The Pennsylvania State University The Graduate School College of Education INTELLLIGENT DESIGN AND EDUCATIONAL POLICY: THE CASE OF KANSAS A Thesis in Educational Theory and Policy by John Yoshito Jones © 2007 John Yoshito Jones Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy August 2007 ii The thesis of John Yoshito Jones was reviewed and approved* by the following: David A. Gamson Associate Professor of Education Thesis Adviser Chair of Committee Mindy L. Kornhaber Associate Professor of Education Dana L. Mitra Assistant Professor of Education Hiroshi Ohmoto Professor of Geochemistry Jacqueline Stefkovich Professor of Education Head of the Department of Education Policy Studies *Signatures are on file in the Graduate School iii ABSTRACT Advocates of an alternative explanation of life’s origins, Intelligent Design, have lobbied hard since the 1987 Edwards v. Aguillard decision, which banned “creation science” from public schools, to effect educational policy change through local and state-level school boards. This study examines one such lobbying effort, the 2005 attempt to modify the Kansas Curricular Standards for Science so that biological evolution is actively challenged in the classroom, by analyzing the actions and motivations of several members of the Kansas Board of Education as well as non-Board participants through personal interviews and contempoary media reports. Board minutes from 1999 to 2007 and transcripts from the Board’s May, 2005, public hearings on evolution are also analyzed. This study asks, “what strategies have creationists developed in the wake of the 1987 Edwards v. Aguillard Supreme Court decision striking down creation science and how have those strategies been employed?” The question’s presumption, that Intelligent Design advocates have employed new strategies to advance a creationist agenda, is validated in the study through coding the language used by the interviewees, the Board minutes, and hearings transcripts, as well as a review of contemporary media coverage. Several themes emerged: the belief of participants on each side of the debate that their opponents were attempting to oppress their views, participants on each side claiming to have the best definition of “good science,” the emergence of national-level organizations such as the Discovery Institute in coordinating science-related public advocacy at the state level, evolution’s importance as a state-level public policy issue, and the importance of keeping the voting public informed of science-related educational policy. This case study should be useful to state and local-level educational policymakers grappling with debates over the place of evolution in public schools. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS............................................................................................vi Chapter 1 Introduction.....................................................................................................1 Study Outline.................................................................................................................8 Chapter 2 Literature Review..........................................................................................10 Cultural and Historical Aspects...................................................................................10 Rise of the Religious Right..........................................................................................13 Policy and Politics........................................................................................................19 The Subject of This Case Study...................................................................................30 Chapter 3 Research Design and Data Collection...........................................................33 Descriptive Codes........................................................................................................42 Analytical Codes..........................................................................................................44 Why This is a Case Study............................................................................................51 Chapter 4 The Emergence of the Minority....................................................................53 Laying the Groundwork...............................................................................................53 Electing the Board........................................................................................................57 Chapter 5 The Hearings.................................................................................................92 The Pitchfork...............................................................................................................92 Prong One: Attacking the neo-Darwinian Paradigm...................................................96 Prong Two: Teaching Evolution as Religion.............................................................108 Prong Three: Religious Indoctrination.......................................................................117 Closing Arguments....................................................................................................122 Chapter 6 Power to the People....................................................................................128 Aftermath...................................................................................................................128 Significance................................................................................................................135 Non-repression...........................................................................................................140 The Santorum Amendment........................................................................................149 Victory.......................................................................................................................154 New Elections............................................................................................................158 The Ballot Box Speaks...............................................................................................172 Chapter 7 Findings.......................................................................................................179 Fairness......................................................................................................................180 Public Appeal.............................................................................................................182 v Emotionality...............................................................................................................185 Argumentation...........................................................................................................190 Conclusions................................................................................................................192 Chapter 8 Implications.................................................................................................194 Responses for Educators............................................................................................194 Implications for School Boards.................................................................................197 Bibliography................................................................................................................205 Appendix A.................................................................................................................209 vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I owe several people a great debt of thanks. My advisor, David Gamson, has with wisdom and great patience guided me through the most challenging academic endeavor I have yet undertaken. My other committee members, Mindy Kornhaber, Dana Mitra, and Hiroshi Ohmoto have all offered excellent suggestions and sound advice numerous times throughout this writing. I am indebted to my entire committee for their hard work and generosity as I struggled through numerous revisions. I wish to thank the many people in Kansas who shared their time and their insights into the world of Kansas educational politics. Steve Abrams, Sue Gamble, Pedro Irigonegaray, Kathy Martin, Carol Rupe, Bill Wagnon, and Janet Waugh all consented to personal, on-the-record interviews during the hot weeks of August, 2006. Mrs. Gamble, Mrs. Martin, and Mrs. Waugh each shared with me the hospitality of their homes and all those I interviewed were generous with their time. I wish all elected officials were as gracious as those I met in Kansas. I also owe many thanks to my dear friends Dr. Kristine Dettloff and Ms. Nancy Young for allowing me to board with them during my stay in Kansas City. This study would not have been possible without their willingness to share their home, and their cats, with a cash-strapped graduate student. Finally, and most importantly, I thank my parents, Edward and Kyoko Jones, for their unflagging support throughout my graduate studies and especially during the writing of my thesis. My life’s educational experiences would have been poorer, in every sense of the word, without their guidance and love. This dissertation is dedicated to them. 1 Chapter One Introduction On May 5, 2005, citizens, advocates, and journalists from around the world converged on Topeka Memorial Hall’s 140-seat auditorium, filling it to near capacity in