note that there is no California on this map . . .

This is a parody of the famous Saul Steinberg 1976 New Yorker cartoon called "A View of the World from 9th Avenue, 1976"

Can you think of any other issues that have emerged in which groups attempt to silence scientists?

Class Two - March 2: Intellectual Freedom

Marian the Librarian
might have been a bit prim and proper,
but she was passionate about intellectual freedom!

As you know, Inherit the Wind addresses the issue of what material can be taught in public schools. The American Library Association maintains an Office for Intellectual Freedom. You can learn about their initiatives and projects such as Banned Book Week, resources such as information about intellectual freedom in the states, censorship in schools, and effects of the USA Patriot Act.

Hours of reading pleasure, indeed!

Do you think some books should be banned? What do you think of the USA Patriot Act? Should there be limits on free speech in the schools? Share your thoughts!

Class Two: Evolution vs. Creationism Today

There are numerous blogs that focus on evolution issues. Here is one that I found interesting:

EvolutionBlog Commentary on the Endless Dispute Between Evolution and Creationism

Many evolutionists consider the Obama administration to be friendly to their cause. The Tree of Life cites the science backgrounds of several new executive branch members here.


The evolutionary biologist who writes that blog, Jonathan A. Eisen, was so enthusiastic about candidate Obama that he wrote a funny post in which Charles Darwin endorsed Obama.

Indeed, the New York Times commented shortly before the election that

Mr. Obama embraces the theory of evolution and argues that the teaching of intelligent design and other creationist ideas “cloud” a student’s understanding of science.

You may recall the hullabaloo surrounding creationism vs. evolution during the 2008 Presidential election.
If not, allow these writers to remind you...



Sarah Palin, Evolution and Creationism from Science & Religion Today

Palin's Dangerous Views on Science Education from Michigan Messenger

There are also some interesting books about evolution and genetic development. Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene intrigued me. The Amazon.com review noted:

Inheriting the mantle of revolutionary biologist from Darwin, Watson, and Crick, Richard Dawkins forced an enormous change in the way we see ourselves and the world with the publication of The Selfish Gene. Suppose, instead of thinking about organisms using genes to reproduce themselves, as we had since Mendel's work was rediscovered, we turn it around and imagine that "our" genes build and maintain us in order to make more genes. That simple reversal seems to answer many puzzlers which had stumped scientists for years, and we haven't thought of evolution in the same way since.

What's YOUR view of the evolution/creationism issue?

Only a few of you commented in class. Did you agree with the student who said that she didn't understand the conflict? She viewed the Biblical stories as metaphors, not to be taken literally, so that she could simultaneously accept scientific explanations. Do you think that it's possible to believe in a god-like creator and also accept Darwin's theory? Or do you have another viewpoint?

Class Two - March 2: Inherit the Wind

The fine folks at Wikipedia have a great summary description of Inherit the Wind:

Inherit the Wind is a play by Jerome Lawrence and Robert Edwin Lee, which opened on Broadway in January 1955; a 1960 Hollywood film based on the play; and three television remakes. It was recently brought back onto Broadway in a revival. The play's title comes from Proverbs 11:29, which in the King James Bible reads:

He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind:

and the fool shall be servant to the wise of heart.

Inherit the Wind is a fictionalized account of the 1925 Scopes "Monkey" Trial, which resulted in John T. Scopes' conviction for teaching Charles Darwin's theory of evolution to a high school science class, contrary to a Tennessee state law that prohibited the teaching of anything besides creationism. The fictional characters Matthew Harrison Brady, Henry Drummond, Bertram Cates and E. K. Hornbeck correspond to the historical figures of William Jennings Bryan, Clarence Darrow, John Scopes, and H. L. Mencken, respectively.

Despite numerous similarities between the play and history, the play was not intended as a documentary-drama about the Scopes trial, but instead as a warning against dogmatism and the "evils" of McCarthyism.

This was a very personal focus for the screenplay writers, according to a review at filmsite.org. It revealed that one of the writers, credited as Nathan E. Douglas, was blacklisted Nedrick Young.

The Wikipedia site also has some terrific analysis of the differences between the script and reality.

I found a neat movie review website called Common Sense Media. It evaluates films and rates them for parents. I really liked how the writers provide some discussion questions to help families be more active viewers. Here's an excerpt of the entire piece for Inherit the Wind:

Parents need to know that kids will hear some mild swearing. A scene in which a jailed teacher is burned in effigy by a menacing crowd might disturb sensitive kids. The movies raises issues of creationism vs. evolution.

Families can talk about the advantages and limitations of using movies to dramatize historical events. Can movies tell the story of events in ways that other media, such as books or radio, can't? How much of an event can you show in a couple of hours and how do you decide what to leave out? Do you think that the real lawyers arguing this case were swayed slightly towards the others' positions by the end of the trial, as is portrayed here? Or is this simply a device for tying up the story in a neat bow?

You can read the whole review here.


There's an interesting website called beliefnet. It has an article called "The Scopes Trial vs. Inherit the Wind: The Movie's Inaccuracies Have Perpetuated Stereotypes." It's well worth reading. I found the comments section very interesting in light of our class focus of popular culture portrayals of social justice issues and actors:

xsherme 1/8/2000 6:26:10 PM

One thing that I don't think helps is Hollywood's tendency to portray scientists as nerds with no emotional intelligence and no ability to connect with others. An inference from this would be that if such people can't even make friends, they surely can't have an intimate relationship with God.

geasterbrook 1/6/2000 9:08:32 AM

I say yes, it has. Popular culture somehow makes everything seem sillier and more heated at the same time. Its effect on the science and religion debate is the same. The actual debate is more thoughtful and more cordial than you'd ever guess from reading about it in the newspapers.

Clark College Mature Learning Instructor Duane Ray steered me to a very detailed analysis of the differences between the true case and the movie. It's entitled The Monkey Trial. I'm not sure who wrote it. But Duane's endorsement of the material led me to share it with you. Normally, I prefer to know the source of such writing. Duane taught an entire course on the conflict between evolutionists and creationists, so I trust his judgement.
What did you think of the film? Did it present the conflict fairly? Did it make you think about the issue any differently than you did before you saw it?

Class One - Other films dealing with this subject

My mother always told me "seek and ye shall find." I suspect she stole the wording from someplace. But I took her advice anyway, and I discovered another film that addresses the Japanese-American experience during World War II.

The cast of Only the Brave included Tamlyn Tomita, who played Lily in Come See the Paradise. There's an extensive plot summary at IMDB, the Internet Movie Database website. Producers have created a detailed website to publicize and market the film.

When I tried to find it on Amazon.com, I came up empty, but I found a bunch more films that relate to the subject. So I guess I lied on Monday when I said Come See the Paradise was the only popular culture film of its sort. You can do a search for Only the Brave at Amazon and see for yourself. One that caught my eye was American Pastime. The review by A. T. Hurley at Amazon.com sounded intriguing. It reads, in part:

The DVD's making-of featurette, "Go for Broke: Behind American Pastime," is in some ways even more moving than the film, since it features interviews with real survivors of the internment camps, including Topaz and Manzanar. Also interviewed are several Japanese American soldiers from the 442nd Regimental Combat Team, who courageously fought for America in World War II even as their family members and friends were detained in the camps. Cole says in the featurette, "America really wanted to sweep [the internment camps] under the rug"--but thanks to the film and the documentary, the real history can be illuminated.

There is a wealth of material that's come out in the past decade. It would be interesting to contrast it with the popular culture depictions of Hollywood propaganda films like Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo and Tora! Tora! Tora!

As one of you commented in class on Monday, we could make the subject of the Japanese-Americans in WWII a course all by itself.

Five points to anyone who can find some other good films to watch about this topic.

Class One - February 23: History Repeats Itself - Civil Liberty Violations

Slate Magazine had an interesting article a couple of years ago, The Bill of Wrongs, The 10 Most Outrageous Civil Liberties Violations of 2006. I doubt it will surprise you to know that Guantanamo Bay makes the list.

At the BBC News site, there's a video clip of an interview with a former guard about conditions at Guantanamo. The young man, Chris Arendt, has some pretty shocking things to say about the treatment of detainees. The Center for the Study of Human Rights in the Americas provides the text of his testimony at the Winter Soldier Hearings in 2008.

When we discussed the internments during WWII, I asked if anyone thought the actions of the government were justifiable. No one responded initially, but as we talked more, one of you made the excellent point that whilst not "justifiable," it was understandable. That fear makes us do and accept things which normally we would find abhorrent to our system of beliefs.

Someone else opined that such things could not happen in present times, that we have moved forward and respect and protect civil liberties. What do YOU think?

The American Civil Liberties Union is an interesting site to visit if you're wondering what's going on these days. Their banner reads "Because Freedom Can't Protect Itself."

Class One - Dr. Seuss on WW II - Japanese Internment cartoons

I found a great article about Dr. Seuss' World War II cartoons on a blog called Parableman. It includes a link to a piece at the blog The Volokh Conspiracy, where one of the commenters provides a link to the cartoon above.

What do YOU think? Were the Japanese Americans just "Waiting for the Signal From Home?" You're probably more certain of your own opinion than of Dr. Seuss'. I know I am! I think it's sort of ambiguous. Does the good doctor really think that there's a threat from a "Fifth Column?"

I found this cartoon below reassuring that I hadn't misunderstood the heart of the creator of the Sneetches and the Lorax:


You can see more of his work in the book Dr. Seuss Goes to War: The World War II Editorial Cartoons of Theodor Seuss Geisel. The Amazon.com review of the book acknowledges that Seuss did some pretty nasty pieces about Japanese Americans despite his usual anti-racist mentality:

He also turned his pen against America's internal enemies--isolationists, hoarders, complainers, anti-Semites, and anti-black racists--and urged Americans to work together to win the war. The cartoons are often funny, peopled with bowler-hatted "everymen" and what author Art Spiegelman calls "Seussian fauna" in his preface. They are also often very disturbing--Seuss draws brutally racist images of the Japanese and even attacks Japanese Americans on numerous occasions. Perhaps most disturbing is the realization that Seuss was just reflecting the wartime zeitgeist.

Another site judges Seuss pretty harshly, with varying reactions from commenters. I was struck by the points made by kbrichards:

You still have cartoonist with seeming good set of morals and then something happens and they are convinced that a little racism is OK.

In 2005 Danzinger created an editorial cartoon showing scientist unearthing a roulette wheel at an Abenaki archaeological site. Examining the “artwork” carefully one finds in very small print “Sweat Lodge Casino.” This racist portrayal of Indians heritage as casino operators outraged Native Americans across the country. Previously a respected editorialist, he currently is seldom featured in any of Vermont’s newspapers.

Being a little bit racist is like being a little bit pregnant.

Have you seen similar, seemingly contradictory messages about more recent issues? Did cartoonists who normally support human rights attack middle easterners and Muslims because of September 11th? What do you think about that?