Texas' Director of Science Curriculum fired for criticizing Intelligent Design

[Blodrast]

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

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.

[Boyar Son]

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

[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

[Blodrast]

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

“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...

[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

[Xiahou]

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....

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.

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.

[Blodrast]

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.

[Crazed Rabbit]

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

CR

[Blodrast]

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.

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

[Lemur]

Everybody knows Google is biased. Them liberals are everywhere.

[Xiahou]

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."?

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.

[Crazed Rabbit]

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.

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

[Ice]

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?

[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.

CR

[Banquo's Ghost]

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.

[woad&fangs]

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.

[English assassin]

"...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.

[Crazed Rabbit]

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

CR

[English assassin]

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... 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.

[Husar]

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.

[Papewaio]

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."

[Big_John]

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.

[Lemur]

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.)

[Blodrast]

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

[Crazed Rabbit]

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)

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

[Lord Winter]

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?

[Papewaio]

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?

[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?

[PanzerJaeger]

(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?





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!

[Xiahou]

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?

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