The inconvenient truth about School Board's film decision

I want to clear up some confusion about a recent decision we on the Federal Way School Board made about the movie "An Inconvenient Truth."

First and foremost, I believe global warming is a crucial issue to discuss for a variety of reasons. It would be irresponsible not to teach it in the most vigorous way possible. There is a good reason it is part of our state's "Essential Academic Learning Requirements."

There are beneficial reasons to keep global warming at the forefront. Imagine if we did not pay attention to the warnings of the 1960s that resulted in formation of the Environmental Protection Agency and changes in how we interact with the environment.

Attention to global warming is the next stage in the process of making sure we are the best stewards of our environment. Regardless of how you feel about this issue, sensitivity to it will open markets for new products, reduce pollution and reduce our dependency on foreign oil.

As for the movie, we did not ban it; we did not ban teaching about global warming; we did not intend to create new policy; and we did not cave in to a parent's political or religious views. None of the board members cast judgment on the movie for either side.

Some districts will not accept the movie at all; so, teachers here are actually able to do more with the movie than other districts. Nothing we did changed that.

Because of some confusion created in a variety of ways last week, not just from one inquiry, we asked in an open public meeting, as required by law, to put the brakes on, take two steps back, and have the superintendent make sure existing policy was being followed.

We did not intend to change policy and regret if that is what it appears we have done. It was the last thing I wanted to do because I believe the policy is sound as is.

Some have questioned whether this movie is controversial as defined in our policy. I acknowledged in the meeting that it might be reasonable for someone to think that the movie was not controversial because he or she believes the debate is over.

But I am charged with the tough job of putting my own views aside, wading through the passions and prejudices of others, and making a decision based upon the big picture for what I believe is right. My opinion was that this was controversial on a number of different levels.

Merely looking at this as an issue involving global warming is too simplistic because it involves complex issues created by others beyond my control — i.e., the merging of politics and science.

I am not an atmospheric scientist so I will not venture on their turf, but the global-warming issues include the following: What is the cause of global warming? Do humans contribute to global warming? To what extent? What does the future hold?

We need only to look in our own backyard to find that our official state climatologist and the official Oregon state climatologist agree and disagree on many of the above issues to varying degrees. On some issues, they are polar opposites.

Finally, there are the policy issues. This is where passion and prejudice merge science and politics, with both sides accusing the other of "science faction" (scientific prejudice based upon political views).

Some scientists on both sides have fully immersed themselves in policy blurring the line between science and politics. Politics creates the majority of controversy and that controversy existed before any action by our board. It would have been irresponsible not to recognize this aspect of the movie.

There is also the issue of the long-term effects of opening the door to political partisans to create curriculum-affecting policy issues. Do we really want partisans to have an incentive to go into the business of developing curriculum for our public schools? Where do we draw the line? This is a big-picture issue that gets lost in the shuffle by focusing only on this one movie.

Imagine if an established Republican narrated a movie about global warming. Do you understand the need for following our policy now? My concern would have been the same.

In sum, we simply asked for duly adopted policy to be followed when a political partisan presents a contested political/scientific issue to impressionable youth. I hope that was not too much to ask for.

David Larson is vice president of the Federal Way School Board.