California Science Center: A Public-Private Partnership
Post #2 – A profile of the California Science Center, which is involved in the legal skirmish over the screening of “Darwin’s Dilemma.”
The California Science Center, one of the prime attractions in Exposition Park, has a venerable history. The State Exposition Building, which opened in 1912 on the current site, became the California Museum of Science and Industry in 1951. The museum was transformed – and rechristened the California Science Center – following completion of a 1987 master plan.
In its current incarnation, the California Science Center seeks to educate the public about science and to make the experience fun. A kid-friendly place with cool, hands-on activities, the Science Center features a number of interactive worlds (focusing on different areas of scientific inquiry). A new world – Ecosystems – will debut on March 25. I have visited the Science Center only a handful of times with my not-quite-teenage son, but we invariably have a great time and learn something while we are there. General admission is free, though special exhibits may carry additional charges.
“The California Science Center is a public-private partnership between the State of California and the not-for-profit California Science Center Foundation.” The Science Center is governed by a 9-person board of directors; the affiliated foundation, a 501(c)(3) founded in 1950, is governed by a huge board of trustees. (In contrast, two other popular cultural institutions in LA take a different approach to linking the public and the private: LACMA, although operated as a nonprofit organization, is also a department of the County of Los Angeles ; while Griffith Observatory, operated by the City of Los Angeles Department of Recreation and Parks, has a nonprofit support group.)
The California Science Center Foundation runs Event Services, which approved (and then canceled) the rental agreement with the American Freedom Alliance. But it is the public side of the Science Center partnership that allowed the AFA lawsuit to go forward, since the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution – guaranteeing freedom of speech – applies to the State of California. As a public institution, the actions of the California Science Center are subject to Constitutional constraints. Unlike a basic nonprofit (without the public dimension), the Science Center is also subject to the California Public Records Act. (Discovery Institute, the subject of a future post, is taking full advantage of First Amendment law and California’s transparency in government requirements in its legal skirmish with the Science Center.)
The Science Center’s mission statement: “We aspire to stimulate curiosity and inspire science learning in everyone by creating fun, memorable experiences, because we value science as an indispensable tool for understanding our world, accessibility and inclusiveness, and enriching people’s lives.”
This simple embrace of science set up a conflict with the American Freedom Alliance, which will be the subject of tomorrow’s post.
Next post: American Freedom Alliance and the Scientific Establishment
Initial post in this series: California Science Center Sued by American Freedom Aliance
Update: See Post #5 in my series, which makes reference to the court case mentioned in Mitchell’s comment.
I had always assumed that ID was just creationism repackaged.
The Discovery institute had 6 weeks to bring forth the best evidence for ID. After taking a close look at the court transcript from the Dover, PA case, I became certain of the fact that ID is just the same old tricks.
A GW Bush appointed, conservative, federal judge, (self proclaimed born again Christian Boy Scout leader), ruled in the Dover Pa trail that ID is nothing more than creationism and is not science. He also said the DI people were fundamentally dishonest.
Judge Jones said…
“The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board’s ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents. [...]
The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy. With that said, we do not question that many of the leading advocates of ID have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom.”
These are same people who teach their kids fake science and then tell them if you don’t believe what we tell you, you’re going to burn in hell.
by Mitchell
on 12. Jan, 2010