Creationism has no place in Kentucky public schools

This from the Freshmen Edition of Henry Clay High School's Devil's Advocate:

Separation of church and state: a five-word phrase sewn into the fabric of our country, established by Thomas Jefferson and reinforced by the Supreme Court of the United States. Yet our state seems to forget it time and time again.

In 1980, Kentucky made an attempt to put the Ten Commandments in every classroom of every public school. In 2005, McCreary County tried to put up a display of the Ten Commandments in their court house. In 2011, the state Senate has passed a bill allowing creationism to be taught through a “Bible class” in public schools—for the second time.

All of these efforts have something in common, however. The U.S. Supreme Court declared the act of placing the Ten Commandments in every classroom unconstitutional, and the McCreary County display was defeated. Last year, when state Senator Boswell proposed to teach creationism through Bible classes, the bill died in the House.

But this is where the dose of irony kicks in: Kentucky’s statute KRS 158 already allows passages of the Bible to be read in class, if deemed necessary for instruction on the theory of creation. It seems a tad inconsistent to block biblical decorations from classrooms, yet allow a religious idea to be presented in public schools. It seems a tad unconstitutional, as well.

Opposing arguments will say that it’s only fair to present multiple sides of a situation, as not everybody believes in evolution. They’ll say that teaching creationism through the Bible will raise morale in a generation full of embarrassing disappointments.

It certainly is fair to see all aspects of an issue, but it’s also important to remember that evolution is backed by scientific evidence—microevolution has been scientifically proven. Creationism is a theory based on faith, and the Bible is a document passed down for thousands of years (making it susceptible to changes) full of vague metaphorical concepts, like the seven-day creation of Earth.

As for the idea that a Bible class will instill morals into society, the goal at hand is far too subjective. What constitutes as right and wrong can not be determined by one certain religion. Not everyone in America believes in Christianity, so not everyone has similar goals in morality. What makes the Bible a better “moral-building” book than the Talmud? What makes Christianity a more ethical religion than Buddhism? Judaism?

If you’re going to try to incorporate religion into a public school system, the least you could do is try and hide your bias. We certainly don’t see any lawmakers urging the understanding of Islam (though that might do wonders for the ignorance of Islamophobes.)

It’s unfair to spend taxpayer money to fund a religion-based class in the first place, and only allowing for one religion digs the hole of bigotry even deeper. It’s more than just studying the Bible—it’s advocating a religion. For those who prefer “moral-building” classes, there are numerous private schools to choose from. But this is public school, paid through taxes collected from citizens who may not be Christians.

The even more ironic part of this whole piece of irony is that not one of the 176 school districts actually teaches the state-legalized theory of creationism. I guess the real question, then, is why Kentucky won’t stop trying.

Martin Cothran: Logic in Defense of the Irrational

Over at opinio loqui, Martin Cothran waved his hand and spawned from the primordial ooze a delightful Darwinian reverie that equates public school folks to caged apes – at least, those folks who may consider the prior creationist views of one of the state’s finalists for education commissioner to be an issue worth mentioning.

It's a fun read. But it is also a total twistifycation of the facts that does some amount of disservice to both the Rev Dr Dennis Cheek, and those who believe that a finalist’s background - in total - is important in determining who is best qualified to become Kentucky’s next commissioner.

Channeling Jane Goodall, Cothran alludes to his experiences among those lower life forms known as “Kentuckians.” He asks:

Is Dennis Cheek fit enough to survive the vetting process for education commissioner?

It’s a good question - one that applies equally to all four finalists. Although for some reason, Cothran seems only concerned with Cheek.

Cothran acknowledges Cheek’s academic prowess, and correctly remarks that he,

once wrote a paper that questioned the evidence for whether human beings evolved from apes.

That’s part of what Cheek said. The other part was,

The Scriptural view, that man and these other creatures were created separately, is fully as much in accord with the evidence, and is more credible on other grounds.

Is that worth mentioning?

To be clear, Cheek’s current position is very different – about 180 degrees. He told KSN&C,

I concur fully with the very well-reasoned and well-articulated opinion of the judge in [Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District in [Pennsylvania] that these positions have not led to anything yet that qualifies as science. Deciding precisely what is or is not science is admittedly a bit hard to pin down fully since the demarcation arguments regarding science are still quite robust among professional philosophers of science. The judge found that the [Intelligent Design] views are fundamentally religious (I would also add metaphysical) in nature and do not belong in the science classroom as part of the formal scientific curriculum.

Cothran calls me out saying,

Richard Day, a dominant male in the education community and the one who dug up the old creationist paper, displayed openly aggressive behavior at his blog "Kentucky School News and Commentary" in response to the revelation about what he considers Cheek's checkered past.

Flattery will get you nowhere, Martin.

Is it possible that Kentucky’s next education commissioner – if he or she maintained creationist views - might promote programs or act in ways that put the state at odds with the Constitution or established court rulings? Would the state end up wasting time and paying more money to ACLU attorneys?

The fact is we’re just now getting to know Cheek. Since the sole purpose for vetting candidates is to learn more about them, upon discovering potentially controversial views, should they have been kept secret – as a pseudo scientist might choose to do? Or does the public have a right to know and evaluate such claims for themselves before turning over the keys to the schools?

Cothran is correct to suggest,

The revelation has caused a great deal of chattering among some in the education bureaucracy who wonder why he did not divulge this to the Board of Education, which is looking into his background.

Yes, we chimps chatter. Pick fleas, too. (Small self-serving correction to Cothran’s piece: KSN&C reported its findings on July 7th. The Courier-Journal editorial ran on the 8th.)

But if it is truly “aggressive behavior” to quote someone directly then Cothran should cease publication immediately – along with all those other endangered media species.

Cothran, for example, recently exposed the fact that US Supreme Court nominee Sonya Sotomayor is an “Ivy League judge.” Was that openly aggressive behavior on Cothran’s part; a little bait to rouse up the “intellectual deletes?” Or was he just sayin’.

The fact of the matter is, if something germane showed up in the public record, whether potentially helpful or hurtful to any candidate, KSN&C would have posted it anyway. Just as was done with Barbara Erwin. Just as was done with the other finalists.

It has been, and will continue to be, KSN&C’s practice to present relevant information regardless of whether that favors or disfavors an individual. That has been true for school administrators we respect. It is true for commissioner candidates.

For example, KSN&C also posted the revelation that finalist, Michael Sentance, once became sufficiently riled up at a youth soccer game that he not only got a yellow card, and a red card, but whatever color he got when he was suspended for the balance of the season. You want dominant male? I give you Michael Sentance.

But there are a couple of differences. Sentance immediately acknowledged his mistake, took full responsibility and served his suspension. He followed that up by returning to coaching and behaving himself. More to the point, sources tell KSN&C that he also alerted the board of education to the occurance in his interview - so that there would be no unpleasant surprises, misunderstandings, or potential embarrassment to the board.

So I’ll ask again:

Why didn't Cheek alert the board that he had an old paper out there that is inconsistent with his present views?

Did he roll the dice and hope his former views would not come to light? If so, why?

Having underplayed Cheeks original statement, Cothran finishes his piece by reducing Cheek’s present position to one of human descendancy from apes.

Believe what you will, but I think it is a misdeed to reduce Cheek’s nuanced considerations to some kind of slogan. Any fair researcher must acknowledge that it is not simply about apes and man to Cheek. His thoughts run much deeper than that.

But Cothran does make one troublesome observation. He rallies against “the professional education community” for its alleged “unfriendly behavior…[displayed] toward the common cultural beliefs of their students and their families.”

One supposes that the Family Foundation, for which Cothran “makes final policy decisions and manages strategy” stands ready to let us know which families are within that common culture and which are not – a luxury denied those obliged by the Constitution to serve all of the public, in all of creation’s variety.

Cothran recalls “the role Christianity has played in our nation's history” and the good old days when teacher led prayer and regular Bible readings posed no obstacle to any Protestant children whose parents chose to send them to school. Heaven forbid a Catholic family might have wanted the same consideration paid their faith. They simply were not within the common culture. After decades of frustration parochial schools went their own way. The notion of a “common culture” in this increasingly diverse nation is fast becoming a thing of the past.

Cothran closes by taking a shot at the Courier-Journal for raising (unsupported) questions about the Templeton Foundation, for which Cheek once worked, and by inferring that Cheek’s views on creationism changed due to his exposure to public education.

But Cheek says it was growth in his “own knowledge and experience in many domains” that led him to find his earlier work to be in error. He no longer finds “the views labeled young earth creationism, old earth creationism, [or] Intelligent Design … compelling theologically or scientifically.”

Cothran is an evolved man who knows he is reducing Cheek’s explanations to fit his own preferences, but it makes for a clever ending. And Martin’s a much better author when he adds humor.

On the Templeton Foundation: That topic is well outside my area of expertise, and perhaps the C-J has specific evidence to support their claims of Templeton’s cultural divisiveness that has escaped me. But a cursory glance at Templeton’s website shows a long-standing and well-balanced engagement on issues of religion and science encompassing the world’s major religions. I see no problem with that.

The first amendment to the Constitution not only forbids laws "respecting an establishment of religion" it also prohibits any infringement on the free exercise thereof. Cothran will become a better American when he understands that those rights are neither given, nor taken away, by majority rule, on a community by community basis.

Cheek Responds: Rejects as "Quite Unsound" Earlier Creationist Writings

I wrote the creationist article

... more than a quarter of

a century ago. At that time

I had little formal background

in biology or theology.

Subsequent growth in my

own knowledge and experience

in many domains led me

to find my earlier work

quite unsound.

--Dennis W Cheek

In a routine background check of scholarly writings Tuesday, KSN&C unearthed an old creationist paper written by Dennis Cheek, who is presently a finalist for the Education Commissioner's post. The article raised concerns in the minds of many school folks that such views might not be consistent with the best interests of all Kentucky school children or the Constitution.

Board of education members had not been alerted to Cheek's writings by their search firm, Greenwood & Associates. But because of the board's decision to publicly announce four finalists and allow for a time of public vetting before announcing a final choice, they were able to learn of the concern and question Cheek during his 90-minute interview yesterday.

This morning the Herald-Leader reported,

...the first hint of an issue in the selection process surfaced Wednesday over a blog posting on Kentucky School News and Commentary concerning past writings by Cheek with an apparent creationist bent.

[Board Chair Joe] Brothers said that board members questioned Cheek about the matter during his interview and that Cheek assured them that he is "very comfortable with the evolution component."

Cheek told reporters outside the meeting that he had sent a reply to the blog.

When KSN&C did not find his response this morning, in the mailbox or on the blog itself, I alerted Cheek who resent an expanded response (See below). We assume there was a technical glitch on one end or the other that prevented the message from getting through.

Cheek told H-L,

he believes evolution, not creationism, should be taught in science classes. He said he also supports the 2005 federal court ruling that struck down the teaching of "intelligent design" in science classes in Pennsylvania's Dover Area School District.

"What should be taught in school is exactly what the judge in the Dover case said. He was quite clear ... and I concur 100 percent with the decision that was made," Cheek said.

Cheek said that while people of various religious beliefs can differ on evolution, "when it comes to what is taught in the science curriculum, evolution can be demonstrated and seen in many different dimensions of science."

The article that caused the stir was this one, from a 1981 Creation Research Society publication:

"THE CREATIONIST AND NEO-DARWINIAN VIEWS CONCERNING THE ORIGIN OF THE ORDER PRIMATES COMPARED AND CONTRASTED: A PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS by DENNIS W. CHEEK

"After some consideration of the philosophical cautions which should be observed in any scientific discussion, the fossil evidence having to do with primates is reviewed. It is concluded that there is no real evidence to show either that the primates evolved from anything else, or that man evolved among them. The Scriptural view, that man and these other creatures were created separately, is fully as much in accord with the evidence, and is more credible on other grounds." (emphasis in original)

In an interview yesterday, Cheek told C-J he has since rejected those views.

Although he still accepts the "concept of creation" as a Christian, he said he recognizes that "we have plenty of evidence of evolution," and he does not believe that creationism or intelligent design should be taught in schools.

Further, he said, he doesn't believe in "young earth creationism," which holds that the earth is just thousands of years old. "My view is that we should never think about introducing material into a science class until the scientific community has embraced it," said Cheek...

A Courier-Journal editorial asked,

What are the implications of Dennis Cheek's background as a pastor and church-planter, his appearance on Stanford University Chi Alpha Christian Fellowship leader Glen Davis's list of "Pentecostal/Charismatic/Third Wave leaders" [along side John Ashcroft, Sarah Palin & James Watt] and his years with the controversial and polarizing John Templeton Foundation?

Brothers told C-J that no front runner had been identified, but the board was "very pleased with what it heard" and wanted more time to check into the candidates' backgrounds...

Cheek Responds

This from Dennis W. Cheek:

I wrote the creationist article in question and another in a similar vein more than a quarter of a century ago. At that time I had little formal background in biology or theology. Subsequent growth in my own knowledge and experience in many domains led me to find my earlier work quite unsound. As many leaders within the K-12 science education community know (e.g., Gerald Wheeler, former NSTA Executive Director and old-time members of the Council of State Science Supervisors), I do not find the views labeled young earth creationism, old earth creationism, and Intelligent Design (e.g., Phil Johnson, Michael Behe, William Dembski) at this point compelling theologically or scientifically. I sometimes speak on this topic at religious colleges and universities.

I concur fully with the very well-reasoned and well-articulated opinion of the judge in the Dover case in PA that these positions have not led to anything yet that qualifies as science. Deciding precisely what is or is not science is admittedly a bit hard to pin down fully since the demarcation arguments regarding science are still quite robust among professional philosophers of science. The judge found that the ID views are fundamentally religious (I would also add metaphysical) in nature and do not belong in the science classroom as part of the formal scientific curriculum. At a minimum it also would make sense to require that such views would have to become widely taught at the collegiate level first for those aspiring to BE scientists and widely expressed throughout the scientific literature before they were taught as part of the formal science curriculum. In this sense, K-12 schools should always trail the academic conversations about what “counts” as human knowledge worth all students knowing rather than leading the way. If we use “cold fusion” as but one small example, cold fusion should not have been taught in K-12 schools within the physics
curriculum as “fact” simply because a set of peer-reviewed articles advanced it. Subsequent work failed to replicate the findings and the scientific community was able to say with certainty that no such achievement occurred – at least not yet. Within the science classroom teachers need to treat with respect students whose metaphysical views lead them to strongly react against certain aspects of modern science while at the same time requiring students to demonstrate that they have good understanding of essential scientific concepts and contemporary understandings including evolution. The Project 2061 Benchmarks for Science Literacy, a project of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) with which I have been associated for a long time as an advisor, speaks to these issues in several of its benchmarks. I funded while VP at the Kauffman Foundation a large project for the National School Boards Association and the AAAS to prepare training materials for school boards across the nation dealing with how to handle controversial issues in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education (e.g., evolution, dissection, global climate change, use of calculators). These materials are starting to roll out through state-level school board associations and several national and statewide training sessions have occurred. Information on this project and resources can be found on the NSBA website. I have also been an informal advisor for several years to the AAAS Dialogue on Science, Ethics, and Religion (DOSER).

Working at the John Templeton Foundation as a Vice President for two years afforded wonderful opportunities to discuss both science and religion/theology with many of the world’s leading scientists (including quite a few Nobel Prize winners) as well as theologians. The voluminous literature in this field at this point in time finds several encyclopedias now in print on science and religion that summarize the work to date. The long history of these interactions suggest that White’s famous 19th century “warfare” metaphor between science and religion is not a proper historical view (e.g., works by John Hedley Brooke, David Lindberg, Ronald Numbers). Both celebrity atheists and celebrity young earth creationists and others have played on this warfare approach for some time, invoking science as “proof” that their metaphysical views are correct (e.g., Karl Giberson, Mariano Artigas, Oracles of Science, Oxford, 2007 which I reviewed in Perspectives on Science & Christian Faith). This of course is a logical fallacy and an individual person does try to integrate their knowledge and beliefs in a consistent manner we should never miss the fact that much of what we believe cannot be empirically verified by the methods of science now or ever. The Sloan Foundation’s project, “The Known, the Knowable, and the Unknowable” does a good job taking up the limits of science – now or ever – as did the much earlier Encyclopedia of Ignorance, Plenum Press, 1977. I summarized my personal take on the state of the field in science and religion while at the Templeton Foundation in a posting you can find on the Metanexus website that was in response to a request following a presentation I gave at one of their international meetings. My own views at this point on the subject of creation and evolution would be quite similar to those of well-known figures in science and religion dialogue such as Sir John Polkinghorne, Francis Collins, Simon Conway-Morris, and Denis Alexander – all of whom are persons known to me. John and I are both members of the Society of Ordained Scientists whose title of the society speaks for itself. Since I am Wesleyan in my theology, I find the essays in the recently published Divine Grace and Emerging Creation: Wesleyan Forays in Science and Theology of Creation, Ed. Thomas Jay Oord, 2009, also quite illuminating.

From "Interdisciplinary Dialogue and Issues in Science and Religion"
By Dennis W. Cheek at Metanexus

There is a growing recognition that students in public and private schools can and should be exposed to science and religion dialogue, including the history of this engagement and implications of modern science (and technology) for religious thought...

Dialogue between religion and specific sciences and subdisciplines within those sciences also need to be expanded. To date there has been extremely limited dialogue between say, chemistry and religion or mathematics and religion as compared to certain aspects of physics. Experimental physics has been virtually ignored while quantum physics has been extensively explored by comparison. (These examples can be multiplied many times over.) ...

So there you have it. Asked and answered. Written and rejected.

What I can't figure is - why didn't Cheek inoculate himself against the sizable vulnerability represented by creationism? Did he bet it wouldn't be discovered? Did it not come up in Missouri where he was also a finalist for their top post?

He is obviously an intelligent and very well studied individual; a complex guy, as one KSN&C commenter said.

A tech-savvy guy who understands the power of the Internet; knowing that he was "on the record;" and on such a hot-button issue - why didn't he alert the board during his first interview?

Why didn't he say to the board, 'Look, you're going to find something on my record, that I need to talk about. ...and then explain?

In retrospect, wouldn't something like that have been a better approach?

BIPPS has Faith in School Choice - and Creationism

This week the Bluegrass Institute came out in favor of both creationism and Kentucky's school reform - and then compared the two in terms of faith.

BIPPS Communications Director Jim Waters undertook the curious task of rationally comparing the relative amounts of faith required to believe in creationism versus believing in school reform in Kentucky. Waters writes,

You might be surprised to know it takes even more faith for a creationist like me to expect the current bureaucracy to reform Kentucky’s public-education system than to believe the earth, universe, humankind and all life forms happened by accident.

And it takes nearly as much faith to believe Kentucky’s schools will improve without giving parents power where it counts — the right to determine which school gets their children to educate and tax dollars to operate.

To Waters, creationism makes good sense.

Having a localized organizational system of school districts does not.

I wouldn't normally comment on someone's faith - but he brought it up.

I must confess, this position surprised me. I have always taken folks at their word when they described their own political inclinations. Foolishly naive, perhaps. But I had it "on good authority" that BIPPS was a "libertarian think tank." In Waters hands, BIPPS is cast as a faith-based neo-con political effort that would eliminate school distirct organization and move public money into private hands - all while promoting a religious agenda and removing control from local officials. I was immediately suspicious of Water's motives - but perhaps there is another explanation.

Waters finds it "outrageous" that local elected officials are being empowered by state law to decide if and where school attendance boundaries should be allowed to exist - in favor of his proposal that would impose a free-for-all on every local community in Kentucky.

"Parents may send their children to the public school of their choice."

Forget school districts. Forget school board authority. Parents can just send their kids wherever they want.

This dangerous and highly inefficient proposal may sound good to the selfish, politically connected and well-heeled, but consider for a moment how that plan would utterly fail to work in real life.

Imagine a young couple selecting their new home right around the corner from the best school in their community. They have children who grow to school age only to be locked out of their neighborhood school because folks from the next county over have filled the school to capacity. I think I know how those parents would feel. Tough luck, Junior. Where should we move now? Such scenarios would happen repeatedly across the state.

One can only imagine the hostility school officials would face from angry displaced local taxpayers. But Waters seems not to care. They're merely "bureaucrats" after all. Maybe that's why BIPPS also likes the idea of guns on campus. Perhaps such disputes could be settled according to the code of the west.

But we should all appreciate Waters for clarifying where BIPPS stands on issues related to religion and public schools. For all of BIPPS's posturing as small-government libertarians, one may have drawn a wrong conclusion about the neo-con aspirations of the Bluegrass Institute if it weren't for Water's clarifications.

Thankfully Waters offered his readers an alternative way to think about his motives in the form of Hanlan’s Razor: “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.”

Texas Education board's vote a mixed bag for evolution

This from Breitbart:

Texas science teachers will no longer be required to teach weaknesses of scientific theory, including evolution, under new curriculum standards tentatively adopted by the State Board of Education on Thursday.

Supporters of evolution hailed the vote but were critical of amendments adopted by the board that they said could create new paths to teaching creationism and the similar theory of intelligent design in public schools.

If given final approval in a vote expected Friday, the new standards will drop a 20-year-old rule that requires both "strengths and weaknesses" of all scientific theories to be taught. Critics say the requirement is used to undermine the theory of evolution in favor of religious teachings.

The new standards, which would be in place for the next decade, govern what appears on standardized tests and material published in textbooks. As one of the
largest textbook purchasers in the nation, Texas has significant influence over the content of books marketed across the country...

NKU Mock Trial To Explore Creation Science

This from KyPost.com:

Northern Kentucky University will host a unique interactive mock trial that will turn local citizens into jurors on the issue of whether public school science teachers should be allowed to teach creation science, which attempts to use scientific means to prove the Genesis account of creation.

The trial will take place at 7 p.m. on Oct. 22, at NKU’s University Center Otto M. Budig Theater and is free and open to the public. The first 200 people in attendance will have an opportunity to serve as jurors, using small remote control clickers to register their opinions both before and after the trial. At the conclusion of the proceeding, they will decide the case.

The event is sponsored by the Northern Kentucky Forum, the NKU Scripps Howard Center for Civic Engagement and Nonprofit Development and the NKU Chase College of Law Center for Excellence in Advocacy.

Mark Neikirk, the Scipps Howard Center’s executive director said, “It is part of the mission of the Scripps Howard Center to conduct public forums. I’ve heard (NKU) President Votruba state many times that a college campus should be a safe place for difficult conversations.”

The mock trial is the first of what Northern Kentucky Forum, a partnership among the Scripps Howard Center, Legacy and Vision 2015, hopes will become monthly events that attract diverse audiences, advocate for public dialogue, provide for audience input and allow all sides of a given issue to be represented...

The Trial: Scott v. Chandler County School Board

The trial centers around the termination of fictitious biology teacher Susan Scott (a traditionally trained “evolution” adherent), who according to her complaint, encouraged students to “explore creation theories.”

Scott, who will be played by Simon Kenton High School teacher Heather Mastin, is suing the fictitious Chandler County School Board for wrongful termination and seeks reinstatement, compensatory damages and a judicial declaration that the school board violated her First Amendment rights.

Scott will be represented by local attorney Phil Taliaferro, who will argue that teaching creation theory is not only permitted in Kentucky, but also legally protected.

The defendant, Chandler County School Board, will be represented by Margo Grubbs, a local attorney, who will argue that Scott’s termination was justified under existing law. Scott’s chief witness will be the real-life Dr. Ben Scripture, who received his Ph.D. in biochemistry from the University of Notre Dame in1998...

The school board will be represented in court by fictional superintendent Bryan Boone, who will be played by retired Boone County Superintendent Bryan Blavatt. Its key witness will be real-life evolution advocate Ed Kagin, a Union, Ky., attorney.

As is so often the case, the legalities of the issue aren’t black and white.

Kentucky has fairly strict guidelines that suggest evolution-only instruction, but also has a pro-Genesis statute. And, of course, the question isn’t confined to the Commonwealth. It is playing out again in the national political debate – as it so often does – and is heating up in a number of states.

The trial judge will be played by retired Kenton County Circuit Court Judge Doug Stephens.

Texas official resigns, cites creationism conflict

AUSTIN (AP) — The state's director of science curriculum said she resigned this month under pressure from officials who felt she gave the appearance of criticizing the instruction of intelligent design.


The Texas Education Agency put Chris Comer on 30 days paid administrative leave in late October, resulting in what she described as a forced resignation.

The move came shortly after Comer forwarded an e-mail announcing a presentation being given by the author of Inside Creationism's Trojan Horse. In the book, author Barbara Forrest says creationist politics are behind the movement to get intelligent design theory taught in public schools. Comer sent the e-mail to several individuals and a few online communities.

Comer, who held her position for nine years, said she believes evolution politics were behind her ousting.

"None of the other reasons they gave are, in and of themselves, firing offenses," she said...



This from USA Today.
~
And this Editorial from the Austin American-Statesman:

Is misdeed a creation of political doctrine?

Is this state’s education agency being driven by a political orthodoxy so fierce that it dumped its science director for passing along a harmless e-mail? It’s possible.

Chris Comer was director of the science curriculum for the Texas Education Agency for nearly a decade when she was forced to resign recently. Her offense, as unbelievable as it is to relate, was forwarding an e-mail message about a presentation by an author critical of the intelligent design approach to science education.

The education agency, of course, portrays the problem as one of insubordination and misconduct. But from all appearances, Comer was pushed out because the agency is enforcing a political doctrine of strict conservatism that allows no criticism of creationism.

This state has struggled for years with the ideological bent of the state school board, but lawmakers took away most of its power to infect education some years ago. Politicizing the Texas Education Agency, which oversees the education of children in public schools, would be a monumental mistake.

This isn’t the space to explore the debate over creationism, intelligent design and evolution. Each approach should be fair game for critical analysis, so terminating someone for just mentioning a critic of intelligent design smacks of the dogma and purges in the Soviet era...