Comments on: Latest in the TEA Monkey Trial http://www.texasobserver.org/blog/?p=1010 Sun, 22 Nov 2009 02:28:42 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.2 By: TEA files motion to dismiss Chris Comer lawsuit « Blog of the Airtightnoodle http://www.texasobserver.org/blog/?p=1010#comment-83880 TEA files motion to dismiss Chris Comer lawsuit « Blog of the Airtightnoodle Sun, 17 Aug 2008 23:32:25 +0000 http://www.texasobserver.org/blog/?p=1010#comment-83880 [...] Forrest Wilder raises a good point in saying: Still, the teaching of evolution is the official policy of the state. If TEA staffers generally, and the science curriculum director in particular, are tasked with administering the state’s policy on science, how can they reasonably be expected to remain “neutral” on evolution? What does that even mean? [...] […] Forrest Wilder raises a good point in saying: Still, the teaching of evolution is the official policy of the state. If TEA staffers generally, and the science curriculum director in particular, are tasked with administering the state’s policy on science, how can they reasonably be expected to remain “neutral” on evolution? What does that even mean? […]

]]> By: Larry Fafarman http://www.texasobserver.org/blog/?p=1010#comment-83777 Larry Fafarman Sat, 16 Aug 2008 06:10:20 +0000 http://www.texasobserver.org/blog/?p=1010#comment-83777 The original post says, --"The agency may have the upper hand, legally speaking"-- In the law, that is what counts. In the play "A Man for All Seasons," Thomas More said, "the world must construe according to its wits -- this court must construe according to the law. You may think that the TEA's "neutrality" policy is wrong (I disagree), but the TEA has the right to have such a policy and expect its employees to abide by it. The original post says,
–”The agency may have the upper hand, legally speaking”–

In the law, that is what counts. In the play “A Man for All Seasons,” Thomas More said,
“the world must construe according to its wits — this court must construe according to the law. You may think that the TEA’s “neutrality” policy is wrong (I disagree), but the TEA has the right to have such a policy and expect its employees to abide by it.

]]> By: Comer v. Scott: Update for 15 Aug « The Sensuous Curmudgeon http://www.texasobserver.org/blog/?p=1010#comment-83744 Comer v. Scott: Update for 15 Aug « The Sensuous Curmudgeon Fri, 15 Aug 2008 12:15:43 +0000 http://www.texasobserver.org/blog/?p=1010#comment-83744 [...] been a while since she filed her suit, but now, from The Texas Observer we learn: Latest in the TEA Monkey Trial. Excerpt: The Texas Education Agency and Commissioner Robert Scott have answered the federal [...] […] been a while since she filed her suit, but now, from The Texas Observer we learn: Latest in the TEA Monkey Trial. Excerpt: The Texas Education Agency and Commissioner Robert Scott have answered the federal […]

]]> By: JJ http://www.texasobserver.org/blog/?p=1010#comment-83702 JJ Thu, 14 Aug 2008 19:16:06 +0000 http://www.texasobserver.org/blog/?p=1010#comment-83702 The flaw in the TEA's motion argument is their contention that, in writing "FYI" on the memo, Ms. Comer was taking a position. How does "FYI" imply advocacy one way or another? If you received an e-mail about a possible terrorist threat with the comment "FYI", would you assume that meant the sender supports terrorism? FYI means just that: FYI. If the TEA wants to perform a witch hunt on Ms. Comer, they need to come up with some data proving that she forwarded e-mails one-sidedly. They have failed to do so. We have many documented examples of SBOE and TEA members advocating for blatant non-education related, ideologically-driven positions. In that light, how does an "implication" justify a firing? The flaw in the TEA’s motion argument is their contention that, in writing “FYI” on the memo, Ms. Comer was taking a position. How does “FYI” imply advocacy one way or another? If you received an e-mail about a possible terrorist threat with the comment “FYI”, would you assume that meant the sender supports terrorism? FYI means just that: FYI.

If the TEA wants to perform a witch hunt on Ms. Comer, they need to come up with some data proving that she forwarded e-mails one-sidedly. They have failed to do so.

We have many documented examples of SBOE and TEA members advocating for blatant non-education related, ideologically-driven positions. In that light, how does an “implication” justify a firing?

]]> By: Bsquare http://www.texasobserver.org/blog/?p=1010#comment-83697 Bsquare Thu, 14 Aug 2008 18:21:49 +0000 http://www.texasobserver.org/blog/?p=1010#comment-83697 Even with your explanation of the split in responsiblities between TEA and SBOE, I am still confused. It sounds like bureaucratic overkill. It's time to eliminate the SBOE! And all the mental midgets thereof. Get rid of dentists and insurance salesmen who are living in the dark ages telling us what to teach our children. Even with your explanation of the split in responsiblities between TEA and SBOE, I am still confused. It sounds like bureaucratic overkill.

It’s time to eliminate the SBOE! And all the mental midgets thereof. Get rid of dentists and insurance salesmen who are living in the dark ages telling us what to teach our children.

]]> By: Lou McCreary http://www.texasobserver.org/blog/?p=1010#comment-83695 Lou McCreary Thu, 14 Aug 2008 18:07:45 +0000 http://www.texasobserver.org/blog/?p=1010#comment-83695 The sad part is that the State Board of Education, the Governor and a majority of our Legislators have forgotten that the Constitution of the United States prohibits the government from teaching religion in public shools-Texas will never turn right side up until this fundemental fact is addressed. The sad part is that the State Board of Education, the Governor and a majority of our Legislators have forgotten that the Constitution of the United States prohibits the government from teaching religion in public shools-Texas will never turn right side up until this fundemental fact is addressed.

]]>