DOCSLIB.ORG

Forbidden Fruit: Contested Policy Change, Organizational Resources, and the Teaching of Evolution in Public Schools

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Forbidden Fruit: Contested Policy Change, Organizational Resources, and the Teaching of Evolution in Public Schools Forbidden Fruit: Contested Policy Change, Organizational Resources, and the Teaching of Evolution in Public Schools by Angelo James Gonzales A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Political Science in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in charge: Professor Margaret Weir, Chair Professor Christopher Ansell Professor Todd La Porte Professor Kim Voss Fall 2011 Forbidden Fruit: Contested Policy Change, Organizational Resources, and the Teaching of Evolution in Public Schools © 2011 by Angelo James Gonzales Abstract Forbidden Fruit: Contested Policy Change, Organizational Resources, and the Teaching of Evolution in Public Schools by Angelo James Gonzales Doctor of Philosophy in Political Science University of California, Berkeley Professor Margaret Weir, Chair For over a century, American religious organizations have waged a battle against scientists and their allies over the idea of human evolution. What began as a dispute about the scientific theory of evolution by natural selection has, over time, developed into a long-running policy conflict over the teaching of evolution and creationism in public schools. At the heart of the matter is a puzzle: Despite a nationwide shift in the policy status quo favoring evolution and two U.S. Supreme Court decisions that placed creationists at a severe institutional and political disadvantage relative to their opponents, what accounts for the ability of creationists to keep the dispute alive and to continue to score policy victories; and conversely, why have scientists and their allies failed to end the conflict? This outcome, called “contested policy change,” raises big questions about policy sustainability and the relationship of political and non-political actors to the policy process. Specifically, how can a new policy grow stronger over time, while the winners who advocated for the policy change get weaker, and the losers actually manage to get stronger? To answer these questions, we must first reconceptualize the conflict in two dimensions. The first dimension is the policy conflict between pro- and anti-evolution organizations. At stake is the question of whether evolution or creationism (in its various forms) should be taught in public schools. The second, often overlooked, dimension is the “ideational” conflict between religious authorities and scientists. Motivating this dispute is the question of how human life began. Both conflicts are being waged by individuals and organizations—political and non- political—which occupy two distinct organizational fields. In this dissertation, I argue that perpetuation of the policy conflict can only be explained in relation to the battle of ideas. Specifically, creationists were successful because they engaged in the practice of “field bridging,” drawing resources from the organizational field associated with the battle of ideas (i.e., “the ideational field”) to sustain and advance their policy agenda. Field bridging is a general mechanism of policy change, which can be found in any policy conflict in which non-political actors are major participants. There are three general mechanisms by which field bridging can advance an organization’s policy goals. First, organizations can 1 secure needed material resources from their organizational fields to stay alive and press their policy demands. Second, organizations can supply new ideas to actors in the policy field. Third, organizations can recruit external support from the organizational fields in which they are embedded. In the case at hand, creationists employed all three mechanisms in the wake of their 1960s-era policy defeats. By reframing their policy demands under the banner of “creation science,” securing new material resources, and recruiting “creation scientists” and conservative Protestants to the cause, creationist policy activists were able to garner the attention of numerous policy makers during the 1970s and 1980s, while securing a few high-profile victories in several states. On the other hand, scientists let down their guard after the Supreme Court ruled in their favor in 1968. Although some scientists recognized the growing threat posed by the reinvigorated creationism movement, it would take an entire decade for scientists to begin to organize themselves at the state and local level to challenge creationists in the policy field. Although they eventually found their organizational footing, scientists’ most decisive policy victories only came about because of their alliance with church-state separationist organizations, such as the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State. Despite a second decisive Supreme Court victory in 1987, scientists continue to find themselves fighting a seemingly neverending policy conflict against the organizations of the creationism movement, now operating under the banner of “intelligent design.” Until one side or the other is able to conquer the battle of ideas, policy strife is likely to persist. 2 For my mom and dad. i TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ iii List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. iv List of Abbreviations ...................................................................................................................... v Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................... vi Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1 Organizational Authority & Policy Conflict ............................................................................... 1 The Evolution-Creationism Conflict........................................................................................... 2 Argument and Research Questions ............................................................................................. 4 Chapter 2: Literature Review & Theory ......................................................................................... 7 Winners, Losers, and Contested Policy Change ......................................................................... 7 Shortcomings of Collective Action Theory .............................................................................. 12 An Organizational Theory of Policy Change ............................................................................ 15 Plan of the Dissertation ............................................................................................................. 28 Chapter 3: The Battle of Ideas ...................................................................................................... 29 Private Conflict ......................................................................................................................... 30 Public Conflict .......................................................................................................................... 39 Foundations of Creationism ...................................................................................................... 52 Chapter 4: Policy Change ............................................................................................................. 56 State-Level Policy Making and Nationwide Policy Change..................................................... 57 Policy Change ........................................................................................................................... 58 A New Policy Status Quo ......................................................................................................... 67 Chapter 5: Contested Policy Change ............................................................................................ 76 Creationists Strike Back ............................................................................................................ 78 Scientists Remobilize .............................................................................................................. 113 Chapter 6: Conclusion................................................................................................................. 131 Theoretical Implications ......................................................................................................... 132 Victory?................................................................................................................................... 135 Related Issues.......................................................................................................................... 142 Future Research and Final Thoughts ...................................................................................... 146 Bibliography ............................................................................................................................... 148 Appendix ..................................................................................................................................... 159 ii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Four organizational fields in the evolution-creationism controversy. ........................... 25 Figure 2. Timeline of key events, 1858-1941. .............................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Teachers: Lost at the Crossroads of Historiography
    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 337 418 SP 033 241 AUTHOR Weiner, Lois TITLE Teachers: Lost at the Crossroads of Historiography. PUB LATE Apr 91 NOTE 24p.; Paper presented at the AnnualMeeting of the American Educational Research Association (Chicago, IL, April 3-7, 1991). PUB TYPE Speeches/Conference Papers (150)-- Information Analyses (070) EDRS PRICE MF01/PC01 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS *Educational History; Elementary SecondaryEducation; *Females; *Historiography; LiteratureReviews; *Teachers; *Teaching (Otoupation);*Unions IDENTIFIERS *Feminist Scholarship ABSTRACT The study of teachers may well bea lens for fusing history of education's disparate perspectives,for teachers stand at the intersection of several ofhistoriography's most dynamic currents. Teachers can be categorizedas women, uorkers, professionals, citizens, andconveyers of values and ideas. Yet, until quite recently, teachers andtheir lives were absent from the writing of historians. This paperexamines how and why several different waves of educational historiographyhave ignored the history of teachers. Ultimately, teachersas a subject of historical investigation were discovered at thecrossroads of labor and women's history, but not before both perspectiveswere well established. Teacher unionism and teachers asa subject cf feminist scholarship are discussed. Forty bibliographical referencesare included. (IAH) *********************************************************************** Reproductions supplied by EDRSare the best that can be made from the original document. ***************************ft*******************************************
    [Show full text]
  • CURRICULUM VITAE [Fall 2019]
    CURRICULUM VITAE [Fall 2019] NAME: Ira Katznelson ADDRESSES: Office of the Provost Columbia University 535 W. 116 St. 205 Low Library MC 4313 New York, NY 10027 Departments of Political Science and History Columbia University 420 West 118th Street (mail code 3320) New York, New York 10027 (212) 854-3646; 222-0598 (fax) [email protected] PRESENT POSITIONS Interim Provost, Columbia University Ruggles Professor of Political Science and History, Columbia University EDUCATION AND DEGREES B.A., 1966 Columbia University (History) Ph.D., 1969 University of Cambridge (History) PROFESSIONAL HISTORY 2018-- Deputy Director, Columbia World Projects 2017-2018 Pitt Professor of American History and Institutions, University of Cambridge 2017-2018 Fellow, Sidney Sussex College, University of Cambridge 2012-2017 President, Social Science Research Council 2 2003-2004 Acting Vice President for the Arts and Sciences and Dean of Faculty, Columbia University 2001-- Research Associate, Centre for History and Economics, University of Cambridge 2000--2013 Director, American Institutions Project, Institute for Social and Economic Research and Policy, Columbia University 1994-- Ruggles Professor of Political Science and History, Columbia University 1989-1994 Co-Director, Center for Politics, Theory, and Policy, The Graduate Faculty, New School for Social Research 1983-1994 Loeb Professor of Political and Social Science, The Graduate Faculty, New School for Social Research 1983-1989 Dean, The Graduate Faculty, New School for Social Research 1982-1983 Director, Center
    [Show full text]
  • August 2021 CURRICULUM VITAE Margaret M. Weir Department Of
    August 2021 CURRICULUM VITAE Margaret M. Weir Department of Political Science 111 Thayer St. Brown University Providence RI 02912 [email protected] Education Ph.D. The University of Chicago, 1986 Political Science M.A. Brandeis University, 1978 Sociology B.A. Antioch College, 1975 Political Science Professional Appointments 2017-present Wilson Professor of International and Public Affairs and Political Science, Brown University 2016-2017 Professor of Political Science and International and Public Affairs, Brown University 2016-present Professor Emerita, University of California, Berkeley 2012-2016 Avice M. Saint Endowed Chair in Public Policy, University of California, Berkeley 1997-2016 Professor, Departments of Sociology and Charles and Louise Travers Department of Political Science, University of California-Berkeley 2002–04 Director, Institute of Industrial Relations, University of California, Berkeley 1992-1997 Senior Fellow, Governmental Studies, The Brookings Institution Fall 1995 Visiting Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, Johns Hopkins University 1990-1992 John L. Loeb Associate Professor of the Social Sciences, Harvard University 1989-1990 Associate Professor, Department of Government, Harvard University 1985-1989 Assistant Professor, Department of Government, Harvard University Honors and Awards Norton Long Career Achievement Award, Urban and Local Politics Section, American Political Science Association. John G. Winant Visiting Professor of American Government, University of Oxford, (Spring 2020). Matina
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Prof. Isaac Martin Sociology 246 Office: SSB 469 Winter 2009 Phone
    Prof. Isaac Martin Sociology 246 Office: SSB 469 Winter 2009 Phone: x4-5589 Tu 9:30-12:20 Office hours: Tues., Weds. 3:30-4:30 SSB 101 e-mail: [email protected] THE WELFARE STATE At the beginning of the twentieth century, governments were mainly organizations for making war and protecting property. By the beginning of the twenty-first century they had taken on many other tasks—most especially the task of social provision, or insuring the welfare of their citizens and residents. Today, the world’s most developed states devote most of their budgets, much of their law, and a large share of their personnel to the project of providing their citizens with income security—by means of policy instruments that include poor relief, old-age pensions, sick leave, housing, child care, and dozens of others. This is a course in the comparative political sociology of public social provision—i.e., a course on “the welfare state,” broadly construed. We will be trying to understand why different societies at different times take different approaches to this task. In other words, we will ask how welfare states arose, how they differ, why they persist, and how they change. The study of social provision has been a staple of sociology since the founding of the discipline. But the political sociology of welfare states has assumed increasing centrality in the discipline over the last three decades, as scholars working on a wide range of topics have amassed evidence that public social provision affects many outcomes of concern to sociology—such as poverty and inequality, social mobility, health outcomes, urban development, and collective behavior.
    [Show full text]
  • The Politics of American Social Policy, Past and Future
    This PDF is a selection from an out-of-print volume from the National Bureau of Economic Research Volume Title: Individual and Social Responsibility: Child Care, Education, Medical Care, and Long-Term Care in America Volume Author/Editor: Victor R. Fuchs, editor Volume Publisher: University of Chicago Press Volume ISBN: 0-226-26786-5 Volume URL: http://www.nber.org/books/fuch96-1 Conference Date: October 7-8, 1994 Publication Date: January 1996 Chapter Title: The Politics of American Social Policy, Past and Future Chapter Author: Theda Skocpol Chapter URL: http://www.nber.org/chapters/c6567 Chapter pages in book: (p. 309 - 340) 11 The Politics of American Social Policy, Past and Future Theda Skocpol Debates about fundamental reworkings of national social policy are at the cen- ter of U.S. politics-and are likely to remain there for the foreseeable future. As the turn of a new century approaches, American are looking critically at the scope and purposes of their nation’s social policies. Reconsiderations are in- spired by the changing needs of a national population that includes increasing numbers of elderly people, employed mothers, low-wage workers not making incomes sufficient to support families, and employees without long-term job security. Yet today’s policy discussions also grow out of unresolved political disputes from the past. Today’s debates are new incarnations of ongoing battles over the expansion, contraction, or reorganization of public services and social spending in the United States. Some debates are certainly hardy perennials. “Welfare reform,” for example, has come up at least once a decade since the 1950s (Bane and Ellwood 1994, chap.
    [Show full text]
  • Comparative Perspectives on American Political Development
    IN THIS ISSUE... Volume 19 Number 2 Spring/Summer 2009 Comparative Perspectives on American Political Development Richard Franklin Bensel Department of Government, Cornell University I write to you as the 19th president of the section, a section now mature enough to have spanned a generation. We, as the Jefferson Airplane once sang, “are no longer young.” But we are also not old. We are somewhere in between, neither idling at a crossroads nor hurtling down a freeway. The section has its share of challenges but seems to be in good shape. But this is not a “state of the section” essay. Instead, I write as one who, along with the rest of you, have watched Politics and History develop over the years. We have, as I will describe below, become a bit of a tribe but our tribalism has always been less developed than most of our peer sections. And this is all to the good. A tension lurks at the center of most In In this Issue academicIN life, a tension between the sociological imperative of a profession and the individualizing, creative spirit of scholarship. The sociological imperativeTHIS implacably demands that we belong to an identifiable intellectual community. These communities,ISSUE... in turn, come to have boundaries From the President ...............................................1 Editor’s Note.........................................................2 marked out by the analytical assumptions the 2009 APSA Officer Nominees.........................2 members share, the subject matter of their Nichols on Realignment.....................................3
    [Show full text]
  • Full Working Draft 6-3-15
    New Taxes and the American States: The Social Origins of Fiscal Citizenship Debates, 1945-1970 By Elizabeth West Pearson A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Sociology in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in Charge: Professor Margaret M. Weir, Chair Professor Marion Fourcade-Gourinchas Professor Kim Voss Professor Robin L. Einhorn Summer 2015 Abstract New Taxes and the American States: The Social Origins of Fiscal Citizenship Debates, 1945-1970 By Elizabeth West Pearson Doctor of Philosophy in Sociology University of California, Berkeley Professor Margaret Weir, Chair Scholars have documented that a new type of fiscal compact took hold in the United States during the twentieth century as taxpayers supported progressive taxation on incomes in exchange for public investments by government aimed at securing widespread prosperity. Yet by focusing primarily on the national level, existing literature examining the link between tax structure and social policy in the United States has missed a key element of American fiscal exceptionalism. By moving to the state level, my analysis finds that very different fiscal bargains, or models of “fiscal citizenship,” developed across the American states between the late 1940s and early 1970s, in many cases dramatically departing from the national model. Indeed, in some states, taxes were understood not as a way to underwrite progressive investments but rather as a means to force groups “escaping” taxation to contribute more toward the cost of government, as a way of preserving an exclusionary social order, or as a tool for purchasing autonomy from federal intervention.
    [Show full text]
  • Building a Stronger Regional Safety Net: Philanthropy's Role
    Metropolitan opportunity SerieS Building a Stronger Regional Safety Net: Philanthropy’s Role Sarah reckhow and Margaret Weir Findings “ The rapid growth this analysis combines an original data set of foundation grants for social services with in-depth interviews to assess the role of foundations in supporting the suburban social safety net in the of the suburban atlanta, Chicago, Denver, and Detroit regions.1 it finds that: poor means n Suburban community foundations in the four regions studied are newer and smaller than those in core cities, despite faster growth of suburban poor populations. in the regions foundations studied, most suburban community foundations began operating in the 1990s, and have not accumulated significant asset bases. Some larger city-based foundations have taken a regional must now approach, but face restrictions on the extent to which they can address growing need in poor suburban communities. broaden their n The share of foundation dollars targeted to organizations serving low-income residents focus beyond varies widely across regions, but relatively few of those dollars are devoted to building organizational capacity in the suburbs. Chicago saw the largest share of foundation grant urban centers dollars go to organizations serving low-income people (60 percent), while atlanta posted the lowest share (19 percent). Detroit was the only region where total grants to suburban-based to build a stron- human service providers were relatively comparable to their city-based counterparts. ger regional n Suburbs with high rates of poverty have substantially fewer grantees and grant dollars per poor person than either central cities or lower-poverty suburbs.
    [Show full text]
  • November 2003 Number 8
    VOLUME 31 NOVEMBER 2003 NUMBER 8 2004 Annual Meeting . Public Sociologies Public Sociology and UC’s Institute on Labor and Employment The first in a series of articles highlighting the sociological context of ASA’s next Annual Meeting location . San Francisco, California by Sarah Anne Minkin, gists, including its current and upcoming intellectual resources to advance their for decades.” And for scholars, the ILE University of California-Berkeley directors, Ruth Milkman, Professor of work, labor advocates helped push the presents “an incredible opportunity to get Sociology at UCLA and Margaret Weir, establishment of the ILE through the state inside a social movement that’s working Public Sociology is the theme of this Professor of Sociology and Political legislature in 2000. for social justice,” says Milkman. summer’s Annual Meeting in San Science at the UC Berkeley. The ILE is unique as an academic With an initial $6-million budget, the Francisco. While many of us are familiar institution with close ties to labor; Tom ILE is the only institution in the country with it in theory, what does it look like in Labor Is Growing Rankin, President of the California Labor of its magnitude dedicated to bridging practice? What are its challenges, dilem- The ILE’s development comes at a Federation, sits on the governing council. academic research and the labor move- mas and unique advantages? One place to time of renewed sociological interest in The close working relationship with the ment. As a research institution, ILE’s look for answers is the Institute on Labor labor, as evidenced labor movement is collaborative model bridging fieldwork and Employment (ILE), a University of by the founding of essential to ILE’s and scholarship is new.
    [Show full text]
  • Who Gets What? the New Politics of Insecurity
    Cambridge University Press 978-1-108-84020-0 — Who Gets What? Edited by Frances McCall Rosenbluth , Margaret Weir Frontmatter More Information Who Gets What? The New Politics of Insecurity The authors of this timely book, Who Gets What?, harness the expertise from across the social sciences to show how skyrocketing inequality and social dislocation are fracturing the stable political identities and alliances of the postwar era across advanced democracies. Drawing on extensive evidence from the United States and Europe, with a focus especially on the United States, the authors examine how economics and politics are closely entwined. Chapters demonstrate how the new divisions that separate people and places, and fragment political parties, hinder a fairer distribution of resources and opportunities. They show how employment, education, sex and gender, and race and ethnicity affect the way people experience and interpret inequality and economic anxieties. Populist politics have addressed these emerging insecurities by deepening social and political divisions, rather than promoting broad and inclusive policies. Frances McCall Rosenbluth is Damon Wells Professor in the Department of Political Science at Yale University. She writes widely about the politics and political economy of democratic accountability. Her books include Women, Work, and Power (with Torben Iversen, 2010), Forged Through Fire (with John Ferejohn, 2016), and Responsible Parties (with Ian Shapiro, 2018). Margaret Weir is Wilson Professor of Public and International Affairs and Political Science at Brown University. She has written and edited several volumes on social policy, race, and employment in the United States. Professor Weir also served as director of the MacArthur Foundation Network on Building Resilient Regions and is currently working on a book entitled, The New Metropolis: The Politics of Spatial Inequality in Twenty-First Century America.
    [Show full text]
  • The American Middle Class and the Politics of Education Margaret Weir University of California, Berkeley
    The American Middle Class and The Politics of Education Margaret Weir University of California, Berkeley forthcoming in Postwar Social Contracts under Stress: The Middle Classes of America, Europe, and Japan at the Turn of the Century edited by Olivier Zunz, Leonard Schoppa, and Nobuhiro Hiwatari In the fall of 1994, just weeks after the first Republican Congress in a generation was elected, President Clinton floated the idea of a “Middle Class Bill of Rights.” The initiative proposed tax deductions for college tuition payments and other post-secondary educational training. For Clinton, who had failed in his high-risk bid to enact comprehensive health reform, the emphasis on education and the middle class signaled a retreat to safer ground. His move reflected what every American politician knew: when the battleground is the middle class, education represents the higher ground. Long distinguished by its tradition of universal public schooling, the United States renewed its commitment to education after World War II with massive investments. Newly-formed suburbs built thousands of new schools to accommodate the baby boom generation and states transformed a desultory array of state colleges and institutes into coherent and well-funded systems of higher education. The federal government pitched in as well. Starting with educational grants for veterans provided by the 1944 GI Bill of Rights, Washington provided financial assistance that both supported and prodded further state and local action. This burst of investment in education offered occupational mobility to millions of Americans and supplied credentials for a range of occupations seeking to upgrade their professional status. In the process, education helped to blur the lines that once separated the working classes from the middle classes.
    [Show full text]
  • January 2020 CURRICULUM VITAE Margaret M. Weir Department Of
    January 2020 CURRICULUM VITAE Margaret M. Weir Department of Political Science 111 Thayer St. Brown University Providence RI 02912 [email protected] Education Ph.D. The University of Chicago, 1986 Political Science M.A. Brandeis University, 1978 Sociology B.A. Antioch College, 1975 Political Science Professional Appointments 2017-present Wilson Professor of International and Public Affairs and Political Science, Brown University 2016-2017 Professor of Political Science and International and Public Affairs, Brown University 2016-present Professor Emerita, University of California, Berkeley 2012-2016 Avice M. Saint Endowed Chair in Public Policy, University of California, Berkeley 1997-2016 Professor, Departments of Sociology and Charles and Louise Travers Department of Political Science, University of California-Berkeley 2002–04 Director, Institute of Industrial Relations, University of California, Berkeley 1992-1997 Senior Fellow, Governmental Studies, The Brookings Institution Fall 1995 Visiting Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, Johns Hopkins University 1990-1992 John L. Loeb Associate Professor of the Social Sciences, Harvard University 1989-1990 Associate Professor, Department of Government, Harvard University 1985-1989 Assistant Professor, Department of Government, Harvard University Honors and Awards John G. Winant Visiting Professor of American Government, University of Oxford, (Spring 2020). Matina S. Horner Distinguished Visiting Professor, Radcliffe Institute, 2011-12 National Academy of Social Insurance,
    [Show full text]