Giggle du Jour: Math Is Hard

I really shouldn't laugh at the educationally challenged, but . . . .



With thanks to commenter Max_1 at Joe.My.God.

Religious Freedom!!1!

This is about the most bone-headed thing I've seen coming from the "religious" right:

Ohio lawmakers are weighing in on how public schools can teach things like evolution.

The Ohio House on Wednesday passed the "Student Religious Liberties Act." Under the law, students can't be penalized if their work is scientifically wrong as long as the reasoning is because of their religious beliefs.

Instead, students are graded on substance and relevance.

Every Republican in the House supported the bill. It now moves to the Republican-controlled Senate.

OK -- it's a given that Republicans, especially the evangelical variety, don't like education anyway, especially science -- which relies more than most fields on critical thinking and evidence -- but to adopt something like this is far out, even for them.

I wonder who will have standing to sue.

There's more detail here.

Via Joe.My.God., who notes that the bill's sponsor, Rep. Tim Ginter, "is primarily known for anti-abortion stunts such as reading bible verses aloud and demanding that they be made into law."

Can you say "anti-American"?

Antidote: Yes, We Do Need Education

Here's a celebrity project that's worth more than publicity:

The students paraded through hugs and high-fives from staff, who danced as Sister Sledge’s “We Are Family” blared through the hallways. They were showered with compliments as they walked through a buffet of breakfast foods.

The scene might be expected on a special occasion at any other public school. At LeBron James’s I Promise School, it was just Monday.

Every day, they are celebrated for walking through the door. This time last year, the students at the school — Mr. James’s biggest foray into educational philanthropy — were identified as the worst performers in the Akron public schools and branded with behavioral problems. Some as young as 8 were considered at risk of not graduating. . . .

The academic results are early, and at 240, the sample size of students is small, but the inaugural classes of third and fourth graders at I Promise posted extraordinary results in their first set of district assessments. Ninety percent met or exceeded individual growth goals in reading and math, outpacing their peers across the district.

It's also working for the parents:

The school is unusual in the resources and attention it devotes to parents, which educators consider a key to its success. Mr. James’s foundation covers the cost of all expenses in the school’s family resource center, which provides parents with G.E.D. preparation, work advice, health and legal services, and even a quarterly barbershop.

It's worth reading the whole article -- it's really an amazing project, and it seems to be delivering huge dividends.

Via Crooks and Liars.

We Don't Need No Edjicashun!

For some reason, the right really hates education. The irony here, of course, is that the Founders, to whom the right appeals on the slightest pretext, counted on an educated populace to make the country work. (While the Constitution does not specifically mention public education, which is left to the states, the Fourteenth Amendment does guarantee equal access to public education regardless of race, religion, sex, etc.)

However, the right has determined that education is the root of all evil, especially higher education:

Tennessee State Sen. Kerry Roberts, a safe-seat Republican who can’t tell the difference between the Bible and the Constitution, says we should eliminate higher education — just get rid of the whole damn thing — because it’s a “breeding ground” for liberals. . . .

… If there’s one thing that we can do to save America today, it is to get rid of our institutions of higher education right now, and cut the liberal breeding ground off! Good grief! The stupid stuff that our kids are being taught is absolutely ridiculous, and this is a woman who’s a product of higher education. She’s learned all of this stuff that flies in the face of what we stand for as a country!

And here we are as legislators paying for this garbage to be taught to our children, and we’re not doing anything about it. And all these red states across America, we let it exist, and it’s absolutely unbelievable. And this is the price that we pay: the murder of over half a million innocent lives every year, with people sitting there, justifying it to their last breath.

Yes, this was a response to a discussion of abortion rights. Of course.

But then, why have public schools at all? From Todd Starnes, he of the incisive intellect (snicker):

We’re on the verge of a civil war. How bad is it? It’s pretty bad. Especially when you look at the issues that divide us. And look at the polling data. My concern is not what happens over the next two years, it’s what’s happening over the next 10 years.

You see, our public school system is being used as the engine to drive this social change. When you look at the polling data, it’s all there.

Get it? Society changes, and it's all the fault of public schools.

Lest you think I'm exaggerating, get this from the Texas GOP platform a few years ago:

The Texas GOP’s declarative position against critical thinking in public schools, or any schools, for that matter, is now an official part of their political platform. It is public record in the Republican Party of Texas 2012 platform. With regard to critical thinking, the Republican Party of Texas document states: “Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.”

How biblical.

Saturday Science: Darwin Who?

A new poll from Gallup that has some sobering implications:

Forty percent of U.S. adults ascribe to a strictly creationist view of human origins, believing that God created them in their present form within roughly the past 10,000 years. However, more Americans continue to think that humans evolved over millions of years -- either with God's guidance (33%) or, increasingly, without God's involvement at all (22%).

The latest findings, from a June 3-16 Gallup poll, have not changed significantly from the last reading in 2017. However, the 22% of Americans today who do not believe God had any role in human evolution marks a record high dating back to 1982. This figure has changed more than the other two have over the years and coincides with an increasing number of Americans saying they have no religious identification.

My first reaction is to think that this is a result of the "dumbing of America" due to the right's attacks on public education, but if you look at the timeline, the only significant change is the increase in those who believe that man evolved without divine interference.

And of course, it's tied to religious belief and education:

As has been the case historically, Americans' views on evolution and creationism vary sharply based on their religious identification, how often they attend church and their education level.

Majorities of Protestants (56%) and those who attend church at least once a week (68%) believe that God created humans in their present form. Meanwhile, 59% of those who do not identify with any religion believe in evolution without any intervention from God.

Those with a college degree are much more likely to believe in evolution than creationism, while the opposite is true of those without a college degree. However, even among adults with a college degree, more believe God had a role in evolution than say it occurred without God.

Unfortunately, the report doesn't include any information on methodology -- where and how the survey was taken, the actual questions asked (particularly a more precise identification of religious affiliation: were there any responses from non-Christians? I.e., Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. Apparently, Gallup believes there is only one religion in this country.)

I will note, however, that according this survey, the more Christian you are, the less likely you are to live in the real world.

Saturday Science, Part II: Education

A couple of stories this morning. Two deal with creationists doing their best to screw up science education. First, in Arizona, the Superintendent of Schools appointed a young-earth creationist to a panel charged with revising the science curriculum:

Arizona Superintendent Diane Douglas tapped a young-earth creationist to serve last month on a committee tasked with revising the state’s science curriculum standards on evolution.

Joseph Kezele, the president of the Arizona Origin Science Association, is a staunch believer in the idea that enough scientific evidence exists to back up the biblical story of creation.

Click through to the original article: Kezele keeps going on and on about "real science" and how it proves Biblical creation. All that proves is that he's delusional. And despite the disclaimers from the superintendent's spokesperson that she was unaware of his creationist views, given her own attitudes, I'm calling bullshit -- she knew exactly what she was doing.

And just to show that we're not alone in our insanity, this one's from British Columbia:

Darrell Furgason is one of the candidates running for the Chilliwack School District Board (in British Columbia) and his platform seems pretty sensible: He supports “Academic Excellence,” “Inclusivity for all,” and a “Quality, fact-based curriculum” that promotes critical thinking.

The problem is that he believes none of that in practice. Furgason is actually an anti-LGBTQ Young Earth Creationist whose primary allegiance is to the Bible and not the students.

Another nine-commandment "Christian". And unless people do some research, which they won't, he'll probably get away with it.

And offered as an antidote to those is this one, about a twelve-year-old who is working on her third book about the joy of science:

Bailey Harris was only eight when she was inspired by Neil deGrasse Tyson (who was hosting COSMOS at the time) to learn more about astronomy. It resulted in her writing a book (with her dad’s help) called My Name Is Stardust, about how all living things are made up of the same basic ingredients. Earlier this year, she released her second book,

Stardust Explores the Solar System

.

Now she’s working on the third: Stardust Explores Earth’s Wonders: Geology & Evolution.

There's a wonderful video at the link that, unfortunately, I can't embed, so check it out. It really is very good.

Culture Break: Pink Floyd: Another Brick in the Wall

In honor of Donald Trump, Ann Coulter, and "conservatives" everywhere:

Footnote:

Add this to the mix:

The Wall Street Journal reports:

The Justice Department has notified immigration judges that it will begin evaluating their job performance based on how quickly they close cases, aiming to speed deportation decisions and reduce a lengthy backlog.

The new quotas for judges to meet—laid out in a memo sent Friday to immigration judges—follow other directives by the department to expedite handling of cases. Attorney General Jeff Sessions has said that the backlog at the immigration courts allows people who should be deported to linger inside the U.S.

The union representing immigration judges counters that the metrics are a threat to their judicial independence, while lawyers warn they will unduly influence judge’s decisions. The new standards, reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, are to take effect for the next fiscal year beginning Oct. 1. They have not been released publicly.

(Emphasis added.)

Today's Must-Read: The Kind of Citizens We Need

Tom Sullivan has a really good post at Hullabaloo on why the survivors of the Parkland shooting are turning into such a major force in the debate over gun control. (And it says something about the pathetic state of America that we have a debate on gun control.) I found his first paragraph more than a little humorous:

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) suggested in a tweet Wednesday, "We claim a Judea-Christian heritage but celebrate arrogance & boasting. & worst of all we have infected the next generation with the same disease." That last barb seemed aimed at students from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School. They returned to school for the first time Wednesday after a mass shooting on Valentine's Day claimed 17 of their classmates.

First off, Senator NRA's $3 million water boy, your "Judea-Christian" [sic] heritage celebrates arrogance and boasting. Read your Bible.

Sullivan quotes extensively from an article by Dahlia Lithwick that's also a must-read.

Sullivan's conclusion is right on the mark:

What upsets Rubio and the Examiner is that Stoneman Douglas students don't know their places. Schools that are preparing students to serve their country rather than the economy are not fulfilling their mission. Their issue with Stoneman Douglas is it is not turning out sheep.

It seems that despite Betsy DeVos' efforts to turn public schools into trade schools, some kids are getting the kind of education I had. We had art, we had music appreciation classes, we had debate (what they called "speech classes" when I was in high school, where we learned how to actually think about what we were saying), we had literature, we had foreign languages (which were a state requirement). And please note that I didn't go to elite private schools -- I went to public schools in a very Republican (back when that meant something besides "fascist") small town.

And Sullivan's right -- that kind of education does not turn out corporate cogs. It turns out trouble-makers -- you know, people like the founders of this country.

Today in Disgusting People: Next Targets

Betsy DeVos is another of Trump's cabinet whose goal is to dismantle the department she's supposed to head -- and in her case that goes hand in hand with furthering the "Christian"/fascist agenda of the right-wing religious extremists. First she and archbigot Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III rescinded the guidance protecting trans students. Now she's going after the disabled:

Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos early in October quietly rescinded 72 guidance documents, some in place for many years, that detailed the protections children with disabilities are supposed to receive. During her confirmation hearing DeVos refused to say children with disabilities deserve equal protection in schools, and in fact admitted she was "confused" by the federal laws.

And she's not even being above-board about it:

Rather than make an official announcement, the Education Dept.'s Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services said in a newsletter Friday – nearly three weeks after taking action – that "a total of 72 guidance documents ... have been rescinded due to being outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective - 63 from the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) and 9 from the Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA)," according to The Chicago Tribune.

There's more detail at the Tribune link.

This really does start to call to mind Germany in the 1930s. Do remember that the "Christian" right is solidly behind Trump (as long as he keeps trashing their victims du jour), and that DeVos herself is one of them.

When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.

Attrib. Sinclair Lewis

Actually, Snopes couldn't find that quote anywhere in Lewis' writings, but it does have an interesting discussion of Lewis' politics as revealed in his novel It Can't Happen Here:

Lewis painted a vivid counterfactual portrait of a United States of America sliding into dictatorship, one that is still cited as a cautionary tale to this day:

The main character, Buzz Windrip, appeals to voters with a mix of crass language and nativist ideology. Once elected, he solidifies his power by energizing his base against immigrants, people on welfare, and the liberal press. The novel has been called “frighteningly contemporary” in the wake of the Trump campaign and election.

As Time magazine noted on 16 November 2016, It Can’t Happen Here was completely sold out on Amazon.com and Books-A-Million within a week of the presidential election.

Trump and his backers are going to take the country apart in small ways, at first -- like chipping away at all the progress we've made toward fulfilling our stated ideals in the last century. That's been the "Christian" right's strategy since Roe v. Wade.

Today's Must-Read: High School Civics Edition

OK -- this should scare you, even if nothing else does:

Unfortunately, many Americans lack fundamental civics knowledge, according to the recent Constitution Day Civics Survey by the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, and therefore cannot understand current events.

“In light of the information in the news about First Amendment issues, the ignorance of the public about the First Amendment is startling,” Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director of APPC, tells Newsweek. “So there are times in which one needs knowledge about the Constitution to make sense of what's happening in the news environment,” she adds. “In particular when rights are at issue it's important that people understand what their rights are as they read the news.”

The results, published on September 12, reveal that more than half of Americans (53 percent) believe people in this country illegally have no protections under the Constitution. If that weren’t startling enough, only about a quarter (26 percent) of Americans can successfully name all three branches of government, with one-third of respondents unable to name a single branch, 27 percent who knew one branch and 13 percent who knew two.

It gets worse.

There's a reason Betsy DeVos was named Secretary of Education -- and it wasn't to improve the general public's knowledge of how this country works.

Actually, I'd like to blame Trump, but we've been a while getting here. Don't look for it to get better, if for no other reason than those who don't know don't care and don't want to learn, and, since the right has taken over the majority of state houses, no one's going to make them.

Today's Must-Read: Understanding Fly-Over Country

This, from RawStory, points out, I think, a basic flaw in all the analyses of Trump's base -- and the Republican base in general:

As the aftermath of the election of Donald Trump is still being sorted out, a common theme keeps cropping up from all sides: “Democrats failed to understand white, working-class, fly-over America.”

Trump supporters are saying this. Progressive pundits are saying this. Talking heads across all forms of the media are saying this. Even some Democratic leaders are saying this. It doesn’t matter how many people say it, it is complete bullshit. It is an intellectual/linguistic sleight of hand meant to throw attention away from the real problem. The real problem isn’t east coast elites who don’t understand or care about rural America. The real problem is rural America doesn’t understand the causes of their own situations and fears and they have shown no interest in finding out.

One aspect of this that the author points out is that, unless you are one of them, they're not going to listen to anything you say that disputes what they already believe. There is a deep distrust of "outsiders" at play here -- I've run into samples of it while visiting family in the North Carolina hills: if you're not in some way connected, you're suspect.

It's longish, but it's worth reading in full.

Thought For the Day

From Tom Levenson, at Balloon Juice:

One last thought: I had dinner last week with a Democratic Party senior statesman. He told me that in his view we’ve made the mistake of thinking better policies are argument enough for elections. They’re not; we surely know that now, right?

Instead we have to convey something more, the framework in which specific good policies can work. DeVos’ current obscenity gives us a hint as to what that might be. Republicans throw obstacles in the way of Americans making better lives. Democrats are — and we should say so as loud as we can — the party of opportunity.

Yeah. What he said.

Most people, at least most people who vote instead of staying home and pouting, don't know from policy: it's too complicated. The Democrats need to translate policy positions into everyday life. If the Democrats can just get their shit together and keep harping on this, especially in state and local elections, we ("we" being the vast majority of the American people) can start taking back the government.

(Read Levenson's whole post -- about education, student loans, the obscenity that is Betsy DeVos, etc.)

Today in Disgusting People: School Choice Edition (Update)

Betsy DeVos, who is, in a gallery of egregious cabinet picks, is one of the worst, mostly because she's intent on torpedoing our kids' futures.

Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos says she has no problem with states that allow schools to discriminate against LGBT students while receiving federal funds, and believes that the federal government should not intervene.

The whole exchange is appalling. There's video at the link (that I'm not able to embed) that's worth viewing, just to see DeVos squirm as she's trying to avoid the issue.

Addendum: There's more of DeVos and her agenda here. It sort of echoes the Republican philosophy on the economy: if it doesn't work, keep trying.

Update: I found the video clip on YouTube:

Let's Build a Wall Around Texas

and make them pay for it. Then we might be spared things like the Texas State Board of Education, which has undue influence on the content of textbooks nationally and seems intent on electing only the most rigidly ignorant to serve:

"Ms. Bruner has said that she wants creationism taught in science class," Inside Texas Politics host Bud Kennedy noted. "And that her views represent those of the district. Are you Christian enough to represent this district?"

"Yes, I am," Ellis insisted. "I've taught Sunday school and Bible quiz in my church in 20 years. And I believe it's my responsibility to teach my faith to my children. The catch of when you get religion in school is whose religion is going to be taught?"

Bruner disagreed: "When we only teach theory -- it's a theory, theories are unproven -- but in the science class, if only one theory is taught then we're teaching a religion. It is the religion of atheism."

It's not only the lack of knowledge in her last statement, it's her complete inability to make a coherent argument. "If only one theory is taught, then we're teaching a religion." -- WTF?

The sad part is, Bruner will probably win.

Today's Must Read

This post at Mahablog.

On the other hand, there’s a real problem in some academic studies in which perspectives other than those of dead white European guys are still being frozen out. For centuries, women were locked out of contributing to both eastern and western civ, but that doesn’t mean current, well-documented gender bias in academia can be ignored. And the philosophy departments of American universities continue to shortchange Asian philosophies.

There's no excerpt that I can find that really does justice to the post, so read it.

I have some thoughts on this, but my brain is in hibernate mode this morning. I may come back to it.

Me, Wonderful Me

I left a comment at this post on AmericaBlog yesterday that John Aravosis thought was so wonderful that he turned it into a post.

And I'm even more gratified that the new post is generating a lot of comments.

If You're College Bound in Florida

Be ready for sticker shock. Via Tristero at Hullabaloo, comes this report on HuffPo:

Highly distinguished universities, such as the University of Florida and Florida State University, could charge more than others. Tuition would be lower for students pursuing degrees most needed for Florida's job market, including ones in science, technology, engineering and math, collectively known as the STEM fields.

The committee is recommending no tuition increases for them in the next three years.

But to pay for that, students in fields such as psychology, political science, anthropology, and performing arts could pay more because they have fewer job prospects in the state.

"The purpose would not be to exterminate programs or keep students from pursuing them. There will always be a need for them," said Dale Brill, who chairs the task force. "But you better really want to do it, because you may have to pay more."

So Florida is recommending that students who go into the liberal arts and fine arts, who, after all, can't really expect six- or seven-figure incomes after graduation, subsidize the education of doctors, engineers, and other professionals, who can. This is the Christian fundamentalist/corporatist idea of higher education: trade schools to train people to make a lot of money at jobs that are going to be shipped off to China and Brazil anyway.

Mind you, these are the very people who have been trying to get rid of the National Endowment for the Arts since it was created.

And it's worth noting that psychology and anthropology (among the rest of the social sciences, I presume) are included in the disfavored category. (Because that's exactly what it is -- the areas in demand have now received official preference.)

Tristero's summation hits it pretty accurately, I think:

This is the logic of Puritans. It's all of a piece with the attraction the MSM and many "serious" economists have for austerity programs to the bizarre movement that would force a woman to give birth to her rapist's child,

It is a worldview that privileges a dreary bleakness over joy.

It's even worse than that. I'm convinced that the strain of anti-intellectualism in our country has deep roots in a truly Puritan world-view: the arts give us pleasure, and so they're sinful and to be avoided at all costs. And what's even worse, they teach people to think for themselves.

Can't have that, now, can we?

Cursive Is Not Stupid

I've seen this story around, but hadn't really paid much attention to it until I ran across this post from Amanda Marcotte at Pandagon. It's a bounce off this story. I find little to agree with:

Half the butthurt in this comment thread is based on the assumption that I was suggesting kids shouldn't learn to write with their hands. I just said "cursive", a fancy and outdated way of writing with your hands that is used by such a rare group of people that anyone who feels some compulsion to learn it should do so in college, alongside their basket-weaving courses.

I really can't think of a way to describe that comment as anything other than contrarian bullshit. I suppose it stems from the idea that people are so limited that they can only manage one skill at a time. Maybe that's the case in Indiana, but I'm from Illinois.

Granted, a lot of people have absolutely atrocious handwriting -- my own is of the "shock and awe" variety, and my printing is not much better, the result, I think, of spending too much time at the keyboard. Aside from the feeling of worth that comes from mastering a new skill, learning cursive was almost a rite of passage: you could write like a grown-up, so you were a little more grown-up yourself.

Learning skills is apparenly somehow a bad thing, particularly if they're "useless" skills such as cursive writing or reading German. (Yes, I started working on my German because I got really tired of saying "I used to be able to. . . ." There are a number of things in that category, which I'm working on.)

Of course, I realize that in the world inhabited by the really cool people, you do your grocery list on your iPhone, you e-mail your child's teacher instead of sending a note, you visit your friends and family on Facebook rather than writing a letter or postcard.

The point being, of course, that we're no longer allowed to slow down and think about anything. Writing it out longhand tends to make you do that, especially if it's something for someone else to read.

I just take it as more evidence of education as a tool of the corporate state -- teach them what the plutocracy needs for them to know and no more. I'm sort of surprised to see Marcotte falling into that.

Education and Corporations and Humanity

Very good and angry post at Shakesville on the "two views" of education that seem to be holding sway in this country -- and unfortunately, holding sway in the corridors of power.

I'm not going to try to excerpt it -- it's too much of a piece and you need to read the whole thing.

I will say, though, that my own idea of education is somewhat more than mere training so that you can get a job. I think a good, rounded, liberal education has a lot to do with making decent citizens.

Think of it this way: the teabaggers are the products of the corporate idea of "education."

The Latest Christian Martyr

This post by Timothy Kincaid is probably the most level-headed response I've seen to the "firing" of the U of I professor who decided an e-mail to prep for an upcoming test was the ideal place to rant against gays.

The tone of the e-mail is quite reasonable, but there are a couple of places where it goes entirely overboard:

But the more significant problem has to do with the fact that the consent criterion is not related in any way to the NATURE of the act itself. This is where Natural Moral Law (NML) objects. NML says that Morality must be a response to REALITY. In other words, sexual acts are only appropriate for people who are complementary, not the same. How do we know this? By looking at REALITY. Men and women are complementary in their anatomy, physiology, and psychology. Men and women are not interchangeable. So, a moral sexual act has to be between persons that are fitted for that act. Consent is important but there is more than consent needed.

First off, his "Nature Moral Law" has nothing to do with reality, in spite of his protestations. His "reality" is an entirely theologically-driven human construct based on a limited and highly selective idea of what's desirable, not what's natural. (Oh, and the "consent" argument, which comes in the paragraph before, is so much BS, to the extent that I saw no point in dropping it in here. You can go read it if you want.)

OK -- he's still in the realm of Catholic theology, and even though it's wrong, I can't object to that.

However:

One example applicable to homosexual acts illustrates the problem. To the best of my knowledge, in a sexual relationship between two men, one of them tends to act as the "woman" while the other acts as the "man." In this scenario, homosexual men have been known to engage in certain types of actions for which their bodies are not fitted. I don't want to be too graphic so I won't go into details but a physician has told me that these acts are deleterious to the health of one or possibly both of the men. Yet, if the morality of the act is judged only by mutual consent, then there are clearly homosexual acts which are injurious to their health but which are consented to. Why are they injurious? Because they violate the meaning, structure, and (sometimes) health of the human body.

Sexual relationships between men: he can't get away from the dichotomous male/female point of view. 1) we do not automatically fall into "man" and "woman" when we're having sex. There are lots of alternatives, even in the most functional reading of that idea. 2) "a physician has told me. . . ." is not a valid argument; we have no way of knowing whether the physician is qualified to opine on this subject. I have seen the argument that anal sex (which the good professor is too coy to actually name) presents a greater vulnerability for the receptive partner in HIV transmission, but I've never seen any evidence of the "microscopic tears and abrasions" that a number of physicians claim are the result. 3) based on the fallacies he's presented so far, this conclusion has no weight.

Here's the capstone of the nonsense:

Natural Moral Theory says that if we are to have healthy sexual lives, we must return to a connection between procreation and sex. Why? Because that is what is REAL. It is based on human sexual anatomy and physiology. Human sexuality is inherently unitive and procreative. If we encourage sexual relations that violate this basic meaning, we will end up denying something essential about our humanity, about our feminine and masculine nature.

Again, one can take this as a legitimate exposition of Catholic doctrine, although presented in a heavy-handed, authoritarian manner that doesn't allow for the recognition of another point of view. That doesn't mean it's correct, and if you take into account his insistence on reality, it's obviously nonsense. In case anyone was wondering, people don't have sex to procreate. They have sex because it's fun. (There was actually a recent study published on this, which I can't find online. Sort of blows the procreation idea out of the water, though.)

The parting shot is priceless:

As a final note, a perceptive reader will have noticed that none of what I have said here or in class depends upon religion. Catholics don't arrive at their moral conclusions based on their religion. They do so based on a thorough understanding of natural reality.

This is a howler on the order of William F. Buckley, Jr.'s famous dictum that "morality is absolute." It's also a flat lie.

And now to the controversy. (I hadn't actually planned on dissecting the e-mail, but it was just too ripe.) A student complained, the university investigated, and decided not to renew his contract. He's an adjunct professor, and basically serves at the university's pleasure. The university was not pleased.

You will hear many fulminations about freedom of speech and academic freedom. They don't apply here -- he's a teacher in a position of responsibility, and to present provable falsehoods as truth is an abuse of that responsibility. He's presented Catholic doctrine not as doctrine, but as objective reality, which it is not. For that alone, he deserves to be given his walking papers.

Update: The paragraph about gay sex being bad for your health calls to mind nothing so much as Mat Staver's insane ravings about shoving penises up rectums and calling it love. I have a solution for Mr. Staver: