So, there's this town in Montana, see. Name of Choteau. And seems that science ain't so popular in those parts...
School authorities' cancellation of a talk that a Nobel laureate climate researcher was to have given to high school students has deeply divided this small farming and ranching town at the base of the east side of the Rocky Mountains.The scholar, Steven W. Running, a professor of ecology at the University of Montana, was scheduled to speak to about 130 students here last Thursday about his career and the global changes occurring because of the earth's warming. Dr. Running was a lead author of a global warming report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the 400-member United Nations body that shared last year's Nobel Peace Prize with former Vice President Al Gore.
But when some residents complained that his presentation here would be one-sided because no opposing view would be offered, the superintendent of Choteau School District No. 1, Kevin St. John, canceled it. Mr. St. John said that numerous residents had complained to school board members and that they in turn had suggested that the program be called off. (New York Times, Jan. 17)
At least the place is "divided."
Curiously, I was listening to a NPR item just the other day in which Montana's evolution from minin' and ranchin' stronghold that brooked no trade with greenies, is rapidly embracing environmental politics. So let's hope Choteau is just one of those communities that hasn't quite got the message that the opposing side to science is idiocy.
- Log in to post comments
You have to marvel at the hypocrisy. A speaker does not have the responsibility of providing a counterpoint. Debates, few and far between as they are in modern times, are for debating points. A scientific speaker can only stand up and talk about his data and expert opinions. The sort of people that stood up demanding "fair and balanced" (sorry) time for opposing viewpoints really mean time for their viewpoint. A skeptic speaker would never be expected to give the view of the vast majority of working scientists, so why should one of the crafters of that majority have to allow time for a tin-hat response?
But when some residents complained that his presentation here would be one-sided because no opposing view would be offered, the superintendent of Choteau School District No. 1, Kevin St. John, canceled it. Mr. St. John said that numerous residents had complained to school board members and that they in turn had suggested that the program be called off. (New York Times, Jan. 17)
Well, at least they gave a reason, which means maybe if that complaint was resolved they would be amenable to trying it again?
Dave Briggs :~)
But when some residents complained that no opposing viewpoint would be represented, the lecture on the sun-centered solar system was called off...
Did the opposing view have to be presented right there and then? Doesn't Superintendent St. John know academic debate takes places centuries apart at times?
They need a statue of "The Thinker" by Auguste Rodin on Main Street, Choteau.
What the public pedagogical industry needs is a sort of Wiki-Academia for the living & dead persons and writers with mainstream critiques. That Running is a prof. of ecology @ the U. of Montana should be sufficient to decide that the address is surely educational. That he is a Nobel Laureate would be sufficient to fend off the denialists in the local politics. Poor Sanjin can't figure out what is mainstream & what is kook? OK, give him a Quickie-pedia with persons, works, and "scores" for mainstream peer alignment that he can trust.
The on-line equivalent of having a servant to stack up the peer-reviewed publications and awards if someone wants to chew out his bureaucratic arse.