I expect teachers to do better. I expect them to have some standards and some social awareness. So why, at the expo held in Minneapolis this year, did they allow these regressive scum to have a booth there?
That’s the NEA Ex-Gay Educators Caucus. They’re working to eliminate intolerance and discrimination against ex-gay students, teachers, and their supporters
, but not so much working to eliminate intolerance and discrimination against gay students, teachers, and their supporters. They’re big pals with the Patriarchy Research Council, promote Walt Heyer, and are all entangled with conservative religious dogma. It’s a group dedicated to spreading misinformation and bigotry, and there they are, accepted by the NEA.
Here’s another group that was represented at the conference.
WTF? What is the NEA thinking? This is an anti-science group supported by Answers in Genesis!
For 17 years, Answers in Genesis has voluntarily supported the Creation Science Educators’ Caucus at the largest meeting of public educators in the world—the NEA (National Education Association) convention. It is one of the most liberal organizations in America today, promoting homosexual behavior, abortion, etc.
AiG as a ministry would not normally be allowed to have a booth at such a humanistic convention, but AiG has been invited by the Caucus to be a major part of staffing its convention booth and providing resources to be given away to public school teachers and leaders. Over the years, tens of thousands of books, booklets, DVDs, and other resources have been freely put into the hands of public school teachers, and each year hundreds of educators have been engaged by our witnessing team at the Caucus booth.
Here’s one reason this lunacy persists: money.
In all, over $70,000 worth of resources (a significant amount of the funds for this was given by special donors) including about 2,000 Check This Out DVDs, plus 2,000 other DVDs, 1,100 books, and 600 magazines were freely given to the public school teachers over the six day conference!
But there’s also another one: history. The NEA is stuck with bad caucuses because of antiquated rules.
Even more curious: The NEA Creation Science Educators’ Caucus. This one apparently was formed decades ago under earlier rules, when a caucus needed only one member to win recognition. It still has only one member, its founder, whose primary purpose is to distribute materials that argue for an alternative to evolutionary science. Tony Ramsek, a volunteer for the group—not a delegate—told me it plans to give 3,000 DVDs away at the convention. He emphasized that they’re not for classroom use: “We want to educate the educators,” he said.
Here’s an idea, NEA — join the 21st century, purge the anti-science, anti-human bullshit from your meetings, and support good education. Right now, you’re setting a terrible example. The Creation Science Educators’ Caucus is clearly a single kook being used as a tool to allow AiG to pour money and lies into the conference. Plug that leak.
Was there a KKK booth as well?
Those are some strange groups.
Excluding caucuses on the basis of their beliefs would require an actionable policy statement and a process — in other words setting up a committee with a clear mandate and probably allowing appeals and member input and what not. Evidently the NEA has not gotten around to doing that, which is not terribly surprising since we’re talking not just a can of worms, but a truckload. They are public school teachers which means if they banned these caucuses they’d undoubtedly face a shitstorm. Some of their members are dependent on small towns in Alabama to write their paychecks. It’s a tough position, you must grant.
I hope everyone spat in their food.
They might be legally required ti be viewpoint neutral if they are receiving public funding.
@ 4 Mike Smith
Might be interesting to see the Wiccan Council of North America* set up a booth.
* I don’t think this actually exists.
I guarantee you that a good number of the teachers these bozos are trying to “educate” understand science far better than any creationist.
Also, that incident with the DNA barcode study from a while back is a good example of why you can’t trust creationists when they claim that real science supports their superstitions. When creationists claim that a particular scientific study supports their beliefs, usually they’ve stolen the work of real scientists and misrepresented what the research says.
@ 5 jrkirdeau
This looks like a job for… THE SATANIC TEMPLE!
The bit that got me was this:
‘Over the years, tens of thousands of books, booklets, DVDs, and other resources have been freely put into the hands of public school teachers…by our witnessing team at the Caucus booth’
Define ‘resource’, because ‘counter factual bullshit’ does not fit what I believe would be a meaningful, relevant and commonly held definition here.
To be fair, one can use real science to confirm that the Bible does exist.
chrislawson
True.
Also the age of the ShroudOfTurin.
and some other HolyStuff.
@emergence #6:
This is a good point; most educators are not going to be swayed, or even watch, any of the materials they give out. It’s basically a way to funnel money out of AiG in a useless way. Hopefully none of the educators are swayed by it, though. It’s a wonder whether more money is being wasted than is useful.
To be fair, the DVDs should make perfectly serviceable coasters.
Wait, there’s a Patriarchy Research Council? I thought they had all the bugs ironed out of that by now? It’s been a few thousand years, after all.
AiG’s Nathaniel Jeanson actually gave a ‘Replacing Darwin’ presentation at this convention (he has a PhD don’t you know):
https://www.facebook.com/replacingdarwin/
Here’s my only thought after reading this : who watches DVDs anymore?! I seriously cant remember the last time i fumbled my way through a DVD menu, my oldest kid is 6, and occationally he finds an old CD or a DVD in a drawer somewhere, and he studies them like they were artifacts from mars, and i go «well you see there used to be that you needed these to play music from a.. ah its scratched now so nevermind…»
ashley @14
So, are we talking about a physicist, engineer, or similar talking about something way outside of his field of knowledge, or someone who went to the trouble of getting a PhD in biology without actually learning anything, just to say he had a PhD?