Well, it's official: Oklahoma's state legislature is investigating the University of Oklahoma for hosting a speech by evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins.
As I noted in a post over the weekend at Dawkins' website, the legislature first considered two resolutions condemning both Dawkins and the theory of evolution as "an unproven and unpopular theory." (I highly recommend reading both of the proposed resolutions.) Despite their efforts, the legislature failed to prevent Dawkins from speaking on March 6 to an audience of thousands at the University of Oklahoma.
Last week, however, I received multiple reports that the legislature was now investigating the speech, and I wrote the University of Oklahoma President David Boren directly asking to know if this was true.
Sure enough, I just received confirmation today in a letter from the Open Records Office at the University of Oklahoma. The letter confirms that on the day of Dawkins' speech, Oklahoma State Representative Rebecca Hamilton requested substantial information relating to the speech from Vice President for Governmental Relations Danny Hilliard. Representative Hamilton's exhaustive request included demands for all e-mails and correspondence relating to the speech; a list of all money paid to Dawkins and the entities, public or private, responsible for this funding; and the total cost to the university, including, among other things, security fees, advertising, and even "faculty time spent promoting this event."
Rick Farmer, the director of committee staff for the Oklahoma House of Representatives, also wrote the University on March 12, requesting confirmation that Dawkins had indeed waived all compensation for the speech.
Now some of you--though I hope not too many--may wonder: "What's wrong with the legislature investigating a speech by a famous evolutionary biologist at a public university?" Well, a lot of things, actually. As I wrote in my post on Dawkins' website:
If this investigation is indeed taking place, what the state legislature needs to understand is that in court cases dating back to the days of the House Committee on Un-American Activities, even investigating clearly protected speech on the basis of its viewpoint violates the First Amendment.
Think about it: If every time a student or faculty member invited, say, Rick Warren to speak on campus, they knew they would be subjected to a thorough and time-consuming investigation by state officials, you can all but guarantee that schools across the country would think twice before inviting Rick Warren. This would be a great way for state legislatures to chill speech they dislike without ever having to find the speaker guilty of a single thing. Talk about your un-American activities.
Given the fact the legislature clearly is concerned with nothing other than Dawkins' viewpoint, such an investigation is improper and should end immediately.
I think I know the answer to the last question, but I think it's time the Oklahoma Legislature answered the first two. Stay tuned.
Follow Greg Lukianoff on Twitter: www.twitter.com/glukianoff
After writing a bestselling atheist "consciousness-raiser," is it at all surprising that Dawkins now finds his evolution book being prominently linked to atheism in the media mind?
The specific talk Dawkins gave was so popular, you couldn't get near the building! We have a very wide diversity in the University community, but outside.....OMG!! In spite of all the Obama bumper stickers seen here in Norman, the State showed voting red. We have had a legislator who decided THE TIN DRUM was pornographic ( a few years back) and actually had police raid private residences for copies of such! Our representation in the Senate don't acknowledge global warming, etc. It is like being in a bad time-warp.
This doesn't surprise me given the past record, but I can tell you that we are hoping Dawkins will return so those of us that couldn't get in because of the overwhelming response, will have another opportunity to hear him. This Bible Belt mentality is way over the top!!
However...one of my favorite authors, who also happens to include gay and lesbian characters positively in her books, lives in Oklahoma -- Mercedes Lackey. Go figure!
Every county in the state went for McCain. I think it's the only state that did. You can't get Air America here.
Everyone bitches about congress, but they keep re-electing Inhofe, because there's still some oil in the ground here, and a lot of gas.
There are also a high percentage of heretical end-timers, whose disregard for creation other than stem cells dovetails nicely with the short-sighted religion of unregulated capitalism. Madison warned us about capitalism corrupting democratic rule.
Lots of good music has some out of here though: art thrives in adversity, ha.
Believe it or not, I know some Indian Republicans! Go figure!
Ihoffe's a laughable disgrace. Coburn was featured on Comedy Central "Daily Show with Jon Stewart in a video clip that showed him working a crossword puzzle during Supreme Court Justice Roberts' confirmation hearings. Doofus. He's an extremist on many scores, but he did partner a couple years back with then-Senator Obama to craft an important piece of legislation on spending transparency and almost single-handedly spearheaded the effort to get the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere" killed. But alas, there's the video on Jon Stewart's Comedy Central
I suppose any sitting Senator or Representative has the potential and does disappoint their constituents or embarrass them now and then (e.g.: Barney Frank and Chris Dodd)
This latest embarassment driven by our stunningly narrow-minded legislature is just one more opportunity for people to heap insult on our state once again. So what? Nobody's state legislature is immune from bonehead attacks. Stuff happens. I just hope we get as much exposure when this stupid maneuver is sqaushed.
And btw - I listen to Air American all day through their live internet feed. Good stuff.
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Bill_in_Texas_would_allow_creationists_0321.html
__________
That the theory of evolution has enormous support in fact and deductive reasoning is a matter of record - a record that grows in depth and quantity almost daily. The claim of "unproven" can only be justified in the minds of those who no next to nothing about the theory. As to the claim it is "unpopular", popularity has little to nothing to do with objective science. Scientific inquiry searches for what is true versus what is not true, regardless of the popularity of such truth or its potential for popularity. I believe we'd all rather not know that one day a planetary calamity will occur caused by asteroid, volcano, earthquake, viral pandemic, enormous solar flare or what have you, however, that such threats do exist is a scientific fact. Their truth does not depend on popularity nor can lack of popularity put an end to the threats.
I dare say, if public authorities in Oklahoma wish to limit education at state universities to what is both thoroughly proven and popular, and as Professor Dawkins pointed out during his speech, one would have to throw out the theory of gravity and begin teaching the stork theory of reproduction. The standards of "proven" and "popular" will reduce education in Oklahoma to the mere ludicrous and reflective of the ludicrous nature of Oklahoma politics.
This is the kind of people you are dealing with in Oklahoma.
I am not making this up.