Government-Issued Textbooks and the Monkey Trial

Published in Hankyoreh
(South Korea) on 5 November 2015
by Yong-hyeon Park (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Nathan Chung. Edited by Helaine Schweitzer.
History is filled with stories of states embarrassing themselves after interfering without any basis in what students can and cannot learn.

In 1919, Nebraska enacted a statute called the Siman Act, forbidding schools from teaching any language other than English. It was a period immediately following World War I, when sentiment against Germany was widespread across American society to the point where people even avoided music by Beethoven and Mozart. There was also much distrust about the patriotism of German immigrants. In such an atmosphere, nationalism grew based on the opinion that if children of immigrants learned their parents’ mother tongue before they learned English, they would not be able to have an American identity. The result was the creation of a law banning all foreign language education. But the U.S. Supreme Court declared the Siman Act to be unconstitutional following the trial of teacher Robert Meyer, who was charged with teaching German at his school. The court reasoned that students do not incur danger from learning foreign languages but by exaggerating the issue, and that the government violated the students’ right to education.

In 1925, Tennessee enacted the Butler Act, which prohibited teaching the theory of evolution in school. Science teacher John Scopes was tried for deliberately violating the law. This trial, in which the theory of evolution collided with the theory of creationism, received so much public attention that it was the first trial to be broadcast live in the United States. The dominant mood underlying the trial was ridicule, as its nickname, “Monkey Trial,” revealed. The trial ended without a conclusion and with Scopes resigning from his school, but it stopped other states that were planning on enacting similar laws.* Arkansas persisted on creating an imitation of the Butler Act, but the Supreme Court deemed it unconstitutional. The obvious reason was that the government could not impose particular religious beliefs onto education. The federal government also reflected on the fact that its science education was falling behind that of the Soviet Union and emphasized teaching evolution as one of the solutions for reform.

The legislators who enacted the Siman Act and the Butler Act may have been serious in their own way, but looking at it realistically and applying the principles of a free democracy, they acted without any basis. The U.S. Supreme Court emphasized that education is about teaching students various facts and opinions to help them adapt to a diverse democratic society, and even those in power do not have the authority to determine what the truth is. When legislators try to enact such laws today, many call them crazy.

But almost 100 years later, something similar is happening in Korea. I am talking about the nationalization of history textbooks. Just like the time during which the Siman Act was enacted, Korea is making a huge fuss about national identity being in crisis due to education. But everybody knows that the hidden intent is to insert a particular historical view preferred by those in power into school education. It is similar to the way the Butler Act was used to plant certain religious beliefs held by politicians into schools. Since they have no way to beat any opposition in a free debate, they are using force.

I would like to recommend that President Geun-hye Park take a careful look at what happened to the legislators of the Siman Act and the Butler Act. Those who worshiped creationism so much that they tried to force it onto others by law ended up helping pave the way for a public forum that revealed the scientific weakness of creationism. Their attempts at legislating their beliefs failed, resulting in a great amount of ridicule instead. President Park’s nationalization attempt may be an expression of filial piety based on the desire to glamorize the history of her father, but it is instead letting everyone know that the history of her father is a dirty one that can only be made beautiful with cosmetics.

An even more horrific end is that she has been recorded in history as a crude politician. The nationalization of history textbooks will be recorded as the legacy of a dictator father, and of his daughter who betrayed democracy to embellish her father’s dictatorship — like father, like daughter. Our children will remember this incident with a sense of the absurd, similar to the way we react toward the Siman Act and the Butler Act. This scandal further overshadows the meager achievements of her father. It is a farce that will make even monkeys laugh.

*Editor’s note: Scopes was found guilty of violating the Butler Act and fined, but the verdict was later overturned on a technicality concerning the fine, and the case was dismissed.


[아침 햇발] 국정 교과서와 원숭이 재판 / 박용현
등록: 2015-11-05 18:41
학생들이 뭘 배워야 하고 뭘 배워서는 안 되는지에 대해 국가가 터무니없이 개입했다가 망신을 당한 역사가 유구하다.

1919년 미국 네브래스카 주는 학교에서 영어 이외의 언어를 일절 가르치지 못하게 하는 법(시먼법)을 만들었다. 당시는1차 세계대전 직후로, 미국 사회에 독일에 대한 반감이 팽배해 베토벤・모차르트의 음악마저 꺼릴 정도였다. 독일계 이민자들의 애국심에 대한 불신도 컸다. 이런 분위기에서 ‘이민자들의 자녀가 영어보다 부모의 모국어를 먼저 배우면 미국적 정체성을 갖지 못한다’는 국수주의가 자랐고, 급기야 모든 외국어 교육을 금지하는 법까지 등장한 것이다. 하지만 미 연방대법원은 학교에서 독일어를 가르친 혐의로 기소된 로버트 마이어 교사의 재판에서 시먼법이 위헌이라고 판결했다. 학생이 외국어를 배운다고 무슨 위험이 초래되는 것도 아닌데 정부가 문제를 침소봉대함으로써 배움의 권리를 침해했다는 이유였다.

1925년 미국 테네시 주에서는 학교에서 진화론 교육을 금지하는 법(버틀러법)이 제정됐다. 과학교사인 존 스콥스는 일부러 법을 어겨 재판을 받았다. 진화론과 창조론이 격돌한 이 재판은 미국에서 처음으로 생중계될 정도로 대중적 관심을 받았는데, 그 주조는 ‘원숭이 재판’이라는 별칭이 말해주듯 ‘조롱’이었다. 스콥스가 학교를 그만두면서 재판은 결론 없이 끝났지만, 비슷한 법을 제정하려던 다른 주들의 움직임은 저지됐다. 그래도 아칸소 주는 기어코 버틀러법의 아류를 만들었는데, 이후 연방대법원에서 보기 좋게 위헌 판결을 받았다. 국가가 특정 종교의 시각을 교육에 강제할 수 없다는 당연한 이유였다. 연방정부도 미국의 과학교육이 소련에 뒤처졌다고 반성하면서 개선책의 하나로 진화론 교육을 강조했다.

시먼법이나 버틀러법을 만든 위정자들은 나름대로 진지했을지 몰라도 현실적으로나 자유민주주의 원칙에 비춰 보나 터무니없는 짓이었다. 미 연방대법원은 학생들이 다원화된 민주사회에 적응하도록 다양한 사실과 의견을 가르치는 게 교육이며, 제아무리 권력자라 해도 무엇이 진리인지 정할 권한은 없다고 강조했다. 지금 저런 법을 만든다고 하면 미쳤다는 말을 듣기 십상일 것이다.

그런데 100년 가까운 시차를 두고 한국에서 그와 비슷한 일이 벌어지고 있다. 역사교과서 국정화다. 시먼법을 만들 때처럼 ‘교육 때문에 국가 정체성이 위험에 처했다’고 호들갑을 떤다. 하지만 그 숨은 의도는 권력자가 선호하는 특정 역사관을 학교 교육에 주입시키려는 것임을 삼척동자도 안다. 버틀러법이 위정자의 특정 종교적 신념을 학교에 심으려 했던 것과 마찬가지다. 자유로운 경쟁으로는 도저히 상대를 이길 수 없으니 강제력을 동원하는 것이다.

하지만 박근혜 대통령에게 시먼법이나 버틀러법 제정자들의 말로를 잘 살펴보라고 권하고 싶다. 창조론을 너무도 숭상한 나머지 법으로 강제하려 했던 이들은 도리어 창조론의 과학적 취약성을 드러내는 공론장을 마련해준 꼴이 됐다. 결국 그들의 시도는 실패하고 실컷 조롱만 얻어먹었다. 박 대통령의 국정화 시도 역시 아버지의 역사를 아름답게 치장하고 싶은 효심의 발로일지 모르나, 오히려 아버지의 역사가 ‘강제로 분칠을 해야만 아름다워지는 더러운 역사’임을 더 널리 알리고 있을 뿐이다.

더 끔찍한 말로는 역사에 길이길이 미개한 위정자로 기록됐다는 점이다. 역사교과서 국정화 또한 ‘아버지는 독재자였고 그 딸도 아버지의 독재를 미화하기 위해 민주주의를 배반했다’는 부전여전의 전설로 기록될 터이니, 후대는 우리가 지금 시먼법이나 버틀러법을 대할 때의 황당함으로 이 사건을 기억할 것이다. 아버지가 쌓은 알량한 공적마저 이 추문에 더욱 그늘질 뿐이니, 이야말로 원숭이도 웃을
일이 아닌가. 박용현 논설위원 piao@hani.co.kr
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Germany: Trump Is Capable of Learning

Canada: Negotiating a Business Deal without Trust

Turkey: Conflicting Messages to Syria: US Supports Integrity while Israel Attacks

Australia: What’s Behind Donald Trump’s Latest Crypto Adventure?

Spain: The New American Realism

Topics

Spain: The New American Realism

Mexico: Trump vs. Cuba: More of the Same

Ireland: US Tariffs Take Shine Off Summer Economic Statement

Israel: Epstein Conspiracy: When the Monster Has a Life of Its Own and Rises Up

Spain: Another Threat from Trump

Canada: Negotiating a Business Deal without Trust

Taiwan: Tariff Showdown Doesn’t Shake Confidence

Related Articles

India: Trump’s Tariffs Have Hit South Korea and Japan: India Has Been Wise in Charting a Cautious Path

Hong Kong: China, Japan, South Korea Pave Way for Summit Talks; Liu Teng-Chung: Responding to Trump

India: Thanks to Trump, Researchers May Soon Start Ditching US for China

South Korea: Where Is the War in Ukraine Heading?