Ohio has moved a bill through its house to the state senate that the media is claiming gives students protection from being marked wrong in a science class as long as they cite their religious beliefs as the reason for the answer given to a question. My initial response to reading one of these articles (linked at the end) was anger, and I almost posted a rather lengthy rand on my Facebook page, but I paused and looked up the actual bill (linked at the end) to personally read so that I could produce a more thoughtful response. After sifting through the text of the proposed legislation, I have come to the conclusion that if the bill survives the senate as it currently stands it will not be as catastrophic as the media implies, but is still a step in the wrong direction.
If passed this bill will amend Ohio’s existing student religious expression code, and primarily focuses on protecting students from religious descrimination in an academic setting. The bulk of this bill can be found starting on page 14 of the pdf available on the Ohio Legislature website, and this is primarily what I focused on when reading the text (although I did note the section on page 2 that would remove a school’s ability to limit religious expression to free periods and lunch). The specific section that news outlets are focusing on is section 3320.03 at the bottom of page 15, and this section specifically addresses STEM programs and the grading of assignments submitted by students. Simply put, this section says that a teacher cannot deduct points based solely on religion, but it does not explicitly provide protection to a student that provides an answer that is not supported by the material of the course in which they are enrolled.
While this section is not the scientific devastation that news outlets have claimed, its wording does still provide enough ambiguity to open the door for a future where students cannot be marked wrong for an answer that is not scientifically sound. The grading guideline states that teachers must calculate scores based on “ordinary academic standards” which is just vague enough for a student to claim that the standards were not met should they be displeased with a low score after submitting work that cites their religious beliefs as backing for their responses. This hypothetical scenario, however, is not threatening as long as the teacher can definitively prove that any negative marks are not solely based on the religious citation provided by the student. I do find this to be troubling that a teacher would need to defend a grade in this way, but as long as they are able to cite the course material as an objective standard for grading I do not see this as a pathway to affirmation of scientific inaccuracy based on religion in the science classroom.
The rest of the bill focuses on other religious rights for students, like the right to assemble and practice on campus. While religious freedom is necessary, this part of the bill is redundant since these rights are already protected at the federal level. Students are already allowed the freedom to practice their religion, produce religious art, form religious clubs, and participate in other activities of the like at public school, teachers just cannot force a student to participate in these activities. When considering the fact that the Ohio congress is predominantly republican I am left to wonder if this bill is a response to the imaginary war on Christianity that the right likes to harp on about to their constituents.
No matter what the motivation for this bill is, the result is a pathway opening up to more contention between the secular and religious communities in the world of academia. While I would like to be optimistic and file the knowledge of this bill into the “ignore” section of my brain, I think it is an indication of continuing tension that needs to be addressed and transformed into a thing of the past.
Links:
Ohio House Bill 164: https://www.legislature.ohio.gov/legislation/legislation-summary?id=GA133-HB-164
