Bronze-level articleTexas Board of Education

From RationalWiki
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Restructure the article somewhat, for some planned changes/additions)
(The battle over the science standards: Ok; posting a breakdown (by external links) of the argument.)
Line 48: Line 48:
 
===The battle over the science standards===
 
===The battle over the science standards===
 
In '''2009''' the evolution debate flared up again. The wingnut fraction didn’t succeed in their efforts to incorporate “weaknesses of evolution” language<ref> http://www.tfn.org/site/PageServer?pagename=issues_science_evolution</ref> into the standards, but did manage to include language that opens up for creationist attacks in classrooms.<ref>[http://scienceblogs.com/tfk/2009/01/21/liveblag-ii/ here] is a live blogging of parts of the debate</ref> One amendment that did pass calls for students to "analyze and evaluate scientific explanations concerning any data on [[Cambrian explosion|sudden appearance]] and stasis and the sequential groups in the fossil record." The phrases to take notice of are "sudden appearance" and "[[punctuated equilibrium#PE and creationists|stasis]]". According to McLeroy the "sudden appearance" of forms under the Cambrian explosion, and the rapid multiplication and diversification of species, was followed by a long period of stasis, something MeLeroy viewed as evidence against evolution and in favor of creationism. Importantly, the language gives the creationist members of the board a way to reject books that don’t sufficiently "evaluate scientific explanations" concerning stasis and sudden appearance when textbooks are selected. Another amendment requires that teachers and textbooks include language to “analyze and evaluate scientific explanation concerning the [[cell#The complexity of the cell|complexity of the cell]],” which is another well-known buzzword for creationist talking points, and which again would bias the selection of textbooks in Texas in favor of the more creationist-friendly ones.<ref>Gordy Slack [http://www.salon.com/2009/03/28/texas_evolution_case/ Texas on Evolution: Needs further study], in Salon, Mar 28, 2009. A pretty solid overview over the 2009 situation.</ref>
 
In '''2009''' the evolution debate flared up again. The wingnut fraction didn’t succeed in their efforts to incorporate “weaknesses of evolution” language<ref> http://www.tfn.org/site/PageServer?pagename=issues_science_evolution</ref> into the standards, but did manage to include language that opens up for creationist attacks in classrooms.<ref>[http://scienceblogs.com/tfk/2009/01/21/liveblag-ii/ here] is a live blogging of parts of the debate</ref> One amendment that did pass calls for students to "analyze and evaluate scientific explanations concerning any data on [[Cambrian explosion|sudden appearance]] and stasis and the sequential groups in the fossil record." The phrases to take notice of are "sudden appearance" and "[[punctuated equilibrium#PE and creationists|stasis]]". According to McLeroy the "sudden appearance" of forms under the Cambrian explosion, and the rapid multiplication and diversification of species, was followed by a long period of stasis, something MeLeroy viewed as evidence against evolution and in favor of creationism. Importantly, the language gives the creationist members of the board a way to reject books that don’t sufficiently "evaluate scientific explanations" concerning stasis and sudden appearance when textbooks are selected. Another amendment requires that teachers and textbooks include language to “analyze and evaluate scientific explanation concerning the [[cell#The complexity of the cell|complexity of the cell]],” which is another well-known buzzword for creationist talking points, and which again would bias the selection of textbooks in Texas in favor of the more creationist-friendly ones.<ref>Gordy Slack [http://www.salon.com/2009/03/28/texas_evolution_case/ Texas on Evolution: Needs further study], in Salon, Mar 28, 2009. A pretty solid overview over the 2009 situation.</ref>
 +
 +
{{quotebox|The January 2009 Texas science standard hearings were live-blogged by Josh Rosenau, and gives some insight into how the board actually works:
 +
 +
'''January 21'''
 +
[http://scienceblogs.com/tfk/2009/01/21/liveblagging-the-texas-science/ Part I]: The discussion is supposed to concern the “[[Teach the controversy|strengths and weaknesses]] of evolution” language in the science standards.
 +
 +
[http://scienceblogs.com/tfk/2009/01/21/liveblag-ii/ Part II]: Various “defenses” of “strengths and weaknesses” are presented, especially from Dunbar and Cargill. Ken Mercer is concerned about [[persecution complex|persecution]] of students who defend creationism; he’s heard rumors that some think their views are silly. There are references to [[Ben Stein]] ([[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]] was a relatively recent phenomenon at this time).
 +
 +
[http://scienceblogs.com/tfk/2009/01/21/texas-liveblagging/ Part III]: Various attacks on evolution are given, especially from Terri Leo. Gold quote, from Paul Lively, veteran (not all people testifying qualify as “experts” by anyone but those with a wingnut axe to grind): “Accurate science is just one view”.
 +
 +
[http://scienceblogs.com/tfk/2009/01/21/texas-liveblagging-4-the-blagg/ Part IV]: Various pro-creationist talking points and befuddled attacks on evolution; parent and former TBoE candidate Peter Johnston tries to invoke [[Thomas Kuhn]] and [[worldview]]s talk in favor of teaching strengths and weaknesses (it deteriorates from there).
 +
 +
[http://scienceblogs.com/tfk/2009/01/21/liveblagging-v-driving-ms-hazy/ Part V]: Some back and forth. Parent Steve Lyons claims that evolution is [[just a theory]], and that scientists are trying to confuse good folks by trying to get “theory” to mean something else, as if a theory could be a fact.
 +
 +
[http://scienceblogs.com/tfk/2009/01/21/liveblagging-vi-the-meyering/ Part VI]: “Expert” witness [[Stephen Meyer]] attacks evolution primarily by [[quote-mining]] [[Charles Darwin|Darwin]] and claiming that [http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Evolution_is_a_religion evolution is a religion] since it doesn’t have explanatory or [http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Evolution_doesn%27t_make_predictions predictive power]. More on Meyer’s testimony [http://scienceblogs.com/tfk/2009/01/21/liveblogging-the-interminable/ here] and [http://scienceblogs.com/tfk/2009/01/22/livebogging-the-execrable-meye/ here].
 +
 +
[http://scienceblogs.com/tfk/2009/01/21/liveblag-fail-crash-costs-me-l/ Interlude]: Creationist celebrity Ralph Seelke attacks evolution partly because it is supported by [[scientific consensus]] and scientific consensus [[science was wrong before|may be wrong]].
 +
 +
[http://scienceblogs.com/tfk/2009/01/21/liveblagging-vii-the-wethering/ Part VII]: Professor Ron Wetherington attacks the strengths and weaknesses language; Dunbar objects with gibberish.
 +
 +
[http://scienceblogs.com/tfk/2009/01/21/liveblogging-texas-mccvi-garne/ Part VIII]: Local creationist Charles Garner gives his testimony, mostly nonsense, including the claim that evolution does not and [http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Interpreting_evidence_is_not_the_same_as_observation cannot have observable support]. More of the debate following Garner’s statements [http://scienceblogs.com/tfk/2009/01/21/liveblogging-texas-mmmldi/%20 here].
 +
 +
'''January 22'''
 +
[http://scienceblogs.com/tfk/2009/01/22/liveblogging-the-next-day-of-i/%20 Intro]
 +
 +
[http://scienceblogs.com/tfk/2009/01/22/liveblagging-texas-again/%20 Part II]: Dunbar moves to restore strength & weaknesses language; Cargill quotes Discovery Institute blogs.
 +
 +
[http://scienceblogs.com/tfk/2009/01/22/liveblogging-texas-day-2-part/ Part III]: Mercer goes batshit with creationist canards. Evolution is religion; [[Piltdown man]] disproves evolution; Haeckel was a [http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Evolution_is_racist racist]. Leo and Lowe support him.
 +
 +
[http://scienceblogs.com/tfk/2009/01/22/texas-liveblogging-day-2-part/ Part IV]: Board member Rick Agosto, Democrat who often votes with the wingnuts, wavers but will vote against the wingnut amendments, which are hence likely to crash.
 +
 +
[http://scienceblogs.com/tfk/2009/01/22/texas-liveblogging-day-2-part-1/ Part V]: Vote on evolution gets postponed. Mercer complains about students allegedly not being admitted to college because of their religious beliefs.
 +
 +
[http://scienceblogs.com/tfk/2009/01/22/liveblogging-texas-mcleroy/%20 Part McLeroy]: McLeroy succeeds in emphasizing the “weaknesses” of [[common descent]]; since the “strengths and weaknesses” language seems to fail elsewhere, McLeroy is trying to insert as much creationist bullshit as possible.
 +
 +
[http://scienceblogs.com/tfk/2009/01/22/liveblogging/%20 Part VI]: Dunbar makes her final attacks.
 +
 +
[http://scienceblogs.com/tfk/2009/01/22/texas-liveblogging-day-2-part-2/ Part VII]: Discussion about the age of the universe. Cargill claims there are various viable theories out there and that observations cannot reveal the age of the Universe. New standards pass with revisions that reflect “uncertainty”; Dunbar succeeds in including “is thought to” in virtually all formulations, calling for students to “evaluate the evidence”. Science and truth take hard blows in the new standards.
 +
 +
'''January 23'''
 +
[http://scienceblogs.com/tfk/2009/01/23/texas-passes-first-reading-of/ Final stage]: In the final vote the science standards survive without reinserting the “strengths and weaknesses” language; it’s a close call, however.}}
  
 
===The battle over the social studies standards===
 
===The battle over the social studies standards===

Revision as of 23:49, 14 June 2012

Somebody's gotta stand up to experts.
—Don McLeroy, chairman of the Board, 2007-09

The Texas Board of Education (TBoE) is a branch of the Texas Education Agency. The board approves textbooks for public schools across Texas, and are known for, shall we say, trying to give public textbooks a more conservative oriented slant, including a heightened focus on religion and academic freedom. As such, TBoE is a major player in the culture war.

Contents

Why it matters

Not only does the Board of Education determine (in practice: micromanage) the content of textbooks used in public schools throughout Texas; since the Texas public school system is such an important customer for publishers of textbooks, standards adopted in Texas are likely to affect the contents of textbooks used throughout the US. Texas is the nation's second-largest texbook market, and as opposed to the situation in most states, where textbook selections are left to the whims of local districts, the Texas textbook selection is determined centrally. It has been said that “publishers will do whatever it takes to get on the Texas list.” The influence of Texas used to be somewhat outweighed by the pull of California, but given the current state of their economy, California has put off buying new books until at least 2014, which means that the power of the Texas Board to determine textbook contents for the rest of the country is, at present, unprecedented.

The Texas Education Agency and the Board of Education

The Texas Education Agency is the branch of the state government of Texas responsible for public education. Or whatever you call what they do in Texas.

In 2007, Christine Comer resigned as the director of the science curriculum after pressure from officials, who claimed that she had given the appearance of criticizing the teaching of intelligent design and for promoting evolution.[1] Which she in fact had, as she should. The move came shortly after Comer had forwarded an e-mail message announcing a presentation by Barbara Forrest, author of “Creationism’s Trojan Horse”, which argues that creationist politics are behind the movement to get intelligent design taught in public schools.

The Board of Education

The State Board of Education oversees the TEA, and consists of 15 members elected from single-member districts for four years. The board devises policies and sets academic standards for Texas public schools as well as oversees the $17.5 billion Permanent School Fund and selects textbooks for Texas' 4.7 million schoolchildren. The Board has a long story of being riddled with wingnuts, creationists, and worse, and the curriculum decision processes have frequently been dominated by rabid, loud, wingnut lunacy.

Perhaps the most famous and bizarre series of events took place in 2009-10, when the TBoE received criticism from more than fifty scientific organizations over an attempt to weaken science standards on evolution.[2] At the time the board also decided to purge Thomas Jefferson from the History Standards, focusing instead on “Enlightenment thinkers” with a more obvious religious point of view. In addition they removed anything that could be construed as a negative portrayal of Joseph McCarthy.[3] The Board of Education were aptly described as “drafting its own version of American history”,[4] including altering school textbooks to remove what the wingnuts conceived of as “left leaning bias” and making changes that assumed a less liberal view of religion and race. Other examples of wingnuttery include downplaying Abraham Lincoln's role in the American Civil War and putting a more heroic light on Confederate leader Jefferson Davis; questioning the African American Civil Rights Movement and downplaying Martin Luther King Jr.'s legacy, downplaying slavery in American history, and putting more emphasis on the states rights cause during the Civil War.

Central wingnut members of the last decade include:

  • Barbara Cargill, District 8, 2005-d.d., Chairman 2011-d.d.
  • Cynthia Dunbar, served 2007-2011
  • Terri Leo, District 6, 2002-d.d., Chairman of the Instruction Committee, 2011-d.d.
  • Gail Lowe, served 2002-2011, Chairman 2009-2011
  • Don McLeroy, served 1998-2011, Chairman 2007-2009
  • Ken Mercer, 2006-d.d. Vice-chair of the Instruction Committee

The war on facts, early stages

I think what we're doing is destroying America's soul in science.
—Don McLeroy, chairman of the board, on his desire to challenge the teaching of evolution in science classes[5]

Efforts to censor and control Texas textbooks have been made for a long time, and by a variety of wingnut organizations and individuals (often members of the board). Although many of the efforts have been effectively combated by organizations such as the Texas Freedom Network, the success rate of the wingnut fractions (what Brian Leiter called the "Texas Taliban") is non-negligible.

From the 1960s onwards groups such as the Gablers’ Educational Research Analysts, who “review public school textbooks from a conservative, Christian perspective,” have targeted “areas of concern”, including evolution, the free-enterprise system, what the Founding Fathers intended, and abstinence-only sex education. For instance, in 2007 the Gablers objected to the new math textbooks by claiming that “[r]eplacing standard algorithms with haphazard searches for personal meaning unconstitutionally establishes New Age religious behavior in public school Math instruction.”

The 1990s saw renewed efforts to combat evolution, but the war was in particular waged over health textbooks and the coverage of issues such as contraception, sexually transmitted diseases, and gender roles. The 1990s also saw the TBoE starting to make demands of textbook publishers that they conform to more obviously Biblical values. In 1996 censors attempted to get social studies textbooks that featured pictures of minorities and discussed slavery thrown out, and demanded that the age of the Earth be determined by Biblical standards rather than by geologists. In 1995 the Texas Legislature passed a law (Senate Bill 1) limiting the school board’s powers to reject textbooks on ideological grounds, a law wingnut board members have since attempted to circumvent or overturn in all possible ways.

In 2001 The Texas Public Policy Foundation succeeded in banning an environmental science textbook they deemed to be “anti-free enterprise” and “anti-Christian”, and in 2002 they succeeded in removing positive references to Islam in social studies textbooks, as well as to get said books to conform to a Biblical timeline, meaning that references to human civilization or existence predating the time of the creation of the Earth according to "literal" interpretations of the Bible be made vague and ambiguous.

In 2003 the Discovery Institute launched its Teach the controversy campaign in Texas, though their revisionary pseudo-science and denialism failed this time around, largely due to the efforts of Texans for Better Science Education. The battle continued in subsequent years, with the wingnut side particularly loudly represented by board member Don McLeroy, who has been explicit about his wish to have creationism replace replace evolution in public schools.[6] Meanwhile, the battle over health textbooks continued as well, with the board pushing abstinence-only sex education (or negligible information on contraception), a situation that continues to this day. They also got publishers to define marriage as “lifelong union between a man and a woman.”

The war on facts: the McLeroy years, 2006-2010

In the 2006 elections, the wingnuts gained two more seats and thus effective control over the board. The addition included Cynthia Dunbar, a staunch promoter of homeschooling who has called public education "tyrannical" and a "tool of perversion" for liberal elites, and has said that sending kids to public school is like “throwing them into the enemy’s flames.” The war escalated.

In 2007 Rick Perry appointed self-proclaimed Christian fundamentalist and creationist Don McLeroy, a dentist, as the board’s chairman. McLeroy served on the board since 1998 (and would serve until 2011), and the years under his chairmanship are usually counted as the darkest in the history of education in Texas.

Though McLeroy and fellow board members Dunbar, Cargill, Leo, Mercer, and others claimed they did not favor intelligent design, they at least attempted to force publishers to include “weaknesses” of evolution. McLeroy also has history of advocating Bible-based Young earth creationism

In 2008 the wingnuts on the board rejected efforts by teachers and specialists regarding the language arts curriculum, apparently because teachers allegedly sometimes make decisions about reading material based on the ethnicity of writers. The wingnut fraction failed to win approval for their reading list, and responded by rewriting other parts of the proposed standards before the final vote on approval, distributing it to the other members of the board an hour before the sessions commenced to ensure that the board would not have read the proposal beforehand.[7] Their proposal passed.

The battle over the science standards

In 2009 the evolution debate flared up again. The wingnut fraction didn’t succeed in their efforts to incorporate “weaknesses of evolution” language[8] into the standards, but did manage to include language that opens up for creationist attacks in classrooms.[9] One amendment that did pass calls for students to "analyze and evaluate scientific explanations concerning any data on sudden appearance and stasis and the sequential groups in the fossil record." The phrases to take notice of are "sudden appearance" and "stasis". According to McLeroy the "sudden appearance" of forms under the Cambrian explosion, and the rapid multiplication and diversification of species, was followed by a long period of stasis, something MeLeroy viewed as evidence against evolution and in favor of creationism. Importantly, the language gives the creationist members of the board a way to reject books that don’t sufficiently "evaluate scientific explanations" concerning stasis and sudden appearance when textbooks are selected. Another amendment requires that teachers and textbooks include language to “analyze and evaluate scientific explanation concerning the complexity of the cell,” which is another well-known buzzword for creationist talking points, and which again would bias the selection of textbooks in Texas in favor of the more creationist-friendly ones.[10]

The January 2009 Texas science standard hearings were live-blogged by Josh Rosenau, and gives some insight into how the board actually works:

January 21 Part I: The discussion is supposed to concern the “strengths and weaknesses of evolution” language in the science standards.

Part II: Various “defenses” of “strengths and weaknesses” are presented, especially from Dunbar and Cargill. Ken Mercer is concerned about persecution of students who defend creationism; he’s heard rumors that some think their views are silly. There are references to Ben Stein (Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed was a relatively recent phenomenon at this time).

Part III: Various attacks on evolution are given, especially from Terri Leo. Gold quote, from Paul Lively, veteran (not all people testifying qualify as “experts” by anyone but those with a wingnut axe to grind): “Accurate science is just one view”.

Part IV: Various pro-creationist talking points and befuddled attacks on evolution; parent and former TBoE candidate Peter Johnston tries to invoke Thomas Kuhn and worldviews talk in favor of teaching strengths and weaknesses (it deteriorates from there).

Part V: Some back and forth. Parent Steve Lyons claims that evolution is just a theory, and that scientists are trying to confuse good folks by trying to get “theory” to mean something else, as if a theory could be a fact.

Part VI: “Expert” witness Stephen Meyer attacks evolution primarily by quote-mining Darwin and claiming that evolution is a religion since it doesn’t have explanatory or predictive power. More on Meyer’s testimony here and here.

Interlude: Creationist celebrity Ralph Seelke attacks evolution partly because it is supported by scientific consensus and scientific consensus may be wrong.

Part VII: Professor Ron Wetherington attacks the strengths and weaknesses language; Dunbar objects with gibberish.

Part VIII: Local creationist Charles Garner gives his testimony, mostly nonsense, including the claim that evolution does not and cannot have observable support. More of the debate following Garner’s statements here.

January 22 Intro

Part II: Dunbar moves to restore strength & weaknesses language; Cargill quotes Discovery Institute blogs.

Part III: Mercer goes batshit with creationist canards. Evolution is religion; Piltdown man disproves evolution; Haeckel was a racist. Leo and Lowe support him.

Part IV: Board member Rick Agosto, Democrat who often votes with the wingnuts, wavers but will vote against the wingnut amendments, which are hence likely to crash.

Part V: Vote on evolution gets postponed. Mercer complains about students allegedly not being admitted to college because of their religious beliefs.

Part McLeroy: McLeroy succeeds in emphasizing the “weaknesses” of common descent; since the “strengths and weaknesses” language seems to fail elsewhere, McLeroy is trying to insert as much creationist bullshit as possible.

Part VI: Dunbar makes her final attacks.

Part VII: Discussion about the age of the universe. Cargill claims there are various viable theories out there and that observations cannot reveal the age of the Universe. New standards pass with revisions that reflect “uncertainty”; Dunbar succeeds in including “is thought to” in virtually all formulations, calling for students to “evaluate the evidence”. Science and truth take hard blows in the new standards.

January 23 Final stage: In the final vote the science standards survive without reinserting the “strengths and weaknesses” language; it’s a close call, however.

The battle over the social studies standards

In 2010 the infamous revisions of social studies standards were passed (see below).

The story behind the changes is an appalling tale of dishonesty and subversive tactics. In advance of the sessions the Texas Education Agency had assembled a team to tackle the history standards for each grade; for eleventh-grade U.S. history the team originally consisted of classroom teachers and history professors. McLeroy, however, was not completely satisfied with the situation, and decided to add Bill Ames to the group. Ames is a Minuteman militia member, volunteer for the Eagle Forum and well-known critic of illegal immigration (accusing illegal aliens of infesting America with diseases) and the “environmentalist agenda to destroy America,” and he required that the standards include materials on conservative icons such as Newt Gingrich, Phyllis Schlafly, and the Moral Majority. The team refused, of course, so Ames complained to McLeroy. McLeroy responded by demanding to see draft standards for every grade, which he handed over to the ultraconservative think tank the Texas Public Policy Foundation (founded by his benefactor James Leininger) for vetting. The Texas Public Policy Foundation of course found all sorts of “faults” (particularly since McLeroy sent them incomplete drafts and working materials rather than completed recommendations). As a result, the board voted to stop the writing teams’ work and instead bring in a panel of experts. An “expert” in this case would be anyone the group considered to be an expert. In keeping with the makeup of the board, three of the six people appointed were right-wing ideologues, among them self-styled historians (with no formal qualifications) Peter Marshall[11], known for his argument that California wildfires and Hurricane Katrina were God’s punishment for tolerating gays, and dominionist pseudo-historian David Barton.

When Marshall and Barton testified before the board, Barton brought forth all his well-known revisionist pseudo-history that supposedly proves that The United States is a Christian nation, that the US constitution really calls for the institution of Biblical law, and that there is no separation of church and state. Through quote-mining and misrepresentations, Barton argued that Texas textbooks should promote these falsehoods and misrepresentations. Barton also sought to redeem McCarthy, a project that several members of the Board endorsed (Cynthia Dunbar, in particular, suggested that the anti-communist witch-hunts may have been justified), and wanted textbooks to describe the history of the Western World as a continuous battle with Islam, where Muslims has – without exception – been the aggressors. Moreover, Barton claimed that African Americans owe their civil rights to the Republicans, even to the extent that “it might be much more appropriate that … demands for reparations were made to the Democrat Party rather than to the federal government.” While generally successful in getting the board to follow their recommendations, Barton and Marshall’s attempt to purge the standards of César Chávez and Thurgood Marshall did admittedly fail. The pair did, however, succeed in getting the board to downplay the influence of people such as Martin Luther King jr., by arguing that one couldn’t credit single people with advancing the rights of minorities; such credit must rather go to the majorities that carry out the changes, which, according to Barton and Marshall's reality-challenged representations of history, the white males of the Republican party.

Although the final standards were somewhat more moderate than Barton and Marshall wanted them to be, they still included several of their talking points.

Changes to the social sciences curriculum

In the curriculum debates the wingnuts succeeded in downplaying the role of slavery in causing the Civil War, misrepresenting the role of religion in US history, as well as suggesting that the separation of church and state is not a key principle in the Constitution.

The changes, at the request of Cynthia Dunbar, also included the removal of Thomas Jefferson and mention of the Age of Enlightenment (i.e. any implication that reason should be the foundation for authority). More precisely, the previous formulation:

“explain the impact of Enlightenment ideas from John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Voltaire, Charles de Montesquieu, Jean Jacques Rousseau, and Thomas Jefferson on political revolutions from 1750 to the present.”

was changed to

“explain the impact of the writings of John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Voltaire, Charles de Montesquieu, Jean Jacques Rousseau, Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin and Sir William Blackstone on political revolutions from 1750 to the present.”

A formulation that anachronistically places Aquinas and John Calvin among the prominent "Age of Enlightenment" thinkers, in other words. But at least they were very religious.

So Thomas Jefferson, who favored separation of church and state, had to go. On the other hand, a new focus on the "significant contributions" of pro-slavery Confederate leaders during the civil war was added. Furthermore, the study of Sir Isaac Newton was dropped in favor of examining scientific advances through military technology..

Another curriculum amendment describes the civil rights movement as creating "unrealistic expectations of equal outcomes" among minorities, and at the same time drops references to the slave trade in favor of calling it the more innocuous "Atlantic triangular trade".

Dunbar herself called the amendments important steps to overturning what she believes is the myth of a separation between church and state.

Governor Perry subsequently proudly declared that "Texas is a national example of how to best prepare our children for higher education and the workplace,"[12] though in the same interview he also declared that "I am a firm believer in intelligent design as a matter of faith and intellect, and I believe it should be presented in schools alongside the theories of evolution," so his opinions on matters of education aren't exactly trustworthy. The previous year he had reappointed Don McLeroy as the chairman of the Board of education, but that appointment had been rejected by the Texas Senate.[13]

The War on facts: the aftermath, 2010 to present

On May 28, 2009, McLeroy's nomination as Chair of the Board of Education failed to gain Senate approval; only 19 of 31 Senators voted for him, one vote short of the 2/3 majority needed. Gail Lowe became the new Chair, though McLeroy (and the perhaps even more brutally insane, incompetent and loud Cynthia Dunbar) remained dominant forces during the board meetings, in what Russell Shorto described as "a single-handed display of arch-conservative political strong-arming,"[14], at least until 2011 when both McLeroy and Dunbar ended their terms.

The battle continued, however. Gail Lowe, the Chairwoman who succeeded McLeroy, is a young earth creationist as well.[15] The dominionist fraction of the board lost their majority in the 2011 elections (District 10, for instance, did not endorse Dunbar's handpicked successor, the equally crazy Brian Russell).

Lowe's stint ended in 2011, when she passed the reins to Barbara Cargill, another ardent creationist,[16] famous for deciding that the question of the age of the universe and whether it is expanding should be matters to be decided by a Board vote. Given that this was the TBoE, it was decided that there is no scientific consensus on those issues, and the education standards should reflect this. However, the creationists appear to have lost some votes, so at least the creationism part may have to be toned down for now;[17] at least during the 2011 sessions the creationist attempts were for the most part rather successfully blocked (report here), though other topics fared less well.

External links

See also

Footnotes

Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support