A student, Brandon Creasy, submitted an opinion piece on evolution to the school news magazine. The principal, Kevin Bezy, rejected it and has held up publication of the magazine until it is revised. Bezy explains himself, and it’s the usual kind of weasely nonsense that makes me very snarly in the morning.
When asked his opinion of evolution and how that may have factored into the situation, Bezy declined to discuss his feelings on the theory. He said he considers that irrelevant to the matter, believing it important to remain unbiased when making decisions.
I don’t give a good greasy squirt of slimy spit for Mr Bezy’s “feelings” about evolution. He is supposed to be a professional educator, and the unbiased status of the theory is that it is the only legitimate explanation for life’s diversity; no other explanation, including the page and a half of poetic metaphor and myth included in the book of Genesis, is even close. When censoring well-supported scientific ideas, hiding behind a false objectivity is not an option.
“The law gives the principal the responsibility to edit publications of the school,” Bezy said. “It is an important responsibility because the principal has to look out for the rights and sensitivities of all students, especially in a diverse and multicultural area.”
Man, this guy sounds like a pompous gasbag. All this talk about sensitivities and multiculturalism isn’t being used to promote a diversity of ideas: he’s using it to squelch the expression of any opinions that differ from the flavorless, mealy pablum to which he wants the cultural environment of the school reduced. A “diverse and multicultural area” should be one where there is an outspoken clash of ideas, not one where disagreement is silenced.
Continuing, he said of the piece: “It didn’t present the theory with a sensitivity for those who hold other theories. The teacher of the student was asked to take out language that stated his theory is the only theory.”
Other theories? Like what? Name some, Mr Bezy. Show us the courage of your convictions that these other ideas are worth abusing science for. Does it include young earth creationism, the claim that the universe didn’t exist prior to the time a few Hebrew patriarchs started scribbling down notes about how to control their tribes? Or perhaps you are thinking of Intelligent Design creationism, a fatuous pretense to scientific thinking that has no evidence, no research program, and no rationale other than that they want to put a false front over some silly old myths?
So far, evolution is the only theory deserving of the name … unless Bezy is confusing the scientific meaning of the word “theory” with the colloquial, and thinks it is equivalent to “brain fart”. It is not the business of a public school to inundate students with a variety of brain farts — they get enough of those in church on Sunday — but to provide a disciplined introduction to the best scholarly ideas. Which of those two alternatives is the mission of the Gereau Center?