A Robust Fisking

I haven’t fisked anything in its entirety in quite some time.  Frankly, it’s a lot of work and I’m a fairly busy guy.  Thankfully, Mark Peterson, the leftist professor at UWWC who pens a column for the Daily News, offered an opportunity for a fisk that is exceedingly easy, so I’ll oblige… off we go. 

The School Board primary on Feb. 16 has drawn quite a few letters extolling the virtues of various candidates.

   I have one rule for voting in local elections – I am completely happy if the candidate can do math, regardless of where they are on the political spectrum. Take School Board member Tim Stepanski, who ran as “the eye for the taxpayer.”

Wait for it…

   Politically speaking, I disagree with his political commitment to conservative, anti-tax, principles but I completely agree with his commitment to doing the math. Once he’d seen the actual numbers the school district was up against, he made a tough decision to support the tax levy increase. His principles remain in place, but he did the math and put his responsibility to the kids first. You have to respect that.

Wait for it…

   I also have no interest in the religious views of anyone running for office. Frankly, it’s none of my business, or anyone’s business, how elected officials worship or which god, or gods, they worship.

WAIT FOR IT…

   I don’t care. I don’t care, that is, so long as they don’t make their religious views my business. They only cross the line when they think it’s OK to use my tax dollar to fund teaching their religious views in a science classroom. (Personally, I approve of teaching kids about religion in literature or history or social science classes. It’s important that kids, especially in today’s global economy, understand how people from all parts of the world think – even in distant and strange places, like Madison, say.)

BAM!!!  There it is.  In other words, he absolutely cares about more than a candidate’s ability to do math and is intensely concerned with their religious views.  As with most people, Peterson is rightfully concerned with these things, despite his assertions to the contrary. 

So long as candidates don’t insist on teaching their religious views as science, no problem. I mean, imagine if a religiously committed School Board member, maybe one who worshiped the old Scandinavian gods, insisted we teach science students that lightning is caused by Thor swinging his hammer. Thor is not a scientific hypothesis and this fact, along with the establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution, explains why fundamentalist Christian beliefs (in the form of creationism and its slicker but equally unscientific little brother, “intelligent design”) have repeatedly been removed from public schools by the federal courts.

   Speaking of which: in a bit of karmic turnabout, I find myself indebted to the local chapter of the Eagle Forum for their recent poll of School Board candidates. Fortunately for all of us, this poll identified some candidates whose personal views could weaken the science curriculum and drag the school district into federal court.

   Three of the remaining six candidates — I understand that Knepel and Williams have withdrawn — told the Eagle Forum that they were in favor of teaching creationism, a religious doctrine, in science classes. Those who demonstrated this lack of respect for either competent scientific education or the rule of law are Randy Marquardt, Douglas Rakowski and David Weigand. The Eagle Forum site notes that Mr. Weigand would be in favor of “teaching the TRUTH about evolution” — but to my jaundiced eye this suggests he believes evolution isn’t true. His original answer online indicated a desire to teach creationism in science classes.

That’s a complete lie.  Here’re the answers in question:

What is your position relative to teaching alternate theories of origins such as Intelligent Design and Creationism as an alternative, or in addition to, the the theory of evolution to students in science classrooms?  (Choose:  Favor/Against)

MARQUARDT: IN FAVOR
WILLIAMS: (Amended 1/24 for clarity)  ABSTAIN (As long as teaching them in public schools is completely legal, I am open to alternative theories of origin.)
WEIGAND: ABSTAIN (I would be FOR teaching the TRUTH about evolution.)
CORAZZI**: AGAINST
VAN EERDEN**: ABSTAIN (Adhere to legal parameters for public schools)
KNEPEL: WITHDRAWN FROM RACE
RAKOWSKI: IN FAVOR
ZIEGLER: NO RESPONSE.

First notice that the question says “alternate theories of origins such as Intelligent Design and Creationism.”  Yet Peterson focuses in on Creationism in the Christian sense despite the fact that the question leaves open teachings about any other theory of creation.  Second, notice that the question asks, “as an alternative, or in addition to, the the theory of evolution to students in science classrooms.”  That says that evolution would still be taught, and, to me, the question is unclear as to whether the alternatives would be taught in science classes, specifically, or just as an alternative elsewhere.  Given that Peterson later professes to support the teaching of these alternative theories in other classes, I’m a bit bumfuzzled as to why he would mount such opposition to free thought. 

   Ziegler gave no response to the question but both Van Eerden and Corazzi gave answers indicating they believe that, regardless of your upbringing, a public school board needs to follow federal court rulings and teach science, rather than religious doctrine, in science classes.

Herein you find the complete bullshit of Peterson’s argument.  There is substantial legal precedent about the teaching of the Christian belief of creation (not going into the other beliefs of creation that Peterson ignored) that make Peterson’s entire column a massive moot point.  Evolution vs. creation is not an issue facing the school district.  Nobody but leftist reactionaries like Peterson even consider this an issue in this election.  Frankly, sensible people are concerned with the district’s finances and infrastructure issues.  Peterson’s bigotry seems to foremost in his mind. 

Quite apart from simply upholding Constitutional principles, there are even more practical reasons for adhering to federal court findings. The now infamous Dover case (Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District), in which some School Board members pressured their science classes to include creationism, wound up costing that school district over $1 million in legal fees after a spectacular loss in federal court and a scathing opinion from the judge, one of the most conservative in the country.

Which is why nobody but the like of Peterson are even talking about this issue. 

Maybe Marquardt, Rakowski or Weigand won’t try to impose their religious views on the science curriculum, but let’s take them at their word: they think religious doctrines should be taught in a science class — even though pursuing this agenda would land West Bend in federal court. It would.

Again, they didn’t say that, but Peterson can pretend otherwise for his own agenda.

West Bend is now on the media’s radar and some of these creationist candidates are affiliated with the same people who made West Bend a national laughingstock during the last year; those who, first, attempted to eliminate anti-gay and lesbian language from the district’s hate speech policies and, second, helped put West Bend on the map as the book-burning capital of North America. The whole world is watching us now and waiting for the chance to send in reporters, film crews and the National Center for Science Education and ACLU legal teams. I don’t think we need any more of that.

The whole world is watching West Bend now?  Seriously?  Methinks someone needs to get out a little more.

   One last irony: Weigand and Marquardt have been endorsed by Common Sense Citizens of Washington County. Here’s what I want to know: how much common sense does it demonstrate to endorse candidates who publicly assert that their religious beliefs should be intruded into the school curriculum in a way that could cost the district millions in legal fees and international ridicule?

By this point, Peterson’s anti-Christian bigotry (although he confesses to be reared a Christian) is on display, but not a factor in this election.  And he completely ignores why CSC endorsed these candidates - which has nothing to do with their personal religious convictions. 

   Common sense dictates a common sense approach to electing this board. Let’s elect people who will guarantee competent scientific education for the kids, keep us out of federal court and off the front page of the New York Times. Common sense dictates Corazzi, Van Eerden or Ziegler.

OK, time to get real. 

Nobody, sans Peterson and some zealots, give a rat’s balls about whether or not we teach alternate forms of creation in West Bend’s schools in science class or elsewhere.  It’s a complete distraction.  There is one issue in this election: the budget.  The reason that there are eight candidates running for two seats is that the school board passed a 10%+ tax increase, a referendum, and a 4%+ tax increase in the course of 13 months. 

This election is about how much we should spend for the value of education.  Peterson is trying very hard to distract everyone from the cost of their district, but this would be just another ho-hum election if not for the actions of the district regarding financing in the last couple of years.  

On a side note, I continue to question why the taxpayers should be paying such a hardcore leftist bigot like Peterson to teach our kids.  I suppose every perspective deserves taxpayer support.  Oh, wait… Peterson opposes such.

Posted by Owen at 2013 hrs
Politics + Politics - Wisconsin