When Christina Comer, as Texas Science Curriculum Director, sent an email to the state's science teachers informing them of an upcoming lecture on the dangers of introducing creationist theories in the biology curriculum, she thought she was supporting current law in the area. Instead, she lost her job over it.
When Christina Comer, as Texas Science Curriculum Director, sent an email to the state's science teachers informing them of an upcoming lecture on the dangers of introducing creationist theories in the biology curriculum, she thought she was supporting current law in the area. Instead, she lost her job over it.
The Texas Education Agency forced Comer to resign, ruling that her job required her to remain neutral in ongoing disputes to be dealt with by the Board of Education. Claiming this policy of neutrality is unconstitutional – as it required her to be silent on a matter the Supreme Court has deemed illegal (namely, the introduction of creationism in public schools) – Comer filed suit. But a District Court yesterday dismissed her claims. From the opinion (via Religion Clause)
Comer repeatedly asserts that the neutrality policy treats creationism like science, but it only treats creationism as science to th extent that Agency staff may not take a public position on it. Given the reasons for the Agency's neutrality pokicy, Agency staff must remain neutral on disputed curriculum issues regardless of a particular position's merit of constitutionality. The State "readily agree[s] that if the Board chooses to consider including some kind of recognition of alternatives to evolutionary theory in the biology curriculum, it will be entering perilous waters", but that is the Board's voyage to weather.
The Austin-American Statesman has more. Americans United criticizes the ruling in a press release here.
