There are two more stories in the news today that show us the deterimental effect of Republican policies on children. In many respects, we have seen evidence of this in attacks on teachers and education budgets. There was some good news for chidren in Missouri today, and some news of concern for children in Texas. Let’s begin with the good news.
The good news is the proposed legislation in Missouri that sought to repeal child labor regulations is dead. The bill’s only sponser, Sen. Jane Cunningham justified this bill it as a way to teach children a work ethic. There are so many reasons that this is bad policy and so many much better ways to teach children a work ethic. The reason child labor regulations came to be is because children were exploited. Employment meant poor working conditions, minimal pay and insane work hours. The absence of regulation as proposed by Senator Cunningham, means that young children could be forced to work instead of going to school.
In terms of teaching children a good work ethic, again, there are much better ways then going back to the days of Oliver Twist. Young children can learn a good work ethic through developing good study habits. For young children, school should be their job. If the question is learning the value of a dollar, again, current labor laws make it possible for children to learn this lesson.
Children can learn a good work ethic without being exploited, as noted by Herb Johnson, secretary treasurer of the Missouri AFL-CIO.
“I’m sure eight out of 10 employers would follow the rules,” he said. “They’d make sure children don’t work late and that their work doesn’t interfere with their school. But these laws exist because of the other two employers that will take advantage – that will abuse.”
As reported in OzarksFIRST.com Kit Crancer with Senator Cunninham’s office, R-Chesterfield, told the blog Monday, “the bill is dead, It is no longer an issue.”
So, we can be thankful that other members of Missouri’s legislature understood the problems in Senator Cunningham’s bill. Fortunately, the children of Missouri will still be reading Dickens’ novels instead of living them.
Mother Jones reports that Texas is considering a bill to protect creationists from work place discrimination. Ironically, Texas law does not include such protections from discrimination based on gender identity, sexual orientation or marital status. Republican State Representative Bill Zedler introduced HB 2454, a bill to establish new workplace protections for proponents of intelligent design. The key text in the bill reads as follows:
An institution of higher education may not discriminate against or penalize in any manner, especially with regard to employment or academic support, a faculty member or student based on the faculty member’s or student’s conduct of research relating to the theory of intelligent design or other alternate theories of the origination and development of organisms.
As a matter of general principle, I agree that people should be protected from discrimination in the work place. This applies to people who’s opinions contradict fact, science and logic. One issue I have with this law, is the absence of concern for people in other identifiable groups who face workplace discrimination based on their gender identity, marital status and sexual orientation. But believe it or not, that’s not the only issue surrounding this legislation.
In terms of the effect on education, I’m concerned. It’s one thing to say that you believe in intelligent design, it’s another thing to present it as science. You can believe in intelligent design all you want, but ultimately this is junk science. In that sense, Zedler’s law is about something a bit more than protection creationists from discrimination. It has little to do with opening up avenues of scientific research, or teaching alternative scientific theories to evolution. It has more to do with legislating that a specific religious doctrine is and must be accepted as valid science.
by definition, creationism is not science. it’s not even junk science. there is no scientific method involved.
You’re right. It isn’t science by any definition.