Replies

Perhaps the most powerful witness at the Kansas hearings was Jill Gonzalez Bravo, a middle school science teacher.

It took enourmous courage for her to buck the establishment and cross the picket lines of the boycott.

Here is her vivid description of why she made that decision.

********************

The Kansas State Board of Education revised science standards to incorporate about 95% of the Minority Report’s suggested changes. The new standards would allow for a more critical approach to the teaching of evolution. The basis for adopting these new standards was the testimony given by twenty-four individuals eighteen of which were PhD scientists with accolades too numerous to account for here.

The testimony presented in the May hearings has yet to be rebutted by those in opposition to the adopted changes. All but four board members support the revised standards. These members represent their constituents and they have the right to oppose the changes however, their decision should be an informed one. Sadly this is not the case. Sue Gamble (District 2, Shawnee), Janet Waugh (District 1, Kansas City), Bill Wagnon (District 4, Topeka) and Carol Rupe (District 8, Wichita) all chose to support the boycott and did not attend the hearings.

Distressing? Yes. If one cares about the education of our children should they support a boycott on an issue that many families find important? To be honest when asked to testify at the hearings I myself declined twice. Though I had never felt comfortable with the way evolution was presented in the classroom, I did not want to get involved. What would people think?

I began to research the minority report reading documents both in support of and opposition to the changes. I even contacted the president of Kansas Citizens for Science. I had hoped to have open dialog with him. I respect what he has done to support many science educators and believed him to be reasonable. After first accusing me of trying to bait him into making a comment, he encouraged me to boycott. He told me that if I testified I would be aligning myself with the Intelligent Design group's "political and religious agenda".

Applying the skills I try to impart on my students, I developed the following hypothesis based on his comment. If testifying for the minority report indicated an alliance with the Intelligent Design Network, then boycotting must mean that I align myself with the ACLU who argued for the opposition. As a mother of three children, the oldest being a boy, I could not with conscience back an organization that supports NAMBLA.

In my life I try to focus my actions on one question, "Whom do I serve?" Well as a public educator my job is to serve parents and their children. I do not serve special interest science organizations and I most certainly do not serve the ACLU. So I testified.

I testified that in my early years of teaching I was confronted with questions posed by students about the controversies surrounding evolution. Putting my pride aside I admitted that I was unequipped to answer them and would often prematurely end the discussions.

I testified that as educators our job is to teach, reflect and alter instruction in order to better serve students. After observing an opposition to instruction into the theory of evolution, I began researching what students believed to be a controversy.

I testified that there were discrepancies in data displayed in text books and that an objective overview on this theory was not presented. But in light of the hostile environment toward debate over evolution, I kept silent for over ten years. Why? To be honest, it was self-preservation.

As a public servant I realize that I do not always have this privilege. So I take issue with board members that are elected to make decisions about our children’s education and then do not exhibit enough courage to participate in an event of interest to many Kansas families. As servants of the public it is our responsibility to create academically sound learning environments. This debate was not so much about "good science" but good pedagogy. Teachers must be informed and students must be allowed the academic freedom to critically analyze all content. So I ask these four individuals, "Whom do you serve?"

Jill Gonzalez