Update on ousted education official
This post is a follow-up to my post titled Darwinist hypocrites protest proper ouster of education official.
I originally thought that the Texas Education Agency’s gag rule was OK. Other public officials and employees work under gag rules — for example, California’s Brown Act prohibits members of a legislative body from privately communicating with each other to try to develop a consensus on something that they may later vote on. However, I have changed my mind about the TEA gag rule because of widespread opposition to the rule, even among anti-Darwinists. Anti-Darwinist William Dembski said on Uncommon Descent,
Also, the anti-Darwinist chairman of the Texas Board of Education, Don McLeroy, said,
.
OK, Chris Comer may be entitled to express her own biased opinions, but when sending out "FYI" notices of public lectures, conferences, and debates, she should send out notices of all relevant public events or send out none. To do otherwise is censorship. Would she send out an "FYI" notice of a "Darwin-to-Hitler" lecture by a bible-pounding holy-rolling fundy-type creationist crackpot? That is what Barbara Forrest is -- a crackpot. She is a crackpot conspiracy theorist.
Earlier this year there was a “Darwin v. Design” conference at Southern Methodist University in Dallas — that conference got a lot of publicity because some Darwinist faculty members asked the administration not to hold it. If Chris Comer knew in advance about that conference — and there is a fair chance that she did — did she send out an “FYI” notice about it?
If -- as many contend -- Comer is innocent and has a good case that she is a victim of discrimination, then why did she resign so quietly? Why didn't she fight to keep her job? I suspect that an investigation has turned up or would turn up more evidence of bias on her part. Anyway, the fact that she resigned and was not fired is going to hurt her if she tries to sue the TEA.
.
I originally thought that the Texas Education Agency’s gag rule was OK. Other public officials and employees work under gag rules — for example, California’s Brown Act prohibits members of a legislative body from privately communicating with each other to try to develop a consensus on something that they may later vote on. However, I have changed my mind about the TEA gag rule because of widespread opposition to the rule, even among anti-Darwinists. Anti-Darwinist William Dembski said on Uncommon Descent,
I’m still not clear about the details of the case, but if Comer’s firing were solely for supporting Forrest, this ought not to be.
Also, the anti-Darwinist chairman of the Texas Board of Education, Don McLeroy, said,
.
“As far as I’m concerned, (agency employees) can say what they want. They’ve got freedom of speech.”
OK, Chris Comer may be entitled to express her own biased opinions, but when sending out "FYI" notices of public lectures, conferences, and debates, she should send out notices of all relevant public events or send out none. To do otherwise is censorship. Would she send out an "FYI" notice of a "Darwin-to-Hitler" lecture by a bible-pounding holy-rolling fundy-type creationist crackpot? That is what Barbara Forrest is -- a crackpot. She is a crackpot conspiracy theorist.
Earlier this year there was a “Darwin v. Design” conference at Southern Methodist University in Dallas — that conference got a lot of publicity because some Darwinist faculty members asked the administration not to hold it. If Chris Comer knew in advance about that conference — and there is a fair chance that she did — did she send out an “FYI” notice about it?
If -- as many contend -- Comer is innocent and has a good case that she is a victim of discrimination, then why did she resign so quietly? Why didn't she fight to keep her job? I suspect that an investigation has turned up or would turn up more evidence of bias on her part. Anyway, the fact that she resigned and was not fired is going to hurt her if she tries to sue the TEA.
.
Labels: Chris Comer, Evolution education
posted by Larry Fafarman | 12/10/2007 01:42:00 AM
14 Comments:
> she should send out notices of all relevant public events or send out none. To do otherwise is censorship. <
She left out the ball scores.
You and Dumbski are both crackpots.
Are you really that naive, Larry? Would you expect any politician to outright say that they would fire someone over a differing political or religious viewpoint?
When pressured with the choice of being fired or resigning, what would you take, Larry?
> When pressured with the choice of being fired or resigning, what would you take, Larry? <
Larry has always been fired.
I'm guessing he never had the luxury of being offered to resign...
Anonymous said...
>>>>>> Would you expect any politician to outright say that they would fire someone over a differing political or religious viewpoint? <<<<<<
I don't think it had anything to do with her viewpoint. If she were a bible-pounding holy-rolling fundy-type creationist crackpot who had sent out "FYI" notices about a "Darwin-to-Hitler" lecture, she probably would have gotten the same treatment.
>>>>> When pressured with the choice of being fired or resigning, what would you take, Larry? <<<<<
I can't say because I don't know all the circumstances of her departure. Maybe they offered her a better severance package if she resigned -- who knows.
I have seen job application forms with the question, "were you ever fired or did you ever resign under pressure?" The forms should not ask that question. To avoid possible lawsuits, some employers do not give out former employees' reasons for leaving.
> I have seen job application forms with the question, "were you ever fired or did you ever resign under pressure?" The forms should not ask that question. <
It seems like a reasonable question for a prospective employer to ask, although I am sure that you would find the answer embarrasing.
>>>>>> It seems like a reasonable question for a prospective employer to ask, although I am sure that you would find the answer embarrasing. <<<<<<
How could I find the answer embarrassing? I am not an employer, so I am not even in a position to ask the question, let alone get an answer.
No, it is not a reasonable question to ask, as is evidenced by the fact that many employers, to avoid possible lawsuits and minimize badmouthing by former employees, will not give out reasons why former employees left. According to you, Comer is an undesirable employee because she resigned under pressure. An interviewer is unable to investigate all the circumstances of a departure from former employment -- for example, the departure could just be the result of a personality clash.
Along this line, I once quit a job because a big move of several hundred miles was required. The unemployment office initially denied me unemployment benefits because I left the job voluntarily. An arbitrator reversed the denial. His reason was that I was entitled to benefits because I left the job in circumstances under which a person sincerely desirous of keeping the job would leave it. A required move was considered to be such a circumstance. In other words, even if it was obvious that I was quitting the job for reasons other than the move and was just using the move as a pretext for quitting, I was still entitled to benefits.
Actually, I think that the whole news story was an invasion of Comer's privacy. Her resignation was originally supposed to be confidential, but the news media obtained information about it through a freedom of information act. It may be harder for her to get a new job now because she is widely regarded as a loose cannon.
> How could I find the answer embarrassing? I am not an employer <
Because you would have to answer, dimwit. Come on Larry. Even you can't be that stupid. You have to be putting on an act.
> No, it is not a reasonable question to ask, as is evidenced by the fact that many employers, to avoid possible lawsuits and minimize badmouthing by former employees, will not give out reasons why former employees left. <
That is a reason that employers would not want to answer, not a reason that prospective employers should not ask.
> According to you, Comer is an undesirable employee because she resigned under pressure. <
I didn't say that. Can't you read? I guess you have shown you can't.
> An interviewer is unable to investigate all the circumstances of a departure from former employment <
So you are saying that a prospective employer should not ask any questions at all because they may be unable to investigate or verify all statements.
> for example, the departure could just be the result of a personality clash. <
Or it could be due to incompetence.
> Along this line, I once quit a job because a big move of several hundred miles was required. <
Yes. That particular time you were not fired for incompetence. You should not be ashamed to answer as much to a prospective employer. Otherwise he is likely to assume that it was due to incompetence, like the other times.
ViU driveled,
>>>> Because you would have to answer <<<<<
What? If I were an employer I would have to answer the question? You are so full of crap, dunghill, that it is coming out of your ears.
>>>>>> That is a reason that employers would not want to answer, not a reason that prospective employers should not ask. <<<<<<
You stupid fathead, job applicants would be afraid that employers who ask that question would also be employers who give out information about why employees left and therefore would not want to work for such employers.
>>>>> According to you, Comer is an undesirable employee because she resigned under pressure. <
I didn't say that. <<<<<
Yes you did -- otherwise why would an employer ask her why she left her previous employment?
>>>>>> So you are saying that a prospective employer should not ask any questions at all because they may be unable to investigate or verify all statements. <<<<<<
Nope -- never said that.
Now get lost, you worthless piece of crap, before I really get unhappy with you.
> What? If I were an employer I would have to answer the question? <
No, you mindless cretin. If you were a prospective employee you would have to answer it. Is there anyone else so simple minded that they couldn't understand that? I doubt that anyone but one of your sock puppets could be that stupid.
> You stupid fathead, job applicants would be afraid that employers who ask that question would also be employers who give out information about why employees left and therefore would not want to work for such employers. <
I see that the sky is changing colors on your planet again. Anyone dumb enough to make that connection should not be hired to be weightman on a plow. I can see why you can't get a job.
>>>>> According to you, Comer is an undesirable employee because she resigned under pressure. <
I didn't say that. <<<<<
> Yes you did <
No I didn't. I said what I said, not what your warped mind can twist out of it.
> otherwise why would an employer ask her why she left her previous employment? <
To find out why. There could be legitimate reasons such as to look for more challenges, or the transfer of a family member, etc. That question allows a person who has a good reason to have left his last job to explain why. Someone with a legitimate reason should not be afraid of such a question.
The time you resigned to avoid a move you could have explained it and a prospective employer would have understood. The other times when you were fired for incompetence, you could have tried to bullshit your way out of it, as you do here.
>>>>>> So you are saying that a prospective employer should not ask any questions at all because they may be unable to investigate or verify all statements. <<<<<<
> Nope -- never said that. <
It is certainly a more valid inference than the ones you keep pulling out of your ass.
> Now get lost, you worthless piece of crap, before I really get unhappy with you. <
What will you do? Ban me like you did ViW?
As the saying goes, don't feed the trolls. The time I would spend answering this troll's asinine comments, which include insults, ad hominem attacks, and gossip about my personal affairs, is much better spent writing new posts or responding to sensible comments.
> As the saying goes, don't feed the trolls. <
Larry is the most troll like one here. He rarely comes out of his hole except to buy some more beer and potato chips.
It is quite laughable that he talks of "asinine comments, which include insults" (such as dunghill and fathead?), "ad hominem attacks" (as Larry does when, as always, he finds himself losing an argument), "gossip about my personal affairs" (corrections of his lies).
Larry's lack of response to questions or arguments can be recognized for what it is; an inability to answer.
Larry loses another argument and bugs out. What's new?
> How could I find the answer embarrassing? I am not an employer <
This is an obvious attempt by Larry to revive the Idiot of the Month competition and walk away with the prize.
Post a Comment
<< Home