The debate for scientific accuracy has been a hot topic for many years. One aspect of study suggests that focusing on logical, ‘proven’ studies of science are the pinnacle of any teaching, while the other says that freedom of speech in an academic capacity is the primary goal. The way an individual looks upon such questions is mainly based on upbringing and social views. Someone raised in a religious household is bound to view the debate on intelligent design, creationism, and evolution in a radically different light than that of someone raised without religion as a basis for understanding. The concerns voiced throughout the article of choice about Professor Hedin are deep and wide. They are mostly based on the principles of freedom of academic speech, generic freedom of speech, sound science principles, and whether or not it is robbing a professor of their freedom of academic speech by forcing them to focus on what the majority of scientific scholars view as legitimate. The idea that Professor Hedin’s teaching on Intelligent Design is somehow a legal dilemma seems to be grasping for traction. That is to say, it is a far stretch of the imagination. It would seem that though it may be a legal dilemma, it is much more an ethical issue. The First Amendment protects freedom of speech, but it does not protect nor apply in this situation, because the university does not require Hedin’s course ‘Boundaries of Science’ to be taken. PZ Meyers, a biologist at the University of Minnesota puts it quite plainly: “The First Amendment does not apply; this is not a course students are required to take, and it’s at a university, which students are not required to attend. It’s completely different from a public primary or secondary school. A bad course is an ethical problem, not a legal one.” (Ball) The consensus is that the legality of the course is not in question, rather the ethical problems a public university such as Ball State may face, is the pinnacle of the issue. Yet another respected person in the debate believes that even though Hedin’s beliefs and teaching is protected by freedom of speech, “it is possible for a professor's religious advocacy, even if not breaching the separation of church and state, to go so far as not to be protected by academic freedom considerations.” (Ball) One large debate present in the science community is the idea that public education must separate church and state, as required by law. Furthermore though, the issue present in this circumstance is that what is considered such separation can sometimes be vague, that is, not black and white. This dilemma is obvious in the response of Thomas Robertson, chair of the physics and astronomy department at Ball State. Robertson says that the syllabus of Hedin’s course was approved by the college and “the course helped students challenge the ideas they had upon enrolling in college” (Scientists). Needless to say, Robertson was not of the notion that Hedin’s teaching was out of order. It seems that the majority of the critics participating in this debate come from scholars who are needlessly pushing their own agenda, while angrily protesting another’s slight implication of a belief. It is strange how such chaos can be aroused from such a small issue, such as students being fed some slightly bias beliefs; yet nearly all educational institutes emit some bias. On the opposite side of the paradigm sits those who not only support academic freedom, but believe that Intelligent Design is a feasible assumption to the answers of life. One such critic is John West, whose opinions on academic freedom are worth considering. Explaining that “our commitment to academic freedom is unflinching,” (Ball) West explains that Ball State’s eventual response by President Gora applies a sort of ‘gag order’ on academic scholars under the guise of separation of church and state. West makes it clear that by trying to keep this separate present, and by trying to keep it as sacred and true, Ball State has essentially went the other direction. West says, “Academic freedom was designed to protect dissenting and unpopular views among faculty. That's the whole point. Redefining it as the freedom to teach only the majority view isn't academic freedom; it's an academic straightjacket.” (Ball) Clearly then, the debate is at some of its heaviest moments when speaking of what exactly academic freedom, freedom of speech, and the like, mean. In summary, I believe that the separation of church and state is quite respected by most public universities. In my opinion, many aspects of life are ‘religion’, and not only those that easily fall under the guise of religion. If a higher power does exist, then anything aligning with this higher power, or denying this higher power, is a religion of sorts; that is to say that anything that goes with or against this higher power affects the followers, and therefore constitutes a religion that shapes their lives. I believe it is remarkable to see such bold scholars who are willing to put their name out on the line for what they believe; religious, non-religious, or atheist. This is a clear sign of the times of mass debate we live in. No longer are many students, teachers, and scholars, content with standing by the wayside and going with the program. Rather, each individual wants to break out, make an impact, and ‘preach’ their message of belief. Fortunately, and unfortunately, this makes many remarkable bias and assumptions present in our culture. Rarely will students simply believe what they are taught, and even more rarely will they not believe what they are taught. The mind, being the powerful tool that it is, allows us to weigh opinions and outlooks against almost any imaginable perspective. Each individual must take their freedoms to themselves, and defend what is rightfully theirs. If we allow other’s bias and opinions to shape our freedom of speech, we will eventually lose it. Allowing professors to speak their mind, and students to speak theirs directly back, is one of the key principles I believe to be healthy in a university setting. The moment speech is restricted, is the moment education is, in essence, restricted as well. My feeling is that the words of Laurence A. Moran, a professor of biochemistry at the University of Toronto, are almost exactly what we must hear. He explains “Academic freedom is important and it's especially important to defend it when a professor is pushing a view that we disagree with.” (Scientists) The moral is this: if our freedom is questioned, that is the moment we must defend it the most, and with the most vigor.

References
Ball State agrees to investigate science course some say is pushing religion (2013, May 17).
Scientists applaud Ball State president's position on intelligent design (2013, August 1)