Curriculum compromise?
In discussions at the comments section about teaching the origin of the universe and humanity several weeks ago I gave the following proposal:
I would personally like to see public schools teach an interdisciplinary unit in 4th, 8th, and 12th grades (say) on the origins of the universe and the etiology of human beings, exploring scientific, religious, philosophical, and literary perspectives. Since the religious content would be “what Jews believe about the origin of the universe†and “what Hindus believe about the origin of man†and the Bible would be studied alongside the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Origin of Species, and other texts, such a unit would be legally considered the academic study of religion, not religious indoctrination, and would thus be constitutional. And it would achieve my goal of having the beliefs of the majority of parents represented, instead of the current system where Darwin is taught and if creation is mentioned it is disparaged.
Even my usual antagonist Mark Barton indicated he could live with something like my proposal. So I’m wondering if we can’t find a similar compromise to public school discussions of marriage in states that pass same-sex marriage (no revision is need in the other states, because nobody’s tring to stop any particular definition of marriage from being taught there). What if we tell teachers not to discuss marriage in any way except in carefully designed units taught in, say, 3rd, 7th, and 11th grades that would introduce legal, historical, anthropological, religious, and literary perspectives on marriage. Marriage in all its manifestations would be discussed, and as much as possible, everyone’s perspectives on what marriage is or should be would be included and respected.
What do people think?