View Full Version : Texas fires State Director of Science Curriculum for Promoting Evolution
m_huber
2nd December 2007, 08:56 PM
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13772.html
Chris Comer, for example, the state director of science curriculum, has been fired. Her offense is that she forwarded an e-mail to several individuals and community groups announcing a speech being given by Barbara Forrest, co-author of Creationism’s Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design, a book critical of the ID movement.
Makes me mad.
Davidlpf
2nd December 2007, 09:22 PM
At least in texas they had someone in charge of science curriculum who was pro science, at least for a little while.
rjh01
2nd December 2007, 11:29 PM
When I click on the link my IE V7 freezes.
Was he sacked for promoting a Evolution or for sending a certain type of e-mail?
Normal Dude
3rd December 2007, 10:39 AM
She forwarded an email which told of a presentation by the author Forrester.
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
3rd December 2007, 02:41 PM
Texas has a big influence on the content of textbooks written for the U.S. market. This should be interesting.
I've been sooooo bored since Dover.
~~ Paul
Kestrel
6th December 2007, 09:51 PM
Texas has a big influence on the content of textbooks written for the U.S. market.
Texas mandates textbooks at the state level instead of leaving it up to the local school districts.
Haven't you ever wondered why Texas had a State Schoolbook Depository?
a_unique_person
6th December 2007, 10:44 PM
And grassy noles.
Bikewer
7th December 2007, 12:33 PM
This appeared in Randi's commentary this week, and NPR's Science Friday devoted the first segment of the show to an interview with Castillo.
I wonder if we have a link to the e-mail for the appropriate administrators? I understand the case is already generating a bit of outrage.
juniper_ann
7th December 2007, 01:39 PM
What alternative reasons are being given for her firing? Are any of them reasonable?
Bikewer
8th December 2007, 07:28 AM
According to the Science Friday interview, the reason given was the "impropriety" of advocating a position on which the department must remain "neutral".
As Randi said in his commentary, why would the department have to be neutral when there is now standing case law from the Dover case?
m_huber
9th December 2007, 10:49 AM
An update from the NCSE:
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2007/TX/577_the_latest_on_the_comer_contro_12_7_2007.asp
juniper_ann
10th December 2007, 12:10 PM
I thought about writing my Texas School Board of Education Member, but I find out that I'm in SBOE District 6 (yeah, I didn't know :blush:), and my representative is Terri Leo, who has "wedge doctrine" written all over her. I can't seem to find when the next district 6 election is.
I'll still write the governor and my senator and representative, as soon as I can put together a coherent letter.
pgwenthold
10th December 2007, 12:16 PM
What alternative reasons are being given for her firing? Are any of them reasonable?
THere is a Q&A with Scott, where he just denies everything without providing any details.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/points/stories/DN-pocscott_09edi.ART.State.Edition1.370eba7.html
Is it true she was forced to resign just because she forwarded that e-mail message without even commenting on it?
That's an absolute falsehood. It's a personnel matter. The really frustrating part about this is, if I start talking about activities and things that happened, I get sued. So all I can say is that there are other factors, and I understand that certain interest groups would like to pick upon that one issue and make it the issue of the day. ... That's their business, but that's not how we're running the agency.
juniper_ann
10th December 2007, 01:33 PM
I was skeptical about Comer's claims because she certainly has a motive for lying. It's a lot easier to say "I was fired because my scumbag employer wants to suppress the truth" than to say, for instance, "I was fired because I am incompetent." Still, no one from the TEA seems to be opposing her story.
THere is a Q&A with Scott, where he just denies everything without providing any details.
Sheesh. I think you would have to think long and hard before you came up with something that had less meaning than "personnel issues". I think the next statement is even more telling:
"Was her advocacy of evolution over creationism an element in her dismissal?
She wasn't advocating anything. My understanding is that the e-mail she forwarded – let me rephrase that. She wasn't advocating for evolution. But she may have given the impression that ... we were taking a position as an agency – not as an individual but as an agency – on a matter."
The bolded part is the reason all the news agencies (and outraged interest groups) are giving for her firing--that the agency feared she was giving an impression that the agency was not "neutral" toward Creationism.
juniper_ann
10th December 2007, 04:49 PM
What's the difference between a mailing address and a delivery address? Which one do you put on the envelope? Which one do you put on the upper left of the letter?
http://www2.governor.state.tx.us/contact/
pgwenthold
10th December 2007, 06:56 PM
What's the difference between a mailing address and a delivery address?
Believe it or not, there is one.
US Post can go to the mailing address. It is a mailbox.
The delivery address is needed for any other carrier. UPS or FedEx, for example, require a physical address and not just a PO box.
juniper_ann
10th December 2007, 10:05 PM
Believe it or not, there is one.
US Post can go to the mailing address. It is a mailbox.
The delivery address is needed for any other carrier. UPS or FedEx, for example, require a physical address and not just a PO box.
Thanks, pgwenthold.
Does anyone have any suggestions for my letter to Gov. Perry (following)? Is it too...hysterical? Non-factual? Long? Please don't hesitate to make harsh suggestions or edits.
December 11, 2007
Office of the Governor
P.O. Box 12428
Austin, Texas 78711-2428
Dear Governor Perry:
The November 5, 2007 memo “Re: Proposed Disciplinary Action” from Monica Martinez to Susan Barnes says that on October 26, 2007, Chris Comer forwarded an email that “implies that TEA endorses the speaker’s [Barabara Forrest’s] position on a subject on which the agency must remain neutral. Thus, sending this email compromises the agency’s role in the TEKS revision process by creating the perception that TEA has a biased position on a subject directly related to the science education TEKS.” I am sure that you are well aware that Ms. Comer has since been forced to resign for several reasons, including this email.
While the Texas Education Agency (TEA) should not be holding religious positions, it is unconscionable for TEA to be neutral about the teaching of Intelligent Design or Creationism in science classes. It is a fraud to teach evolution as anything but the rigorous scientific theory that it is. Creationism, including the insidious weasel words and false controversy of the Discovery Institute, is intolerable in any classroom.
If the TEA has any plans of replacing Ms. Comer with a Director of Science more likely to cooperate with a Creationist agenda, please disabuse them of that notion immediately.
Sincerely,
[Signature]
Firstname Lastname
Me@myemail.com
123 Street St.
City, TX xxxxx
m_huber
10th December 2007, 10:47 PM
I would include something about the Dover trial, the legal precedent for teaching ID, and the probability of a lawsuit.
GreNME
11th December 2007, 08:54 AM
I just submitted a message to Perry's office:
I find it extremely disturbing that, after the case in Dover (Pennsylvania) regarding claims that intelligent design (ID) is NOT a valid science and thus not subject to being taught along-side evolution, the state of Texas decides to pressure its director of the state science curriculum (Chris Comer) to resign over an issue that, at its core, is just another appeal to ID creationists and a slap in the face of science. Furthermore, as someone who is interested in going back to school to finish a degree in education, I am becoming increasingly convinced that I have absolutely no desire to pursue a career in education in a state like Texas. If Texas promotes such blatantly unethical behavior as the TEA has engaged in by forcing Comer out of her position over such a ridiculous issue, then people who advocate the teaching of science (and not religion) in the classroom are clearly being sent a message: we (those who promote science) are not wanted. The only thing that incidents like this serve to accomplish for the state of Texas is a reduction in the quality of educators willing to work within the state, forcing more and more highly qualified teachers to move on to states with less biased ties to religious fanaticism. Quite honestly, due to issues like this, you can very likely guarantee that I will be among those people who refuse to teach in this state while such a religiously driven and unethical stance continues to be in place.
m_huber
11th December 2007, 12:36 PM
Right on.
Phil
11th December 2007, 12:42 PM
Lots of details in this report:
http://www.texscience.org/reviews/tea-science-director-resigns.htm
sthomson
11th December 2007, 12:55 PM
I'm a bit on the fence about this. I remember the case (in Texas:do you see a pattern?) last year where a teacher claimed she was fired for taking her class to an art exhibit which contained sculptures of nudes. There was a lot of uproar all over the internet, and a lot of mischaracterizations of the school district and parents involved, primarily because in cases such as these, the school district is much more hesitant to speak to the press (they face many more legal problems for doing so). The school board claimed that her performance issues stretched back a year before the museum incident, etc etc. It becomes such a he-said/she-said thing, and if there's one thing I don't like it's the Court of Public Opinion.
However, the Texas Citizens for Science report is very thorough and rather damning against the Texas education board.
Geek Goddess
11th December 2007, 01:22 PM
And grassy noles. and knolls, too.
I have drafted a letter that I will be sending out this week. This just pisses me off to no end!
Mark A. Siefert
11th December 2007, 02:13 PM
That's an absolute falsehood. It's a personnel matter.
Bulls--t Scott! She's a public employee, as are you. You run a tax-payer supported agency. There are no "personal matters" here. If she was not fired for forwarding the e-mail, then what was she fired for?
sthomson
11th December 2007, 02:42 PM
Bulls--t Scott! She's a public employee, as are you. You run a tax-payer supported agency. There are no "personal matters" here. If she was not fired for forwarding the e-mail, then what was she fired for?
Personnel, Mark, not personal. :D
Normal Dude
11th December 2007, 06:01 PM
Biologists in Texas have responded with a letter:
https://webspace.utexas.edu/dib73/Bolnicklab/OpenLetter.pdf?uniq=i1dfc7
Henners
12th December 2007, 09:00 AM
...the land of the brief and the home of the hoover.
Ain't free speech just dandy.
UnrepentantSinner
13th December 2007, 12:45 AM
Biologists in Texas have responded with a letter:
https://webspace.utexas.edu/dib73/Bolnicklab/OpenLetter.pdf?uniq=i1dfc7
Oh Snap!
Morrigan
14th December 2007, 10:58 PM
Biologists in Texas have responded with a letter:
https://webspace.utexas.edu/dib73/Bolnicklab/OpenLetter.pdf?uniq=i1dfc7
*sniff* That's... beautiful. Beautiful pwnage.
Bunk
22nd December 2007, 12:43 PM
Don McLeroy, chair, State Board of Education of the great state of Texas sent this letter yesterday (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/letters/stories/DN-friartletters_1221.ART.State.Edition1.36fb713.html ) to the Dallas news in response to a story they'd written earlier. His letter sounds pretty good until you read this:
My focus is on the empirical evidence and the scientific interpretations of that evidence. In science class, there is no place for dogma and "sacred cows;" no subject should be "untouchable" as to its scientific merits or shortcomings. My motivation is good science and a well-trained, scientifically literate student.
What can stop science is an irrefutable preconception. Anytime you attempt to limit possible explanations in science, it is then that you get your science stopper. In science class, it is important to remember that the consensus of a conviction does not determine whether it is true or false.
I believe that's he's just using Discovery Institute code words to state that he has every intention of moving ID into Texas science classes if there's any way he can do it. Or maybe I'm just paranoid.
P.S. It's not paranoia if everyone IS out to get you.
UnrepentantSinner
22nd December 2007, 10:24 PM
Would any Creationist who claims that there are problems or shortcomings or whatever please list what they supposedly are instead of just alluding to them?
Come on Dr. McLeroy, don't tease us. Instead of using your flowery verbiage, just tell us what the freakin' shortcomings are you have a problem with?
Tokenconservative
26th December 2007, 07:49 AM
*sniff* That's... beautiful. Beautiful pwnage.
"pwnage"?
Isn't that a term specific to the old Protest Warrior forum site?
as in: Protest Warrior-ownage?
Tokie
Damien Evans
26th December 2007, 08:22 AM
"pwnage"?
Isn't that a term specific to the old Protest Warrior forum site?
as in: Protest Warrior-ownage?
Tokie
not that I know of.
Tokenconservative
26th December 2007, 03:00 PM
Two words: 'bout damned time.
UnrepentantSinner
26th December 2007, 11:38 PM
"pwnage"?
Isn't that a term specific to the old Protest Warrior forum site?
as in: Protest Warrior-ownage?
Tokie
Maybe you should learn some !33+.
Actually it's kind of funny because when Genghis Pwn joined the forum there was a lot of posts wondering what his User ID meant.
Tokenconservative
27th December 2007, 01:09 PM
Maybe you should learn some !33+.
Actually it's kind of funny because when Genghis Pwn joined the forum there was a lot of posts wondering what his User ID meant.
I have no idea what that is, but it's damned clever of you to throw some tricky sounding jargon at me to get me to admit to my own ignorance of some inance arcanity.
Well played, sir!
I am "pwned!"
Sheesh.
Tokie
sthomson
28th December 2007, 07:55 AM
I have no idea what that is, but it's damned clever of you to throw some tricky sounding jargon at me to get me to admit to my own ignorance of some inance arcanity.
Leet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leet), TC. It's nothing to be proud of, unless we're proud of pop culture knowledge in general, although I must applaud UnrepenantSinner for using a version I've never seen before. 1337 indeed.
Edited to add: Pwn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pwn).
© 2001-2008, James Randi Educational Foundation. All Rights Reserved.
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.