The ACLU says it will be keeping a close eye on a bill called the Louisiana Science Education Act should it become law.
The measure passed the legislature and is awaiting Governor Jindal’s signature, though it would become law as long as he doesn’t directly veto it.
The bill would allow teachers and school officials to create, “open and objective discussion of scientific theories, not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming and human cloning.”
Its proponents say the bill is good for everyone.
“It’s pro science, pro education, pro control and pro teacher,” said Gene Mills, the Executive Director of the Louisiana Family Forum. “We think it’s going to be good for the classroom.”
ACLU Executive Director Marjorie Esman said that if the Act is utilized as written, it should be fine; though she is not sure it will be handled that way.
“I think there’s a lot of room for things to get sneaked into the classrooms that shouldn’t be there,” she said.
But those in favor of the bill point to the wording, which says, “shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs or promote discrimination against religion or non-religion.”
Esman said the wording walks a fine line.
“It does not say it prohibits the introduction of religion, and there’s a difference,” she noted.
The legislation does allow for teachers to use supplemental resources in the classroom to take on the new topics. And while it doesn't specifically define what those resources will be it does give school districts the power to regulate them.
Political analyst Clancy DuBos said the legislation’s wording may keep it from being challenged legally, but depending on how school systems use it, it could be challenged in its application.
“We're known for suing school boards when we need to do so and we won't shy away from doing that if that's what we need to do this case," said Esman.
DuBos said it’s possible some lawmakers voted for the measure with the knowledge that it could be challenged legally, a move that could cost the state a lot of money. DuBos said some lawmakers may have done that to please a vocal constituency.
"Sometimes lawmakers will do that they just don't want to antagonize that block of voters out there, so they pass it and quietly cross their fingers and hope that the courts toss it out."