Tweenbots: fun with robots in New York

A friend forwarded me a link to a fun and interesting study of human behavior. A woman in New York releases a small robot that is only capable of rolling forward. It has a message on it asking passers-by to help direct it to a distant goal. It is entirely dependent on the help of strangers to accomplish it's task. What do you think might have happened?

Tweenbots

Don McLeroy Doesn't Like What the Words Mean

Over at Dispatches, Ed links to an unbelievable mountain of stupid opinion piece in The Austin American-Statesman by the chairman of the Texas Board of Education, Don McLeroy. McLeroy has been smarting lately over wide-ranging condemnation of his efforts to modify the state science standards for Texas public schools in such a manner that creationists can sneak their doctrine into science classes without constitutional challenge.

I popped over to read it. It's mostly standard creo fair blowing all of the typical dog-whistles:

The controversy exists because evolutionists, led by academia's far-left, along with the secular elite opinion-makers, have decreed that questioning of evolution is not allowed, that it is only an attempt to inject religion or creationism into the classroom.

Yawn. Heard it before.

This line, however, caught my eye:

The first step is to define science in a way that is satisfactory to both sides.

Umm. OK... might I point out, hopefully without undue emphasis,

BULLSHIT!

A wise man once said "You don't have to respect both sides of an argument when one side is a load of crap." Creationists are not owed some sort of concession to their vapid theology insofar as how science is defined. Science is what is, and tough titties if that doesn't fit into your mythos. Scientists investigate and describe the natural world on its own terms, without the pesky interference of miracles and fairies and folklore. And what they do does not intrinsically have anything to do with your religion: any incompatability between the two is not the result of "left-wing secular" anything. It has to do with the fact that your belief system does not accurately describe reality.

Your religion has nothing to bring to the science table, so you have no say in how it's defined or conducted. Sorry, you lose.

Support Wisconsin Citizens for Science

At last, we have one of our own: WI Citizens for Science. Sign up and lend a hand.

Thanks again, Ed Brayton.

Turtles All the Way Down: Why Mt Vernon, Ohio Will Learn No Lesson from the John Freshwater Mess

In perusing the interwebs today, I came across a couple of articles which rather succinctly illustrate the forehead-smacking futility of trying to deal with hard-core theists on the subject of religion in education. Both are from the Zanesville Times Recorder Opinion page. The first, by managing editor Len Lacara, explains the situation as both sides see it: from the point of view of Freshwater's supporters, and his detractors. He provides links to web sites defending the teacher's actions (or attempting to), and then explains that the defenders are wrong.

Enter concerned citizen Jeff Fraunfelter a few days later. I won't bother with a fisking of Fraunfelter's letter, as a casual perusal of it's content should be sufficient for any reader to see that it neither addresses the content of the original editorial, nor does it offer support for any cogent argument: it is merely a string of tired creationist tropes, from the label 'liberal' in the first sentence, to the 'why don't you go pick on Islam' gripe to the 'only a theory' saw. Not impressive.

But this illustrates the core problem: one side of this argument is just not interested in learning anything. He has been handed a set of talking points by the religious leaders he trusts and is simply asserting them as unassailable truth. Anyone who might provide information contradicting his claims is dismissed as 'liberal', 'secular-humanist', 'anti-Christian', or 'a member of the elite'.

One of the unfortunate results of the internet age is that religious conservatives, particularly creationists, have created a virtual reality of their own, a misinformation network in which they make bald assertions, and then refer to each others' assertions as 'evidence' in later writings/arguments. The phenomenon started with talk radio, which allowed them to ignore the newspapers and television, and spoon-fed them filtered Truth™. Now that we have the Web, they've got the WorldNutDaily, One News Now, Answers in Genesis, Conservapedia, and so on.

Which, of course, only drives home the argument that we need quality science education so we can drag these poor kids out of the morass of ignorance their parents live in. To do otherwise is not only to turn our backs on them, but to seriously hobble our future and that of our own children. And I don't give a rat's ass if that makes me an anti-Christian liberal commie pinko fascist Nazi atheist Satan-worshiping member of the homosexual agenda, or whatever.

The Latest on Crackergate: No Expulsion for Webster Cook

The insanity never dies: but there's at least one positive development: the UCF students at the heart of it all will not be expelled.

Now, one would think this would be a given: it's a public university, and any disagreements a student might have with a local religious group should not affect his status, unless he attacks someone or something (and NO, mishandling a host does not count as an attack on someone). But apparently the school's rules provide that if a complaint is raised using certain channels, the University has to hold a hearing and review the issue. This they have done.

As kind of a appertif' to the whole frenzy, Sastra weaves a rather apt analogy over at Pharyngula which is worth a read.

Selwyn Duke Gets it Wrong on David Davis - Part II

The first thing about Duke's preposterous screed on the Gillman decision that tripped my trigger is his claim that students do not have the right to voice dissent.

I can’t think of anything more laughable than describing students as “dissenters.” Governments have dissenters; politicians have dissenters; political parties and organizations have dissenters; but schools’ charges are children, individuals over whom they have dominion while class is in session.

Bzzt. Wrong. Try again, Mr. Duke. Had you read the full decision on Gillman, and were you honest about familiar with the applicable precedent, you would be aware that in Holloman v. Harland SCOTUS found that First Amendment rights to free speech "unquestionably exist in public schools".

Next we have his argument that they shouldn't be granted First Amendment rights:

The problem with arguing for any kind of student expression based upon the First Amendment is that we don’t ascribe to children an adult set of rights. Minors may not vote, join the military, drive, buy alcohol or cigarettes, or enter into contracts, for instance. Likewise, students don’t really have free-speech rights in school (see Bethel School District v. Fraser, for instance). If I want to pepper a schoolteacher with profanity and tell him off, that is my right. But if I were 30 years younger and in his class, a trip to the principal’s office would be in the offing.

I see several problems with this statement. Firstly, the idea that because we don't extend full adult privileges, that children have no First Amendment rights. This is preposterous on its face. There is ample legal precedent extending First Amendment rights to minors: for instance, decisions upholding students' rights to freely exercise their religious views in school (albeit outside the classroom). Would Mr Duke agree that students shouldn't have a right to form prayer and bible study groups in their schools, or "meet at the flag" groups, should the local school board or the school administration deem them innapropriate? Somehow, I think not.

Secondly, his citation of the Bethel decision. Once again, Mr Duke is lying through his teeth being disingenuous. The judge in the Gillman case, Richard Smoak, specifically mentions Bethel in his decision. Bethel's controls are on speech that is "vulgar, lewd, obscene, or plainly offensive". His finding was that the speech in question is pure student expression, and so Bethel doesn't apply. The proper precedent is Tinker, which asserts students' rights. Incidentally, the Holmes County School Board actually agreed that the students actions, clothing, and speech were not offensive, vulgar, etc.

Lastly, exactly where does "pepper a schoolteacher with profanity and tell him off" come into play here? Selwyn seems to be referencing a case entirely divorced from Gillman. At no point was any schoolteacher verbally abused by a student. In fact not even the principal, who really rather asked for some verbal abuse, received any. Whose ass did he pull that out of Where did that statement come from?

These students are about to enter society at large. Stifling the few liberties they enjoy will not teach them to be responsible citizens, to protect their freedoms and participate in the political process. To quote the Tinker court (via the Gillman decision):

The vigilant protection of constitutional freedoms is nowhere more vital than in the community of American schools. The classroom is peculiarly the ‘marketplace of
ideas.’ The Nation’s future depends upon leaders trained through wide exposure to that robust exchange of ideas which discovers truth ‘out of a multitude of tongues, (rather) than through any kind of authoritative selection'.

'Course, Duke's blather wouldn't be a true right-fringe rant without the following:

Of course, some may not like the values inherent in Principal Davis’ actions. My response to them is that they don’t have to live in places such as Ponce de Leon, Fla.

"If you don't like George Bush, whyoncha move to Eyeraq, damned libruls".

I can only say that I hope that some of the students involved in this fiasco remain in Holmes County, FL and try to insure that future generations of students aren't treated the way their generation has been.

Selwyn Duke Gets it Wrong on David Davis

Ooh, dear: Selwyn Duke is unhappy that a man was punished for abusing his students. Further, he is outraged that any high school student might be allowed to publicly voice opinions which are contrary to the opinion of the mob. In an article in the Birchers' newspaper fallaciously titled " Principal Fired for Pushing Anti-homosexual Agenda" he writes:

A judge ruled that a Florida principal violated his students’ free-speech rights by squelching pro-homosexual messages. He blasted the educator for misunderstanding the First Amendment, but who is truly ignorant of it?

If there ever was an example of inmates running an asylum, it’s the modern government-school system. Thanks to numerous court rulings, students can now buck authority with the freedom to wear clothing and espouse political and social messages that their school – perhaps reflecting the wider community’s standards – deems objectionable.

Oh, dear Bog! They might wear clothing espousing objectionable views! They might... gasp! THINK!

Well: we can't have that.

I should mention that the article's title is inaccurate because he was not removed from the school system: he was removed from the office of principal and demoted to a teaching position. Duke was unquestionably correct in that Davis was pushing an anti-homosexual agenda. Actually, an abusive and hateful agenda, homosexuality related or no.

But, while I feel a great deal of trepidation about an idiot like this teaching American Government class, at least he's no longer abusing his administrative authority to grope his female students. Something that people like Selwyn Duke don't seem to find objectionable.

More on this tomorrow: I'm for bed.

Gillman Vs Holmes County School Board

Via Dispatches from the Culture Wars, a decision has been handed down ( read it here) in the Florida case of a school principal who went on a one-man witch hunt against student political expression at his school. David Davis, in responding to a complaint by a 12th grade student that others at the school had harassed her for being a lesbian, ridiculed and condemned her rather than taking action against her aggressors. He then called her parents and outed her to them (which nearly resulted in her being kicked out of her home), and drove her out of his office in tears. Real nice guy.

But that was only the start. Other students got wind of what happened and tried to simply show their support for her by wearing messages on their t-shirts and indulging in other mild forms of self expression (there was talk of walking out of an emergency "Morality Assembly" that Davis called, but nothing ever came of it). Davis called this activity membership in an "illegal/secret organization", and suspended several students for a week. A student named Heather Gillman, a friend of the original victim and cousin of another of Davis's targets, complained to the School Board, which basically told her to take a hike. So she sued, and won. Handily. The decision went entirely against the school board.

But all this has been covered elsewhere. The little tidbit that made me go "WTF?" can be found on page 4 of the complaint:

Following the assembly, Davis began investigating what had come to be known as the “Gay Pride” movement at the school. He interviewed approximately thirty students, interrogated them about their sexual orientations, and questioned them about their involvement in the planned walk-out of the assembly and their activities in relation to the movement. During those meetings, Davis instructed students who were homosexual not to discuss their sexual orientations. He also prohibited students from wearing rainbow belts or writing “Gay Pride” or “GP” on their arms and notebooks. He required students to wash “GP” or “Gay Pride” from their arms and hands and lifted the shirts of female students to verify that no such writings were present on their bodies.

So we have an adult male in an authority position, during a disciplinary process, singling out female students and partially disrobing them. And the Board didn't feel that this warranted any attention: not even a phone call to Davis to clarify what happened. I don't think either the investigation or the law suit went far enough here: this guy is not someone I would want around my daughter.

Update: Oh the irony. I never saw this part (HT: Pam's House Blend). According to Davis, it's OK to wear a Confederate flag. A symbol of a group of people who tried to destroy this nation isn't divisive or offensive. Supporting a friend, however, is.

I've said it before and I'm sure I'll say it again in the future: if homosexuals spent one tenth as much time thinking about gay sex as evangelical Christians do, homosexuals would never get anything done.

Ohio Torture-Teacher Goes to Court

Via Pharyngula

Back in April, I harangued regarding John Freshwater, an Ohio middle school teacher who was under investigation for, among other things, burning crosses into his 8th-grade students' arms as a 'demonstration' in science class. Apparently, the issue has now gone to court, and my prediction that there was going to be more ugliness revealed is being born out. From the Mount Vernon News:

(School superintendent Stephen) Short, (middle school principal William) White and the school board are named as defendants in the case because they allowed Freshwater to continue to teach religion, and violate school policy and the Constitution after being notified of the policy violations and unconstitutional activities. For example, after April 14, the suit claims, Freshwater assigned “extra credit” to his students for homework related to intelligent design and was not removed from the classroom.

White also, according to the court documents, disclosed the identity of the plaintiffs to Freshwater, although Short had promised them anonymity. After the parents raised concerns of retaliation against their son, a field trip was scheduled, with their son assigned to a certain group and chaperone. The suit claims that once the child’s identity was revealed, his group assignment was changed to the one led by Freshwater. As a result, the parents “were forced to prohibit their son from attending the school field trip.” That caused injury by depriving the son of a valuable educational experience and discouraging the plaintiffs from continuing to exercise their right to free speech.

Initially, I thought that the lack of action on the part of the school stemmed from either an aversion to scandal, or at worst, your typical Christian fundamentalist assumption that the "non-believers" were just being hysterical and over-reacting. That if they ignored the complaints, it would all blow over.

The above seems to indicate something far more malevolent. The plaintiffs may talk about "depriving the son of a valuable educational experience", but it had to creep them the hell out whan the school placed their son into the hands of the same teacher who saw fit to brand him as a demonstration of how spectrum analysis works.

Go read the whole article. This is blatant intimidation on the part of Freshwater and White. They should both be fired. Or perhaps Gene's solution over at PZ's house is more appropriate:

Perhaps Mr. Freshwater should have his apparatus applied to his testicles as part of his ongoing education about why he shouldn't use it on students.

God-damned pair of sleaze bags.

Update:

Oh, and this is what he used to brand his students. Not sure how he got from "High Frequency Generator Tester for Leak Detection" to "A Cool Device to Burn Little Kids With", though.

What a nice man.

Note to Self: Do Not Take a Teaching Job in CA

Not that that was any great possibility anyway: but this loyalty oath nonsense has now cost another teacher her job.

For the unfamiliar, last February, a teacher was fired from her position at Cal State-East Bay because she refused to sign a loyalty oath to the government. This is evidently legally mandated in CA, due to a McCarthy-era amendment to the state constitution which requires all public employees (excepting non-citizens) to swear an oath of loyalty. The oath reads as follows:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California; that I take this obligation freely,without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well andfaithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter.

She placed an asterisk after the word "defend", and footnoted the document with the words "as long as it does not require violence." She's a Quaker, you see. So her religious beliefs prohibit her from using violence in any situation. But, we can't have subversive shenanigans like that going on, so she lost her job. After the deserved internet firestorm this story raised, she was eventually reinstated.

But now they've gone and done it again. This time it's Cal State-Fullerton. The teacher in question, Wendy Gonaver, is again a Quaker. As in the earlier case, she is willing to sign the oath as long as she can attach a brief statement explaining her objections as an addendum to the document. Not a chance, said CSF, and gave her the heave-ho.

When asked about it, the university had this to say:

California State University officials say they were simply following the law and did not discriminate against Gonaver because all employees are required to sign the oath. Clara Potes-Fellow, a Cal State spokeswoman, said the university does not permit employees to submit personal statements with the oath.

I just about did a spit-check on that one. It's not discrimination because all employees are required to sign it?! What utter nonsense. That doesn't mean it's not discrimination, you towering boob. It just means that there are more cases of discrimination out there. (Though admittedly, I think that the discrimination issue is secondary here: my primary objection is forcing a teacher to take the oath in the first place. It's nationalistic crap.)

But what really relegated my shiny new irony meter to the scrap heap was this:

When Wendy Gonaver was offered a job teaching American studies at Cal State Fullerton this academic year, she was pleased to be headed back to the classroom to talk about one of her favorite themes: protecting constitutional freedoms.

But the day before class was scheduled to begin, her appointment as a lecturer abruptly ended over just the kind of issue that might have figured in her course.

So she loses her job as a teacher of US citizens' liberties for exercising one of those liberties.

Poor, poor little irony meter.

To California's credit, they have made attempts to remove the amendment in question from the state constitution. Unfortunately, those attempts have failed. I have little doubt that it would have been stricken down long ago had it been normal state legislation rather than an amendment. Unfortunately, in post 9/11 America, it's even more unlikely such a change would make it past a popular vote.

But I just don't get Cal-State's position on this. Other state institutions allow signors to attach personal statements to the document. Challenges to the legality of doing so have failed, with courts allowing them as long as such statements don't render the oath invalid. So why is it that an institution of higher learning would object to such expression? And, of all things, a member of the California State University System? That's like Hillary Clinton objecting to socialized medicine.

I could understand requiring an oath of loyalty if someone is in a position of protecting the public and/or public institutions, or if a person has access to sensitive information. I don't see how anyone is served, however, by forcing such an oath on a teacher. Especially while allowing other teachers who are not citizens to get the same job without doing so.

Mess in Ohio

When I first read about this story of a public school Bible brouhaha over on Ed Brayton's blog, I didn't think much of it: I assumed the teacher, John Freshwater, was just another creationist who thinks that his right to religious expression extends to using his position as a school teacher to impose his particular brand of fundamentalist tripe on other peoples' children.

Objectionable, of course: but hardly anything out of the ordinary for the Uber-Christian crowd. If anything, I thought that the school was over-reacting in telling him to remove his personal copy of the Bible from his desk during class. Having it on his desk would seem no more harmful to me than having a picture of a family member there, or any other personal effect.

Silly me. There's always another shoe waiting to drop with these people, isn't there? This just in from the planet WTF:

In a press release issued Tuesday afternoon, Superintendent Steve Short said, “The allegations against Mr. Freshwater are very serious. This is not about his personal Bible on his desktop. It is about the totality of his conduct.”

One of the complaints was that Freshwater used an electrostatic device to burn crosses onto students’ arms.

Now, color me intolerant, but I just think that's a mite over the top. These are 8th graders. And he's branding them?! This man should not just be disciplined. He should be fired and charged with assault. His name should be put on a public list of People You Want Nowhere Near Your Children. And as it seems, according to this article from the Columbus Dispatch, that the school knew last December about the branding and chose not to do anything about it, some heads on the admin side should roll, as well.

Of course, according to the WorldNetDaily, this is all just a case of discrimination against Christians. I guess Christian Fundamentalists have some hidden constitutional right to torture 14-year olds. Funny, my teachers at the religious schools I attended must have skipped over that amendment. Typical of those scheming atheist commie pinkos.

What a debacle. It will be darkly fascinating to see what develops from this. I can't imagine that with this popping up, that there aren't any more surprises to follow.

The Battle Over Florida Public School Science Standards

The vote on the new Florida science standards for public schools comes down today, and the religious wing-nuts have been busy flapping their arms in protest of the fact that the new standards use the word "evolution" (WARNING: that link leads to painful stupidity).

While it looks like the standards will pass, the language is likely to be changed to insert the words "scientific theory of" in from of every occurance of the word "evolution". So if the standard is proposed:

Evolution is the fundamental concept underlying the biological sciences.

The new version would be:

The scientific theory of evolution is the fundamental concept underlying the biological sciences.

Some ET proponents have complained that this compromise, in specifying the word "theory", will allow creationists to use the tired old "theory, not a fact" argument to perpetuate their fraud about the reality of evolution being debatable. I would argue that they would continue to do so anyway. It's not like they've abandoned the SLOT or moon-dust arguments, and those were blown to kingdom come a long time ago.

No, I'd say let the compromise go through if necessary, and concentrate on teaching the students the difference between the scientific and vernacular definitions of the word "theory". This kills two birds with one stone: evolution is presented as factual (as it should be), and any other theory that fundies might want to try to smear (e.g., Big Bang), is buttressed as well.

Update: it appears the revised standards have been approved, albeit narrowly. Welcome to the 20th century, Florida! only one more century to go, and you'll be caught up with South Carolina!

Now if we could just drag Wisconsin out of the Teddy Roosevelt era...

We're Not the Only Idiots!

From the Telegraph: almost a quarter of the teens in the UK think that Churchill was a fictional character, and half believe that Sherlock Holmes was real.

Guess we yanks are no longer the sole record holders for extreme nincompoopancy.