Texas' Director of Science Curriculum fired for criticizing Intelligent Design

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/30/us...rssnyt&emc=rss

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Article

AUSTIN, Tex., Nov. 29 (AP) — The state’s director of science curriculum said she resigned this month under pressure from officials who said she had given the appearance of criticizing the teaching of intelligent design.

The Texas Education Agency put the director, Chris Comer, on 30 days’ paid administrative leave in late October, resulting in what Ms. Comer called a forced resignation.

The move came shortly after she forwarded an e-mail message announcing a presentation by Barbara Forrest, an author of “Creationism’s Trojan Horse.” The book argues that creationist politics are behind the movement to get intelligent design theory taught in public schools. Ms. Comer sent the message to several people and a few online communities.

Ms. Comer, who held her position for nine years, said she believed evolution politics were behind her ousting. “None of the other reasons they gave are, in and of themselves, firing offenses,” she said.

Education agency officials declined to comment Wednesday on the matter. But they explained their recommendation to fire Ms. Comer in documents obtained by The Austin American-Statesman through the Texas Public Information Act.

“Ms. Comer’s e-mail implies endorsement of the speaker and implies that T.E.A. endorses the speaker’s position on a subject on which the agency must remain neutral,” the officials said.

The agency documents say that officials recommended firing Ms. Comer for repeated acts of misconduct and insubordination.

The officials said forwarding the e-mail message conflicted with her job responsibilities and violated a directive that she not communicate with anyone outside the agency regarding a pending science curriculum review.

The documents criticize Ms. Comer for giving a presentation and attending an off-site meeting without approval. It also said she had complained that “there was no real leadership at the agency.”

---

God bless y'all.

Now why would she want to go and insult God like that? not like she had to...

Call me skeptical, especially since this is the NYT, and they're just mouthing the complaints of someone who just resigned, and so would have a real good reason to say she got forced to resign for politics.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Call me skeptical, especially since this is the NYT, and they're just mouthing the complaints of someone who just resigned, and so would have a real good reason to say she got forced to resign for politics.

CR

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Article

“Ms. Comer’s e-mail implies endorsement of the speaker and implies that T.E.A. endorses the speaker’s position on a subject on which the agency must remain neutral,” the officials said.

---

(emphasis mine)

Wait, so you're seriously saying that NY Times isn't a worthy source of news ?
I think that's the first time I've heard/read that in the backroom...

Yay, I'm saying that. And why not? They are biased, and likely to slant something like this to make it seem like she was fired for criticizing intelligent design.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blodrast

Wait, so you're seriously saying that NY Times isn't a worthy source of news ?
I think that's the first time I've heard/read that in the backroom...

---

For one thing, they seem to be juggling "resigned" and "fired" interchangeably. Sure, one can be more or less forced to resign, but some things in the story just don't click in my mind....

Quote:

---

The Texas Education Agency put the director, Chris Comer, on 30 days’ paid administrative leave in late October, resulting in what Ms. Comer called a forced resignation.

---

Quote:

---

Ms. Comer, who held her position for nine years, said she believed evolution politics were behind her ousting. “None of the other reasons they gave are, in and of themselves, firing offenses,” she said.

---

Well, they didn't fire her. They put her on paid leave. She may be right that it wasn't a firing offense- since she wasn't fired. :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Yay, I'm saying that. And why not? They are biased, and likely to slant something like this to make it seem like she was fired for criticizing intelligent design.

CR

---

Oh, no, you're perfectly entitled to say that, but I thought that after Lemur's circles of hell for media thread a while ago, we had all kinda agreed that NYT is one of the better ones out there... 'cause otherwise, I'm not sure if there's _anything_ left that you would accept as non-biased...

And if you re-read my quote, you'll see that the officials said that that's exactly why they fired her: because she's supposed to be impartial to ID vs evolution.

No, they said they fired her for giving the appearance that the agency endorsed a certain book, among other things.

CR

I am more than a little tired about this "style" of debate; you're both champions at stifling any topic that disagrees with your personal beliefs by yelling first-out "Biased source!". And, of course, you never bother to discuss the actual topic, even after other sources are being brought to light, and refuse to qualify what ever would be an acceptable source for you.

Here's an Austin rag, is that biased, too ? Or how about you google for alternate sources, since all I could bring up is not good enough for you.

http://www.statesman.com/news/conten...29science.html

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

State science curriculum director resigns
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.

Bret Gerbe
AMERICAN-STATESMAN
(enlarge photo)

Chris Comer is accused of misconduct, insubordination.

MORE ON THIS STORY

* TEA director of science curriculum resignation letter
* TEA memo regarding director of science curriculum
* What do you think about the resignation?

MOST POPULAR STORIES

* Officer fired in shooting had "chewed out" man hours earlier
* Big 12 bowl projections
* It's past time for overtime changes
* Round Rock school will run drug abuse article despite allegations of inaccuracies
* Police: Hershey Candy Looks Like Drugs

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."

lheinauer@statesman.com; 445-3694

They "recommended her termination" and then she was put on "paid administrative leave". What's unclear about that ? Why on earth do you get hung up on semantics ? Why are we even talking about that ? Those are the facts as presented by both articles, they should be clear enough!
The NYTimes article clearly says the same thing: they recommended that she be fired, she was put on paid administrative leave, then she resigned. It's all in the article, what's contradictory about it ?

But you know what, forget about it. I initially wanted some discussion on whether this was an appropriate measure, to what extent should religion be involved in education, and other things, but hey, instead, let's dismiss the sources as not being reliable and being biased, and let's split hairs about things that are clearly spelled out in both articles.

I give up trying to have a discussion/debate, the two of you "win".
Great tactics, this "biased source" and focusing on inconsequential trivialities stuff (in this case, there wasn't even anything unclear or inconsistent). I should pick it up too, it seems to work.


edit: Here's the email in cause. From a biased link, naturally, there is no other kind. But that's what Google gave me, unfortunately.

Quote:

---

To: Glenn Branch
From: Glenn Branch
Subject: Barbara Forrest in Austin 11/2
Cc:
Bcc: [redacted]

Dear Austin-area friends of NCSE,

I thought that you might like to know that Barbara Forrest will be speaking on "Inside Creationism's Trojan Horse" in Austin on November 2, 2007. Her talk, sponsored by the Center for Inquiry Austin, begins at 7:00 p.m. in the Monarch Event Center, Suite 3100, 6406 North IH-35 in Austin. The cost is $6; free to friends of the Center.

In her talk, Forrest will provide a detailed report on her expert testimony in the Kitzmiller v. Dover School Board trial as well as an overview of the history of the "intelligent design" movement. Forrest is a Professor of Philosophy in the Department of History and Political Science at Southeastern Louisiana University; she is also a member of NCSE's board of directors.

For further details, visit: http://www.centerforinquiry.net/aust...horse_lecture/

Sincerely,

Glenn Branch
Deputy Director
National Center for Science Education, Inc.
420 40th Street, Suite 2
Oakland, CA 94609-2509

---

Everybody knows Google is biased. Them liberals are everywhere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blodrast

I am more than a little tired about this "style" of debate

---

Well, get used to it. You can attempt to dismiss the differences between "fired" and "resigned", but they are significant nonetheless. Is your idea of good debate when I say "My god, he's absolutely right."?

Quote:

---

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.

---

Gee, look. There's two sides to the story. They say it(the recommendation) was for repeated acts of misconduct, she claims it was because of 1 email. Personally, if it were me and I thought I was in the right, I'd let them fire me and then sue for wrongful termination. She resigned, then later decided to raise a stink about it. I suspect, as usual, that there's more to this than was suggested in the original story.

FWIW, advertising non-company related events thru your work email is, in my experience, bad form and can get you into trouble.

Quote:

---

I am more than a little tired about this "style" of debate; you're both champions at stifling any topic that disagrees with your personal beliefs by yelling first-out "Biased source!". And, of course, you never bother to discuss the actual topic, even after other sources are being brought to light, and refuse to qualify what ever would be an acceptable source for you.

---

And I am tired of sources like the NYT used to support false claims, when the story linked provides only scant facts and one side of the story.

Quote:

---

edit: Here's the email in cause. From a biased link, naturally, there is no other kind. But that's what Google gave me, unfortunately.

---

Gee, maybe it wasn't the politics of the speaker she was advertising, but the fact that she was advertising a political speaker at all using her official work email and title.

And unsurprisingly, the Austin article is much more specific in regards to the other reasons they had for firing her.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Yay, I'm saying that. And why not? They are biased, and likely to slant something like this to make it seem like she was fired for criticizing intelligent design.

CR

---

Hehe. If I remember correctly CR, you use sources like "guncite.com"

A little ironic here, yes?

Guncite is more a repository of information and factual data than editorializing. If someone can point out where they made anything up, I'll listen.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Guncite is more a repository of information and factual data than editorializing. If someone can point out where they made anything up, I'll listen.

---

I'm sure that you understand that someone doesn't have to make things up to be biased. To be seen as unbiased, the source would tend to have a good deal of evidence to support both sides of an argument.

In many ways, I'd venture, bias is a good thing in that it forces the intelligent mind to search for more diverse sources. Not to mention making Backroom threads a lot more interesting. :wink3:

Guncite.com did have some bias but it actually wasn't too bad. It also provided links to pro-guncontrol websites so if they made up a bunch of Bull **** it would have been pretty easy to realize. I didn't bother to bash it in the debate because of that. There are very few sources that aren't biased. The Colbert Report and a magazine called The Week are the only news sources that I can think of that have no or almost no bias.

Quote:

---

"...implies that TEA endorses the speaker's position on a subject on which the agency must remain neutral."

---

Yo. Bias dudes. The TEA itself says it must remain neutral on the question of intelligent design.

To spell that out, the TEA is unable to bring itself to say that telling lies to children in its care is wrong.

Strictly speaking, it's not 'lies' - it's just 'science which we have no facts to support'.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Strictly speaking, it's not 'lies' - it's just 'science which we have no facts to support'.

CR

---

This is some new use of the word "science" not to be found in my dictionary... :beam: Still, we seem to be more or less in agreement.

I discovered this week that one of my assistants is a creationist. Thanks to new Labour's equality Nazis, he is free to give me worthless creationist tracts. Whereas if I give him John Maynard Smith's classic "The Theory of Evolution" I will have discriminated against his religion, and he will have hit the compensation jackpot.

This urinates me off somewhat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by English assassin

Thanks to new Labour's equality Nazis, he is free to give me worthless creationist tracts.

---

And you're free to throw them into the trash while he's watching, maybe he'll get the idea. ~;)

So the science director can't make a decision on what is and isn't science?

And that is decided by the TEA. Aren't they making a non-neutral decision on what is and isn't science? How would you feel if TEA was saying that ritual sacrifice on pyramids was a central tenant of christian belief? Its just as arbitrary and just as dumb... but it would be 'neutral'.

"Houston we have a problem. The woombles are at the gates demanding that we stop faking moon landings and that the world is indeed flat. We are to cease and desist and commit to a course of crystals, tea, phrenology, tarot card readings and a remedial course in astrology."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Strictly speaking, it's not 'lies' - it's just 'science which we have no facts to support'.

CR

---

strictly speaking (hell, even loosely speaking), 'intelligent design' is no kind of science.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Strictly speaking, it's not 'lies' - it's just 'science which we have no facts to support'.

---

That doesn't sound like strictly speaking at all, it sounds like loosely speaking with a tenuous grasp of the English language.

What kind of science do you have when there are "no facts to support"? How is that different from magic, witchcraft, astrology, Dianetics or spontaneous human combustion? (No, wait, strike that last one. At least there's some evidence for SHC, whereas there is none for ID.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Gee, maybe it wasn't the politics of the speaker she was advertising, but the fact that she was advertising a political speaker at all using her official work email and title.

---

(not necessarily a direct reply to you, CR)
I didn't think it was politics, but that it was very much related to science, and to her occupation. It was a talk given by a _scientist_, regarding Intelligent Design, which is part of the curriculum. How is it NOT related to her job description to announce such events ?

Also, if we all agree the contents of that email are indeed what she sent, it seems very neutral to me, since all she added was a "FYI". She didn't support or endorse the talk, she only made people aware of it, which seems to me quite fair: there's 2 sides of the coin, people should be made aware of both, right ?
Where's the bad deed ?

(Note that I haven't touched yet the part whether ID belongs in a school or should be presented as science, we're just talking about whether she did something wrong or not).

There are some rumours that this has something to do with the fact that the Texas State Board of Education has recently got a creationist at the helm, but they're probably biased.

Also, more sources, since more papers have picked up the story, in case some of the ones I gave are still not satisfactory.

USA Today: http://www.usatoday.com/news/educati...ationism_N.htm

Yahoo News: http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/200...uffpost/074940

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

That doesn't sound like strictly speaking at all, it sounds like loosely speaking with a tenuous grasp of the English language.

What kind of science do you have when there are "no facts to support"? How is that different from magic, witchcraft, astrology, Dianetics or spontaneous human combustion? (No, wait, strike that last one. At least there's some evidence for SHC, whereas there is none for ID.)

---

Good grief, it was just a figure of speech to get in a joke about ID.
(Also, a lie is something you know is false, whilst ID'ers believe in ID)

Quote:

---

I didn't think it was politics, but that it was very much related to science, and to her occupation. It was a talk given by a _scientist_, regarding Intelligent Design, which is part of the curriculum. How is it NOT related to her job description to announce such events ?

---

I think she doesn't have the power to announce such events solely by herself, which is the issue on that point.

CR

Then for that matter CR, is it wrong for a teacher to offer etra credit for students to go to a well qualified speaker on say the effects of fertillizer on frog population. Something which also has a certain degree of "conterversy" mainly coming from fertillizer companys?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

I think she doesn't have the power to announce such events solely by herself, which is the issue on that point.

---

Most job descriptions of any caliber I read have 'initiative, works well without close supervision, independent thinker, can think outside the box' kind of statements.

What is the point of hiring for a senior position then having to vet every email by committee?

Also, seems to be overlooked that the person whos lecture she advertised through e-mail "is also a member of NCSE's board of directors".

So the director of NCSE cannot advertise a lecture by an other member of the board? :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blodrast

(emphasis mine)

Wait, so you're seriously saying that NY Times isn't a worthy source of news ?
I think that's the first time I've heard/read that in the backroom...

---

Umm, how long have you been visiting the backroom? :inquisitive:


:beam:


It seems this has much more to do with the fact that this woman was not good at her job and did not play well with others than anything to do with "evolution politics". Makes for a good story for the left-leaning blogosphere though... she'll surely have a new job to suck at soon enough in a blue state! :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cheetah

Also, seems to be overlooked that the person whos lecture she advertised through e-mail "is also a member of NCSE's board of directors".

So the director of NCSE cannot advertise a lecture by an other member of the board? :inquisitive:

---

She's not the director of the NCSE. Where did you get that idea? :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Most job descriptions of any caliber I read have 'initiative, works well without close supervision, independent thinker, can think outside the box' kind of statements.

What is the point of hiring for a senior position then having to vet every email by committee?

---

Really - do they have "exceeds authority in a way that comprises her agency's reputation" along with all the other complaints about her in the article as desired qualities in employees?

CR

If TEA is firing a science director for emailing an FYI about a lecture that is relevent to science and education, I think that TEA has show it is quite capable of compromising its own authourity without help.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Umm, how long have you been visiting the backroom? :inquisitive:


:beam:


It seems this has much more to do with the fact that this woman was not good at her job and did not play well with others than anything to do with "evolution politics". Makes for a good story for the left-leaning blogosphere though... she'll surely have a new job to suck at soon enough in a blue state! :2thumbsup:

---

She has been in the job for over nine years. Not bad for an incompetent, usually only politicians get that kind of privilege.

She got fired for not giving FSMism equal time. Good riddance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Gee, look. There's two sides to the story. They say it(the recommendation) was for repeated acts of misconduct, she claims it was because of 1 email. Personally, if it were me and I thought I was in the right, I'd let them fire me and then sue for wrongful termination. She resigned, then later decided to raise a stink about it. I suspect, as usual, that there's more to this than was suggested in the original story.

---

That's usually how it goes. There is always a greater background that isn't revealed without further investigation. It's tough to get fired for an e-mail, especially in government work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

That's usually how it goes. There is always a greater background that isn't revealed without further investigation. It's tough to get fired for an e-mail, especially in government work.

---

On the other hand, whenever they want to fire someone, they can just make up a lot of fake reasons and portray it as "the employee was performing unsatisfactorily", and also "did not respect several of the clauses he/she agreed to in his/her work contract". Clauses such as never to use the company's resources/time for personal use - did you _ever_ read email from work, or do your online banking, or browse any non-work related sites ? Blam, you broke a clause. Sure, everybody does that all the time, but, technically, you're in the wrong. Took long breaks (potty, cigs, lunch) ? "Employee was not committed to their job and had low productivity and discipline problems". And I can go on like that for a while, and I'm not even in HR.

Yes, of course, this is all speculation, I don't _know_ that this was the case in this situation. Just like you don't _know_ that there was a greater background etc, etc. I'm just pointing out that there's (at least) two ways to speculate about this.

Yes, there are always ways to dismiss an employee who you want to remove. There are, of course, rules against constructive dismissal but in practice this is what such things amount to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blodrast

On the other hand, whenever they want to fire someone, they can just make up a lot of fake reasons and portray it as "the employee was performing unsatisfactorily", and also "did not respect several of the clauses he/she agreed to in his/her work contract". Clauses such as never to use the company's resources/time for personal use - did you _ever_ read email from work, or do your online banking, or browse any non-work related sites ? Blam, you broke a clause. Sure, everybody does that all the time, but, technically, you're in the wrong. Took long breaks (potty, cigs, lunch) ? "Employee was not committed to their job and had low productivity and discipline problems". And I can go on like that for a while, and I'm not even in HR.

Yes, of course, this is all speculation, I don't _know_ that this was the case in this situation. Just like you don't _know_ that there was a greater background etc, etc. I'm just pointing out that there's (at least) two ways to speculate about this.

---

This is not the case. Are you telling me you've never heard the complaints about how hard it is to fire a government employee or teacher? Come on.

How dare she promote a critic of ID! Fortunately, the will of my Noodly Overlord has been upheld. Chock this one up to the good guys.

Ajax

edit: and a shout out to Drone. May you always remain in His delicious grace.

is she supposed to teach science or to criticize? she shouldve know better, she's in texas for God's sake.

But what is an experiment other then a criticism of a hypothesis?

sure, that was part of her science project lol, but we can obviously assume: No.

and i dont think criticizing a way people were created is 'experimentation'

In all honesty though Boyar Son there is actually no scientific evidence about ID. I'm not an atheisit but the world veiw of science just can't cope with religon and shouldn't IMHO be muddled in with one radical's idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Boyar Son

sure, that was part of her science project lol, but we can obviously assume: No.

and i dont think criticizing a way people were created is 'experimentation'

---

Sure it is. I experiment on how to create people on a daily basis...

Even if arrested, teachers keep their job:

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=692024

Quote:

---

James Buss was arrested Thursday by West Bend police, and the 46-year-old Cudahy man could face criminal charges. He has been suspended from his job as a teacher at Oak Creek High School.

---

Why do you think people become teachers in the first place?

"Hmmm... Looks like you'll get an F, Cindy... That won't look good for your future...I wonder what you could do to change that....hmmm...I wonder..."



Oh, and yes, I'm thinking of studying to become a teacher :laugh4:

Btw Vladimir, an arrest doesn't equate a conviction... Presumed innocent until proven guilty, remember? He hasn't been found guilty yet, and as such he is completely innocent, and therefore shouldn't be fired ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Well, get used to it. You can attempt to dismiss the differences between "fired" and "resigned", but they are significant nonetheless. Is your idea of good debate when I say "My god, he's absolutely right."?

---

Sad and pathetic. Maybe you can then explain to me the vast differences between being fired and being terminated, as in:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the article

Agency officials cited the e-mail in a memo recommending her termination...

---

Now that we have taken the wind out of that particular obfuscating sail, perhaps we can discuss what should be the real issue here:

Why should the state director of the science curriculum have to "remain neutral" about ID vs. evolution? ID meets no scientific standard and can not even remotely be described as science. Why shouldn't she be able to say whatever the hell she wants about ID?

Let me tell you why: because Jesus' hit squad doesn't like it.

Or maybe officials in her position aren't supposed to make policy decisions on their own, among other things.

CR

Sorry, but what "policy decision" did she make?

She forwarded an email about a scientist giving a lecture and added only the words "FYI" to it.

Yes, I'm sure that had the potential to bring the entire Texas education system crashing down around itself...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

Let me tell you why: because Jesus' hit squad doesn't like it.

---

The Jesuits don't mind Evolution, you know.

:clown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

Sorry, but what "policy decision" did she make?

She forwarded an email about a scientist giving a lecture and added only the words "FYI" to it.

Yes, I'm sure that had the potential to bring the entire Texas education system crashing down around itself...

---

She gave the appearance of TEA support when she included her title and used her work email. And I must repeat, among other things.

Assertions about conspiracies involving ID don't strike me as plausible. ID doesn't have near the support creationism had decades ago or even has nowadays. It's a new thing cooked up and as such hasn't had time to become entrenched. The support comes from a fringe movement trying to push theology into science since creationism is fading away. As such, I doubt an ID support can call up the TEA and demand someone be fired for criticizing ID.

Quote:

---

The Jesuits don't mind Evolution, you know.

---

That's because they're Catholic. :cool:

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

Sad and pathetic. Maybe you can then explain to me the vast differences between being fired and being terminated, as in:

Now that we have taken the wind out of that particular obfuscating sail, perhaps we can discuss what should be the real issue here:

---

The recommendation is largely irrelevant, since it was never acted on. There's no obfuscation- she resigned. Would she have eventually been fired? Quite possibly- it certainly sounded like they were headed in that direction. But, she wasn't fired- she resigned. I'm not really sure how I could make that any clearer to you. To state that she was fired because of anything is factually inaccurate and takes the first step towards spinning this story into something it's not.

I'm hardly surprised that you think the facts are sad and pathetic though, when they stand in the way of your opportunity to bash.. what is it again? Jesus' hit squad? :rolleyes:

Actually people who are good at their job will normally leave if they think that management will no longer support them. Those who don't have a hope of getting a job somewhere else will hang on till their tooth and nails are bloody.

The essentially questions are still being artlessly dodged.

Why would an education authourity cite an email that involves science as a reason to dismiss a director let alone a science director? An FYI is about as neutral as you can get. The only time it could be considered an offense to fire is when it distributes porn or some sort of criminal activity.

Since when does an education authourity decide what is science and what is not? The TEA doesn't decide what is religion and what is not now do they. So how is it setting policy when forwarding an FYI. Surely the very idea of education is to create independent minds that can decide for themselves. Allow science to be taught at school, allow religion to be taught at school, allow philosophy to be taught at school, allow a few cross-pollination classes and debates to invigorate between the studies.

Any education authourity that states in its policy that ID is science should not be funded by the public purse. That is a religious stance and should be funded by private means. It makes about as much sense as doing Algebra and then reading the Koran for debate on the subject. It certainly is mixing church and state.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blodrast

On the other hand, whenever they want to fire someone, they can just make up a lot of fake reasons and portray it as "the employee was performing unsatisfactorily", and also "did not respect several of the clauses he/she agreed to in his/her work contract". Clauses such as never to use the company's resources/time for personal use - did you _ever_ read email from work, or do your online banking, or browse any non-work related sites ? Blam, you broke a clause. Sure, everybody does that all the time, but, technically, you're in the wrong. Took long breaks (potty, cigs, lunch) ? "Employee was not committed to their job and had low productivity and discipline problems". And I can go on like that for a while, and I'm not even in HR.

Yes, of course, this is all speculation, I don't _know_ that this was the case in this situation. Just like you don't _know_ that there was a greater background etc, etc. I'm just pointing out that there's (at least) two ways to speculate about this.

---

Being one of the few Texans who seem to have actually read this. I find it suprising that you are constructing such an elaborate reason to fire her. This is Texas, and you may want to check out the laws related to worker protection against being fired. Becuase last I checked, there were barely 2 reasons you couldnt fire someone for in Texas......

There's always more to the story and obviously her quiting should bring alot of questions to her story. Firing a wonderful never done anything wrong employee for one email, sounds extreme really.:juggle2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

The recommendation is largely irrelevant, since it was never acted on. There's no obfuscation- she resigned. Would she have eventually been fired? Quite possibly- it certainly sounded like they were headed in that direction. But, she wasn't fired- she resigned. I'm not really sure how I could make that any clearer to you. To state that she was fired because of anything is factually inaccurate and takes the first step towards spinning this story into something it's not.

---

I was not claiming she was fired. But it was very clear that that is exactly what was going to happen to her. And quite often, (I have seen it several times in my own career) people are given the choice to resign or be fired. But although you seem to be trying to make this bit of semantics the central issue of the thread, it is not the central issue. Let me see if I can make it any clearer to you. How about if we change the thread title to:

"Texas' Director of Science Curriculum resigns after being recommended for termination for criticizing Intelligent Design"

The question is still the same:

Why the hell should a director of science not be allowed to say whatever the heel she wants about ID?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

I'm hardly surprised that you think the facts are sad and pathetic though, when they stand in the way of your opportunity to bash.. what is it again? Jesus' hit squad? :rolleyes:

---

It is not "the facts" that I think are sad and pathetic...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigTex

There's always more to the story and obviously her quiting should bring alot of questions to her story. Firing a wonderful never done anything wrong employee for one email, sounds extreme really.:juggle2:

---

My point exactly. :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

How about if we change the thread title to:

"Texas' Director of Science Curriculum resigns after being recommended for termination for criticizing Intelligent Design"

---

That'd be a good start. At least we'd be starting from an accurate beginning. Next would be to try and determine the truth behind the last part. The school claims a different reason. All we know for sure is:
"Texas' Director of Science Curriculum resigns after being recommended for termination for criticizing Intelligent Design"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

And quite often, (I have seen it several times in my own career) people are given the choice to resign or be fired.

---

If you were told you were going to be fired, yet were convinced you had done absolutely nothing wrong and were only being threatened with firing for doing your job and/or exercising your civil rights- would you agree to resign even if you knew they had no just cause?

I might, possibly. But the reason I'd agree to resign would be just to make the whole sorry mess go away quietly without permanently damaging my future job prospects. If I was intent on pleading my case and raising a stink over it, I most certainly would not agree to resign- I'd make them fire me. Her resigning and then deciding to raise a stink after the fact damages her case, imo.

I would put forth as one possibility that she knew they had cause to fire her and resigned to prevent all the dirty laundry from being aired publicly, leaving her free to claim her dismissal was over a single email. I'll admit that this may not be true- I have no conclusive evidence to back it up. But she has no evidence to back up her claim either. This whole thing is just a she said, they said. Unless more facts come to light we'll likely never know for sure. :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigTex

Being one of the few Texans who seem to have actually read this. I find it suprising that you are constructing such an elaborate reason to fire her. This is Texas, and you may want to check out the laws related to worker protection against being fired. Becuase last I checked, there were barely 2 reasons you couldnt fire someone for in Texas......

There's always more to the story and obviously her quiting should bring alot of questions to her story. Firing a wonderful never done anything wrong employee for one email, sounds extreme really.:juggle2:

---

Eh, I'm not, you should read my reply in the context it was - i.e., as a reply to Vladimir, iirc.

When the management "recommends her termination", you might as well quit - it'll look better on your resume than "getting fired". Like others have said, she would have gotten fired anyway otherwise.

Also, you're doing the same speculation as Vladimir did: you're speculating that there is more background on her, against her. One can speculate equally that there is more background on her, to her advantage.
You're claiming that she's suspicious, well, playing devil's advocate, I'm claiming the management is suspicious. Why would either of us be right ?
Since neither side can support these speculations, they may as well remain unspoken, because they're still worth just as much.