John Calvert, the retired lawyer who represented the minority group, argued that all the proposed changes should be adopted because mainstream scientists refused to testify at the hearings.
“The boycott of the hearings had the effect of coercing silence, subverting the search for good solutions to a problem that plagues public education,” Calvert wrote.
Most of the minority’s 78-page brief is devoted to a bullet-point summary of the arguments for the changes.
Calvert also suggested that the state board should ignore everything that Pedro Irigonegaray presented on behalf of mainstream scientists because he didn’t submit to questions.
“Pedro engaged in character assassination, and he did it through deceptive practice,” Calvert said.
Deception, like claiming that silence was “coerced”?
How about claiming that Irigonegaray “subverted the search for good solutions”? This coming from a man who, when his campaign contributions didn’t buy off the science standards committee, used his influence and access to buy a brand new process, specially designed to get his standards implemented over the considered decision of professional scientists and educators.
“Deceptive practice” indeed. How about the claim that IDC is science? That’s pretty damn deceptive, too.