Texas' Director of Science Curriculum fired for criticizing Intelligent Design

[Crazed Rabbit]

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

[Papewaio]

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.

[Slyspy]

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!

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

[drone]

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

[Vladimir]

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.

[Blodrast]

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.

[Slyspy]

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.

[Vladimir]

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.

[ajaxfetish]

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.

[Boyar Son]

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

[Papewaio]

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

[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'

[Lord Winter]

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.

[HoreTore]

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...

[Vladimir]

Even if arrested, teachers keep their job:

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

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.

[HoreTore]

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

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

[Goofball]

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:

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.

[Crazed Rabbit]

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

CR

[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...

[AntiochusIII]

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

The Jesuits don't mind Evolution, you know.

[Crazed Rabbit]

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.

The Jesuits don't mind Evolution, you know.

That's because they're Catholic.

CR

[Xiahou]

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?

[Papewaio]

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.

[BigTex]

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.

[Goofball]

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?

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?

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

[Xiahou]

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.

My point exactly.

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"

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.

[Blodrast]

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.

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.