Texas fires Science Director for opposing Creationism teaching in Schools
Rob
all, our school kids should think the same way President Bush believes,
that the world is 6,000 years old, give or take a thousand years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Move comes months before comprehensive curriculum review.
By Laura Heinauer
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Thursday, November 29, 2007
The state's director of science curriculum has resigned after being
accused of creating the appearance of bias against teaching intelligent
design.
Chris Comer, who has been the Texas Education Agency's director of
science curriculum for more than nine years, offered her resignation this
month.
In documents obtained Wednesday through the Texas Public Information Act,
agency officials said they recommended firing Comer for repeated acts of
misconduct and insubordination. But Comer said she thinks political
concerns about the teaching of creationism in schools were behind what
she describes as a forced resignation.
Agency officials declined to comment, saying it was a personnel issue.
Comer was put on 30 days paid administrative leave shortly after she
forwarded an e-mail in late October announcing a presentation being given
by Barbara Forrest, author of "Inside Creationism's Trojan Horse," a book
that says creationist politics are behind the movement to get intelligent
design theory taught in public schools. Forrest was also a key witness in
the Kitzmiller v. Dover case concerning the introduction of intelligent
design in a Pennsylvania school district. Comer sent the e-mail to
several individuals and a few online communities, saying, "FYI."
Agency officials cited the e-mail in a memo recommending her termination.
They said forwarding the e-mail not only violated a directive for her not
to communicate in writing or otherwise with anyone outside the agency
regarding an upcoming science curriculum review, "it directly conflicts
with her responsibilities as the Director of Science."
The memo adds, "Ms. Comer's e-mail implies endorsement of the speaker and
implies that TEA endorses the speaker's position on a subject on which
the agency must remain neutral."
In addition to the e-mail, the memo lists other reasons for recommending
termination, including Comer's failure to get prior approval to give a
presentation and attend an off-site meeting after she was told in writing
this year that there were concerns about her involvement with work
outside the agency.
It also criticized Comer for allegedly saying that then-acting
Commissioner Robert Scott was "only acting commissioner and that there
was no real leadership at the agency."
Comer, who hadn't spoken about her resignation publicly until Wednesday,
said she thinks politics about evolution were behind her firing.
"None of the other reasons they gave are, in and of themselves, firing
offenses," she said. Comer said her comments about Scott, who eventually
received the commissioner appointment, were misconstrued. "I don't
remember saying that. But even if I did, is that so horrible?" she said.
"He was, after all, acting commissioner at the time."
Comer said other employees don't report off-site activities and that the
presentation mentioned in the memo had been approved previously. Agency
officials did not respond to Comer's assertions.
As for the e-mail, Comer said she did pause for a "half second" before
sending it, but said she thought that because Forrest was a highly
credentialed speaker, it would be OK.
Comer's resignation comes just months before the State Board of Education
is to begin reviewing the science portion of the Texas Essential
Knowledge and Skills, the statewide curriculum that will be used to
determine what should be taught in Texas classrooms and what textbooks
are bought.
Agency spokeswoman Debbie Ratcliffe said the issue of teaching
creationism in schools has not been debated by the board in some time.
"There's been a long-standing policy that the pros and cons of scientific
theory must be taught. And while we've had a great deal of public comment
about evolution and creationism at state board meetings, it's not been a
controversial issue with the board."
The call to fire Comer came from Lizzette Reynolds, who previously worked
in the U.S. Department of Education. She also served as deputy
legislative director for Gov. George W. Bush. She joined the Texas
Education Agency as the senior adviser on statewide initiatives in
January.
Reynolds, who was out sick the day Comer forwarded the e-mail, received a
copy from an unnamed source and forwarded it to Comer's bosses less than
two hours after Comer sent it.
"This is highly inappropriate," Reynolds said in an e-mail to Comer's
supervisors. "I believe this is an offense that calls for termination or,
at the very least, reassignment of responsibilities.
"This is something that the State Board, the Governor's Office and
members of the Legislature would be extremely upset to see because it
assumes this is a subject that the agency supports."
Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science
Education, which sent the original e-mail to Comer announcing the event,
said Comer's situation seems to be a warning to agency employees.
"This just underscores the politicization of science education in
Texas," Scott said. "In most states, the department of education takes a
leadership role in fostering sound science education. Apparently TEA
employees are supposed to be kept in the closet and only let out to do
the bidding of the board."
Kathy Miller, president of the Texas Freedom Network, an advocacy group
that monitors state textbook content, said the group wants to know more
about the case. The network has raised questions about past comments made
by State Board of Education Chairman Don McLeroy about teaching
creationism.
"It's important to know whether politics and ideology are standing in the
way of Texas kids getting a 21st century science education," Miller said.
"We've already seen a faction of the State Board of Education try to
politicize and censor what our schoolchildren learn. It would be even
more alarming if the same thing is now happening inside TEA itself."
Steven L.
Right there is the problem.
What got them upset was this woman's inviting Barbara Forrest to give a
talk impugning the *motives* of the ID proponents. IOW, she tried to
confront the ID proponents, NOT by refuting the merits of their
arguments but by smearing them personally.
And that is NOT "teaching science in the state's science classes." It's
using ad hominem attacks in lieu of scientific criticism.
If evolution is scientifically valid and ID is not (which I believe to
be the case), it shouldn't need to depend on ad hominem attacks on ID
proponents, impugning their motives to make its case. Rather than
refuting their arguments with logic and evidence.
If she had invited a scientist who could give a talk about ID vs.
evolution and stick to the scientific issues, I doubt she would have
been fired. But Barbara Forrest's smear tactics do not belong in any
scientific discussion.
I don't care *why* ID proponents do what they do. I only care about
*whether* what they are doing is scientifically valid. So far, it's
not, and Ms. Comer should have stuck to that argument.
--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
Joe Steel
news:13ktslc...@corp.supernews.com:
> Rob wrote:
>>
>> Comer was put on 30 days paid administrative leave shortly after she
>> forwarded an e-mail in late October announcing a presentation being
>> given by Barbara Forrest, author of "Inside Creationism's Trojan
>> Horse," a book that says creationist politics are behind the movement
>> to get intelligent design theory taught in public schools. Forrest
>> was also a key witness in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case concerning the
>> introduction of intelligent design in a Pennsylvania school district.
>> Comer sent the e-mail to several individuals and a few online
>> communities, saying, "FYI."
>
> Right there is the problem.
>
> What got them upset was this woman's inviting Barbara Forrest to give
> a talk impugning the *motives* of the ID proponents. IOW, she tried
> to confront the ID proponents, NOT by refuting the merits of their
> arguments but by smearing them personally.
>
> And that is NOT "teaching science in the state's science classes."
> It's using ad hominem attacks in lieu of scientific criticism.
>
I don't see that in anything that's been posted. Where'd you get it?
Steven L.
The part that said:
"announcing a presentation being given
by Barbara Forrest, author of 'Inside Creationism's Trojan Horse,' a
book that says creationist politics are behind the movement to get
intelligent design theory taught in public schools."
Barbara Forrest doesn't refute the arguments of ID proponents, nor does
she offer arguments in favor of evolution.
What she does do is claim that ID proponents have a nefarious hidden agenda.
Whether they do or not, that is not a scientific concern and Ms. Comer
shouldn't have gotten involved in any attempt to impugn the motives of
one side in the debate. Either don't invite Barbara Forrest's ad
hominem attacks on ID proponents into the discussion, or invite an equal
investigation into the motives of evolution's proponents. Some of them,
like atheist Richard Dawkins, have stated openly that they think
evolution "proves" that God does not exist.
So if Ms. Comer invites someone to deconstruct the motives of ID
proponents but not the motives of evolutionists, then she is revealing a
bias.
Baldin Lee Pramer
Agreed, but if they claim that their motives are to introduce a valid
alternative theory when their actual motives are to inject
fundamentalist Christianity into the classroom, then criticizing their
motives is perfectly legitimate.
BLP
wby...@ireland.com
<sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Barbara Forrest doesn't refute the arguments of ID proponents, nor does
>she offer arguments in favor of evolution.
What exactly is there to refute about ID? The entire concept is
ignorant and idiotic so why bother. You don't need to argue for
evolution to deny ID.
WB Yeats
Joe Steel
I don't think examining the credibility of the proponents is an ad
hominem attack. Credibility is an important component of any discussion
of issues.
As for her failure to deconstruct the motives of evolutionists, that's a
burden on her credibility which observers are free to consider.