ID vs. Academic Integrity: Gaming the System in Ohio

Leonard's final dissertation committee did not meet those requirements.  It was composed of his advisor, Paul Post from the technology education program area of the section for Math, Science and Technology; Glen R. Needham of the Department of Entomology in the College of Biological Sciences; and Robert DiSilvestro of the Department of Human Nutrition in the College of Human Ecology.  For the final defense an Assistant Professor from the department of French & Italian in the College of Humanities was also assigned to the committee to monitor the procedure.  Thus, there were no members from the science education program area on Leonard's final dissertation committee.

Wow! Thanks for this post RBH.

What's so damn sad is that the Crowther talking points have already been written. No matter what the outcome at OSU, it's "Jackbooted Darwinianist bureaucrats stifle free thought -- could your child be next?!?!?"

Hopefully his dissertation will be released to the public; when/if it ever is, allow me to make a prediction. It will not contain a scientific theory of ID, but will somehow manage to go on for pages and pages about how to teach the theory of ID.

Prove me wrong, Mr. Leonard.

So what we have is a graduate student, by all reports an earnest young man, who has been led down the garden path, seemingly guided by a couple of tenured ID Creationist faculty members whose anti-evolution agenda apparently overrode any commitment to the integrity of the academic process, the value of graduate education and research, or the well-being of the student.  The phrase "cynical manipulation" comes to mind.  Regardless of whether Leonard was a willing participant in the exercise, the tenured faculty members involved have a direct responsibility --- to education, to science, to their colleagues and university, and to Leonard himself --- to ensure that the integrity of the degree-granting process at the Ohio State University is maintained.

Can someone tell me if it is common for science dissertations to be defended with members of humanities departments in America. That somewhat confuses me they would even consider that to begin with.

Can someone tell me if it is common for science dissertations to be defended with members of humanities departments in America. That somewhat confuses me they would even consider that to begin with.

So, Dr. Joan Herbers won't have a say on the subject matter, but merely on procedures?

At the Ohio State University, the Graduate School Representative, which is what the French & Italian professor was appointed to the committee to be, is there to monitor procedures and ensure that the process conforms to the requirements of the degree-granting entity.

Ahhh ok, now that makes sense to me and I can now see why things have been 'postponed'. I see that with an evolutionary scientist there, they weren't going to get away with whatever they were doing as easily. Now it makes sense.

So what we have is a graduate student, by all reports an earnest young man, who has been led down the garden path, seemingly guided by a couple of tenured ID Creationist faculty members whose anti-evolution agenda apparently overrode any commitment to the integrity of the academic process, the value of graduate education and research, or the well-being of the student. The phrase "cynical manipulation" comes to mind.

I think it should be made clear that, whether or not "stacking" occurred (which honestly seems very likely at this point), and whether or not Leonard was aware and in agreement with what was going on, he is very much the victim here.

A graduate student has the right to a thesis committee that will provide expert critical feed-back and guidance on his/her thesis work of the same kind and academic/scientific rigor that the student is likely to encounter in their independent future career. Whether the student wants it or not, it is the duty of faculty members on the committee to provide such guidance and criticism, or recuse themselves. Rubber-stamping a thesis, or even worse leading it in directions that fulfill exceedingly minoritary philosophical preferences of committee members (as opposed to the mentor's and student's, who are free to pursue whatever idea they wish) is primarily a disservice to the student, in addition to being a stain on the academic process and the Institution involved. I hope this is not what happened.

Oh come on Flint, do you really think his reward will be any less as a martyr to the cause? Win-win.

Hopefully his dissertation will be released to the public; when/if it ever is, allow me to make a prediction. It will not contain a scientific theory of ID, but will somehow manage to go on for pages and pages about how to teach the theory of ID.

— hiero5ant

Anyone who wants an idea of Leonard's work:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/index.php?p=339&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1

Just try not to read it on a full stomach.

I think it should be made clear that, whether or not "stacking" occurred (which honestly seems very likely at this point), and whether or not Leonard was aware and in agreement with what was going on, he is very much the victim here.  A graduate student has the right to a thesis committee that will provide expert critical feed-back and guidance on his/her thesis work of the same kind and academic/scientific rigor that the student is likely to encounter in their independent future career...

I admit I'm not currently familiar with any ID proponents whose position rests primarily on their martyrdom. I've seen some complaints that they don't bother to do any research because atheistic peers refuse to publish any so why bother, but there is no specific "professional victim" involved.

So I'm fairly certain that Leonard's value (to the cause as well as in dollars) is much higher as a PhD from Ohio State University, whose thesis is "How To Sneak ID Into The Classroom."

On the evidence presented, once again, this was a joint effort on the part of all of the creationists involved, to sneak an anti-science thesis through a somnolent overview process under the banner of "science education."

Andrea Bottaro has missed an essential point here: The goal is NOT education at all. The goal is the Glory of God, currently blocked at least partially by hidebound Darwinist atheistic academics of the evolutionary religion. Leonard does not consider himself rewarded by a real education and a genuine degree, but rather by the number of 9th graders he can protect from being brainwashed. And, of course, the guaranteed fame and fortune his bogus degree would be worth.

This was a great post. I'm trying to go at the ID community from another angle -- Intelligent Design is not only bad science, its crappy theology. The argument from design has been a joke ever since Hume was writing almost 300 years ago. Cardinal Newman was attacking any kind of 'evidentialism' - rational, empirical arguments for the existence of God - almost two hundred years ago. The blindness to the rich history of Christian theology of the contemporary evangelical movement is not only silly, it will be their downfall, if I have anything to say about it. I wrote about this in a recent post on my blog, but antispam measures seem to prevent me from posting a direct link.

Joe writes "Can someone tell me if it is common for science dissertations to be defended with members of humanities departments in America. That somewhat confuses me they would even consider that to begin with."

Its not unusual to have somebody well out of the field of study on the committee. This is done to make sure that no dept. is rubber stamping dissertations. On the other what is not common is to have committee comprised of people entirely outside what your Ph.D.

Course, when OSU craps on this guy as they should wait for ID's amen corner in the OS legislature to suggest cutting OSU's funding..

Arden wrote: But it doesn't sound like Leonard wanted that at all. This whole thing looks very well thought out, on the part of both Leonard and the creationists he found to stack his committee with. I'd bet he knew a real, legitimately done dissertation on ID wasn't likely, so he chose to do this end run around the system. He probably also figured if he'd got caught, he'd be ID's martyr. I don't have any definition of 'victim' in my head that fits what Leonard's done here. Flint wrote: Andrea Bottaro has missed an essential point here: The goal is NOT education at all. The goal is the Glory of God, currently blocked at least partially by hidebound Darwinist atheistic academics of the evolutionary religion. Leonard does not consider himself rewarded by a real education and a genuine degree, but rather by the number of 9th graders he can protect from being brainwashed. And, of course, the guaranteed fame and fortune his bogus degree would be worth.

I wrote about this in a recent post on my blog, but antispam measures seem to prevent me from posting a direct link.

— Tyler Simmons

Tyler,

Try tinyurl.com to fix the URL.

RBH

I followed the link and read Leonard's "lesson plan." Same old, same old.

What is most telling is how it is so radically out of date. There's lots about the specious distinction between "microevolution" and "macroevolution," coupled with the untruth that there are no observed instances of speciation, and a bald-faced misrepresentation of the endosymbiotic theory for the origin of eukaryotes.

Why don't creationists read the literature?

Of course, I should add that, in his role as teacher, with his "lesson plan" Leonard is cheating his students out of a good education. But that's another story.

re, the actual dissertation. Until it has been accepted by the committee, and processed by the department and graduate school, and sent to a bindery, and sent to the library and processed; then and only then will it end up on the library shelf. Most libraries do not allow dissertations to circulate, so you couldn't take it from the building or request it through interlibrary loan (as it'd be very difficult to replace). Some libraries may let you pay them to photocopy it for you.

Pre-defense, he'd have to want it out there for people to be reading for it to be available. I wouldn't count on it.

LPR

Why don't creationists read the literature?

re, the actual dissertation. Until it has been accepted by the committee, and processed by the department and graduate school, and sent to a bindery, and sent to the library and processed; then and only then will it end up on the library shelf. Most libraries do not allow dissertations to circulate, so you couldn't take it from the building or request it through interlibrary loan (as it'd be very difficult to replace). Some libraries may let you pay them to photocopy it for you.

Re "Why don't creationists read the literature?"

Maybe it's a bit like reading the instruction manual for a new appliance?

Henry

If things are as they seem, Leonard may well choose not graduate at all, end up on theID/creationist lecture circuit and book-writing business, be totally satisfied and make more money out of it that he would have ever made with his PhD, but he still will have been cheated out of a good education by those who did not provide proper oversight to his thesis work.

— Andrea Bottaro

Far as I know, all American universities send UMI their dissertations.

— Arden Chatfield

Bryan Leonard is a recently visible figure in the intelligent design creationism movement.

According to a transcript of a recording supplied by an attendee, DiSilvestro told the Kansas Kangaroo Court that he doesn't use evolutionary theory in his own research.

So, evo-biologist Dr. Joan Herbers [newly appointed Graduate School Representative to monitor procedures and ensure that the process conforms to the degree-granting requirements] won't have a say on the thesis subject matter, but merely on procedures?

— Aureola Nominee, FCD

Readers who want to know more about where diSilvestro is coming from will want to check out his much cited (by IDers, anyway) defense of Behe's "Black Box"

Any PT contributors at/near OSU? Any one attending the thesis defense? They are usually open. Fed X Professor Steve Steve.

So, evo-biologist Dr. Joan Herbers [newly appointed Graduate School Representative to monitor procedures and ensure that the process conforms to the degree-granting requirements] won't have a say on the thesis subject matter, but merely on procedures?

Still, that leaves open the concern. If the GFR feels that all proper procedures have been followed, can he (ethically) block the committee from accepting the thesis?

I don't know the full scope of the GSR's responsibilities and powers. But that committee composition can't stand. It's in blatant contravention of the requirements of the program in which Leonard is supposedly earning his degree. The new committee will have to revisit the Institutional Review Board materials, the dissertation proposal, and the dissertation itself before even scheduling a defense. It's possible that questions could be raised about just what Leonard was teaching by way of "challenges" to macroevolution. If he used the Wells material as he included them in the original Ohio SBOE model lesson plan, he was teaching some plain falsehoods. There were false statements of fact, at least one fake reference, and blatantly Christian creationist web sites included in the original of that lesson plan. If I were a member of that committee, I'd sure want to know if he had the IRB's permission to teach trash science to high school kids as an experimental condition.

RBH

I admit I'm not currently familiar with any ID proponents whose position rests primarily on their martyrdom.

V.8.10.2.2 Graduate Faculty Representative. The Graduate School appoints a Graduate Faculty Representative to each Final Oral Examination (ref. II.6.10.5). This person is neither a member of the student's graduate program nor of the Dissertation Committee. The Graduate Faculty Representative's role is to attend and participate in the Final Oral Examination as a full voting member and to submit to the Graduate School a report on the rigor and fairness of the examination, as well as the student's performance. (p. 116)

Wow, there were only three members on his committee? That seems low to me; but then again, I have six.

Three seems low to me, too. I had five, and two of them were ball-busters. I had the same committee for prelim and final orals. At the prelim, my advisor started it off by saying, "Well, we'll let Ray ask the first question, then we'll revive RBH and the rest of us can ask some."

RBH

Three is typical in the NCSU physics dept.

Amazing. A dissertation committee containing a specialist in technology education, a specialist in insects, a nutritionist, and a professor of Romance Languages. Coming to this cold, it would be completely impossible to guess what field his dissertation was even supposed to be in!

For some reason, as I read the article, I kept hearing a voice whispering "Lysenko. Lysenko. Lysenko."

I need a more beer, obviously.

Posted by Dave on June 7, 2005 02:21 PM (e) (s) Anyone who wants an idea of Leonard's work: http://www.evolutionnews.org/index.php?p=339&more=1&c=1&tb=1 . . . Just try not to read it on a full stomach.

Flint: I admit I'm not currently familiar with any ID proponents whose position rests primarily on their martyrdom.

When president Sloan of Baylor University requested that Dembski withdraw those remarks, Dembski sent a second memo to the entire faculty that accused the administration of "intellectual McCarthyism" and Sloan himself of "the utmost of bad faith." Not surprisingly, Sloan then sacked Dembski from his position in the Polyanyi Institute, but Dembski nevertheless claims to be a martyr.

Andrea has the money quote as far as I'm concerned for doctoral education. Wow. This is definitely something that gets passed on to our graduate dean (and my associate dean for academic affairs here in the ... college of education).

I appreciate the list of martyrs provided here. I had never heard of any of them except Dembski, and I was aware that his position wasn't renewed because he had misrepresented what his superiors had said, and when caught out, had accused THEM of bad faith! But this is why I specified that the ID proponent's position rest primarily on martyrdom. Dembski doesn't get debated at great length here because of his loss of position at Baylor, but because of his explanatory filter and his notions of CSI.

Here's one editorial on DeHart. Here's a brief bit on Rod LeVake. All I can find on Kevin Haley is an interior designer by that name. Some Dean Kenyon material is also interesting. Thanks everyone for these names. How much mileage does the DI actually get out of them?

Well, I think they sometimes show up at school board meetings and so on as Exhibit A when the ID people are banging on about how the legitimate science of ID is being stifled and silenced by the philosophical naturalists who have taken over the scientific enterprise.

I think Dean Kenyon is better known these days as one of the co-authors of "Of Pandas and People." But since school boards around the country aren't falling over themselves to use his book as their standard biology text, I suppose that counts toward his martyr status.

Dear Folks,

As someone who went through the dissertation exam process and sweated buckets all the way through it (Professor Marsh, this one's for you), it is scary and rigorous, but it should be. You should have to stare down the barrel of experts in your field and hold the down the fort in the process. For goodness sakes, it's a Ph.D. your are asking them to grant, not a driver's training certificate!

I have never been a student or postdoc at OSU, although I know people who have and commonly, candidates have at least some say as to the composition of their dissertation committee. Leonard should have worked to ensure that the fields of study relevant to his disseration were appropriately represented on his committee. It sounds to me as though he didn't, but that is difficult to determine from the information in hand. Clearly, his committee is packed with people with whom he is friendly. People sometimes have friends on their committees, but they still have to have expertise in a field of study that is relelvant to the dissertation topic. Furthermore, their status as your friend cannot obviously bias their decisions regarding the quality of your dissertation. These aspects were not met in Leonard's former committee and the delay is both appropriate and even necessary. Hopefully, the quality of his dissertation will carry the day, but with Leonard using material from Jonathan Wells as a primary source, it seems as though his scientific judgment is questionable. This situation is regrettable, but not altogether surprising.

MB

Michael Buratovich:

What RBH is talking about here is absolutely standard, SOP Creationist technique. Stack the deck, abuse the process, misrepresent the facts, whatever it takes to support the Creationist position. Leonard indeed worked to "ensure that the fields of study relevent to his dissertation was appropriately represented on his committee." His dissertation was an effort to get his brand of religion into public school science classes, and his committee was composed of those equally committed to this same goal. And that goal is certainly far more immediate in their minds than the goal of maintaining the integrity of OSU.

The statement that "his scientific judgment is questionable" completely misses the point. This is not about scientific judgment, this is about getting OSU's highest and most prestigious stamp of approval on a Creationist document and the individual who "wrote" it. Now, if anyone had been fool enough to produce a Creationist screed as a Ph.D. dissertation and NOT stack the committee with known Creationists, THAT would have been an astonishing violation of Creationist technique as demonstrated on every possible occasion. Creationists aren't stupid, they know their positions cannot stand the light of serious examination.

Has anyone sent a note to the Ohio press?

Or would that help Leonard immensely?

Has anyone sent a note to the Ohio press? Or would that help Leonard immensely?

I had three people on my UC Davis dissertation committee, which was a subset of my orals committee. It struck me as strange that Leonard's committees had so little in common with each other. People have already pointed out the weirdest thing, which is the thoroughly nonrepresentative composition of the dissertation committee. Since I was doing work in math education, the professors on my committee were from math, math ed, and a specialist in qualitative ed research (I was interviewing college-age algebra students about their math travails). Perhaps I should have recruited my committee from our school of veterinary medicine. It is, after all, a very good vet school!

This was not a science degree nor graduate work in a biology department, but an education degree in a school of education. Very very different, though the creationists will try to blur that line too.

-Steve

Flint wrote: Now, if anyone had been fool enough to produce a Creationist screed as a Ph.D. dissertation and NOT stack the committee with known Creationists, THAT would have been an astonishing violation of Creationist technique as demonstrated on every possible occasion.

Andrea Bottaro:

I'm curious now. Is it normal (or even possible) to get a thesis approved that only argues against a current theory, without providing any alternative? I think I'd be more sympathetic to a theory of evolution that didn't imply common descent but was still based on all known evidence, than a theory that attempted to show that current understandings aren't good enough. My observation has been that nobody rejects any theory on the grounds that the evidence is too weak, but rather that the evidence points instead to the position being justified. So my question is: Was Nelson's thesis specifically anti-common descent, or was it pro-something different?

I find it difficult to imagine getting a creationist thesis past an evolutionary biologist, since I have yet to meet a creationist thesis NOT based on "demonstrably false arguments and claims." Just tacking "Oh yes, by the way, there may be one or more gods" onto current evolutionary understandings wouldn't seem to bear the weight a thesis is supposed to carry.

A graduate student has the right to a thesis committee that will provide expert critical feed-back and guidance on his/her thesis work of the same kind and academic/scientific rigor that the student is likely to encounter in their independent future career.

— Andrea Bottaro

The irony here is that the dissertation committee was set up to do exactly that, provide the same kind of rigor that creationists apply to their own work: little or none.

LOL, I didn't think of that: professional Creationism as an alternative, non-academically-demanding career path. Now it all makes sense.

Depending upon how many Kurt Wises are out there, it could mean that we are completely wasting our time arguing the case and presenting the evidence for evolution. We have it on the authority of a man who may well be creationism's most highly qualified and most intelligent scientist that no evidence, no matter how overwhelming, no matter how all-embracing, no matter how devastatingly convincing, can ever make any difference. Can you imagine believing that and at the same time accepting a salary, month after month, to teach science? Even at Bryan College in Dayton, Tennessee? I'm not sure that I could live with myself. And I think I would curse my God for leading me to such a pass.

Here's one editorial on DeHart. Here's a brief bit on Rod LeVake. All I can find on Kevin Haley is an interior designer by that name. Some Dean Kenyon material is also interesting. Thanks everyone for these names. How much mileage does the DI actually get out of them?

A link to the WeirdNutDaily? Well, blow me down. Thanks.

I had three people on my UC Davis dissertation committee, which was a subset of my orals committee. It struck me as strange that Leonard's committees had so little in common with each other.

— TonyB

In "Evolution debate re-emerges" (June 9, 2005), Jody Sjogren of the Intelligent Design movement is quoted as claiming scientists are trying to shut down debate and that "... people trying to hamper academic freedom are going to find themselves swimming upstream against public preference." This is not an issue of academic freedom; it's about academic responsibility. The final dissertation defense for a Ph.D. candidate is like a certification. It is a final test to ensure that the candidate has mastered the knowledge and skills to be called "Doctor" and present himself as an expert. The validity of the certification depends on how well the candidate is examined by his committee. Leonard's committee had no one with expertise in the area of his degree (science education) or his actual dissertation topic (biological evolution). It was as though a neurosurgeon were to be certified by a committee consisting of a dermatologist, an ob/gyn, and an athletic trainer, none of whom accept the germ theory of disease. The subversion of the degree-granting process is a serious blow to the integrity of OSU's graduate program. It is an insult to all who actually earned their Ph.D. the old-fashioned way: by knowing their discipline.

Kind of hard to get (what I consider) the essential point made: WHY they are "subverting...the integrity of OSU's graduate program."

Kind of clumsy to say:

"It was as though a neurosurgeon whose thesis rejects the germ theory of disease, were to be certified by a committee consisting of a dermatologist, an ob/gyn, and an athletic trainer, all of whom also reject the germ theory, and by some strange coincidence happen to be the only members of OSU's entire faculty who reject the germ theory."

Still, I think it's important to emphasize that this peculiar and improper committee composition was not some random SNAFU resulting from clerical confusion, computer glitch, or Murphy's Law, but rather a calculated attempt to circumvent careful academic procedures in the interests of an ideology considered more important than OSU's reputation even by the faculty members committing the violation.

Damn. Wish I'd flown a draft through here before I sent it. I shouldn't write and send stuff before my second cup of coffee.

A doctoral dissertation, of all things, is the latest lightning rod in the battle over teaching evolution in Ohio. Ohio State University is investigating the makeup of a committee set to review the graduate work of a Hilliard Davidson High School biology teacher. The panel is stacked with creationists and the research might be unethical, some OSU faculty members say. (Emphasis added)

I was wrong when I said the report didn't get the IDC connections to the committee.

— RBH

Russell:

That was in the third sentence in post 34407.

Flint (and RBH). Oh, well. No big deal. I was scouring the text of the letter to the editor for a faux pas. Now, about that coffee.

I just read his critical analysis plan. Unless PhD does stand for Piled high and deep, I don't think he is qualified for a degree in science education. He clearly doesn't understand the subject matter. My question is how was he able to get so far in the first place? Didn't he have to go through a committee and qualifying exams?

My question is how was he able to get so far in the first place? Didn't he have to go through a committee and qualifying exams?

— Obeza

Obeza: by the way - I'm curious which version of the lesson plan did you read? The one that was purged of the more outrageous creationist references and adopted by the state board of education - or the original one, which was presumably the subject of the dissertation research?

This @$$hole teaches in MY school system and the school board blew me off.I'm working on other lines now. I would be willing to attend his doctoral, if only to prove a CASHIER knows more science than that bum. I am a VERY ANGRY MOTHER. My oldest wants to be an evolutionary marine biologist. I hope one of you will vouch for him when he's laughed out of college.

Tricia from Ohio:

Did you learn of Leonard's activities from this morning's Dispatch? Do you think there are other families in the Hilliard district that are surprised by the news? Its past time to start organizing a protest. At the Kansas hearings where Leonard was showcased he had this to say in answer to a question of how the school and the families of Hilliard have reacted to his teaching creationism:

"Yes, the parents are aware - the administrators are aware and are very
supportive. All the responses that I have received from the parents have been just overwhelmingly supportive. I receive calls, emails, parents pull me aside in the hallways when they came through the school, they're
just, I mean, very very ecstatic in the way in which I teach."

He's repeated this on several occasions; he has received no complaints. We'd love to know how true this is, and encourage you to complain loudly. BTW, who did you vote for in the Franklin County race for Ohio school board rep? Hilliard overwhelmingly voted for the leader of the creationist majority on the BOE, Michael Cochran. This guy is in large part responsible for giving Leonard the opportunity to write the creationism lesson plan in the Ohio curriculum, and giving him the official cover to use it in your school. You folks need to wake up. This has been going on there for at least 6 years.

while we do have greater than our share of fundies, most of the people who live here are reasonable. I voted AGAINST michael cochran, for Adam Miller. I have been fighting this from day one. Unfortunately, the way the elections here in Ohio occurred, it was rigged against any reasonable human being voting. Fortunately, I am stubborn. I only waited in line for two hours. My cousin wound up waiting for 6.
The ONLY reason I let my husband drag me out here from the inner city was the supposedly better education our children receive.I don't know which is worse, violent schools, or brainwashing ones. I'm seriously considering home schooling.

Tricia:
I understand your frustration, but I doubt home-schooling is a solution. I am quite confident the majority of teachers in Ohio will refuse to teach pseudoscience. Just monitor what your kids are being taught, and be prepared to provide them with the correct information. There are many excellent resources online and in print to debunk the crap in the Leonard-inspired curriculum.

That you know of, has there been in the past any complaint from parents against Leonard's teaching of pseudoscience? Do you know any parents of kids who were taught by Leonard, and what do they think of it?

A few comments here.

I was a grad student at OSU (mistakenly followed my advisor elsehwere to finish my Ph.D.) and the grad school takes care of business. A prof or two might try to work the system against a student but there is, at least when I was a student, an Ombudsperson that sets things straight - she was one of the few people in my 17 years of academia, as a student and a staff member, that had a backbone and made decisions that people didn't like b/c they were the right decisions (a rarity from my experience).

As for the dissertation committee not having members in the research field - mine didn't. My advisor, the one I followed, failed to get tenure and was booted because he impregnated one of his 20 y/o Med students - it was a mess in the lab after that. I was the orphan of the Dept and finished my research in a lab that only had cell cultures in common with my research. My outside Chair ended up being the expert in the field and we had to fly him in from a few thousand miles away. So I must state - not having experts in ones research field is not an isolated one time dissertation incident such as described above. The difference b/w this OSU dissertation and my own being 1) I passed b/c my research was good (the outside chair loved it) and 2) I still had enough committee members from dept to make up the prescribed ratios needed for a defense (this appears to be an issue here).

I wonder why this Dept was even used as a home base for the dissertation. Last I remember, and it was years ago, OSU had inter-disciplinary offerings. One of my options when my advisor decided to move was to stay and enter the Biophysics (one of the inter- programs) program and work with a a different one of my committee members as my advisor. I imagine that this is one route this dissertation might take???? (although it might be too late at this point since it is defense time).

One last note - someone mentioned the possibility of a bill to cut funding to OSU if ID supporting legislators got pissed off. Darwin would become the patron saint of the ID movement before that happened. If there is one sacred cow in Ohio, it is OSU.

Cheers all

Having only just found out about this, I haven't had a chance to talk to anyone yet. I have a feeling the district will try to sweep it under the rug. They are giving me the run-around.

Tricia:
thanks - I doubt you'll hear anything from the district. Other parents may be a better source of information. If you learn of any local issues related to the "critical analysis" curriculum, please let us know. Thanks.

Can someone who does this professionally visit www.insidehighered.com?

There's a bunch of folks who are happily claiming all kinds of wierd crap and need some taking down.

I just read his critical analysis plan.  Unless PhD does stand for Piled high and deep, I don't think he is qualified for a degree in science education.  He clearly doesn't understand the subject matter.  My question is how was he able to get so far in the first place?  Didn't he have to go through a committee and qualifying exams?

— Obeza

I think there is a little misunderstanding expressed above about the role of the Graduate Representative at Ohio State. I was a faculty member there for 12 years and served in that role many times. From
http://www.gradsch.osu.edu/About/Services/Graduation/Exams
/Final_Oral.html:
"A graduate student's final oral examination committee is composed of his or her dissertation committee plus the Graduate Faculty Representative appointed by the Dean of the Graduate School. In addition to being a full voting member of the Final Oral Examination Committee, the Graduate Faculty Representative reports to the Graduate School a judgment of the quality of the examination, of the dissertation or document, and of the student's performance."
Note that the Grad Rep is a full voting member and is expected to report not just on the process but on the quality of the dissertation. I was very surprised that a language prof would be appointed as the Grad Rep; I was very surprised that an assistant prof would be appointed as the Grad Rep. While the Grad Rep is from outside the home department, the person is in a related field.
I left OSU 7 years ago, so maybe accepted practice has changed.

In terms of the exam committee, many schools have 3-4 members, and depending on the "culture" at that particular school, the actual exam may or may not be a foregone conclusion. I can say that at Harvard in some departments, the committee is 1 one holdover from the thesis committee, two new members, and an outside member (from outside the institution). The particular committees that I have heard or experienced, tend to not be "ball-busters" as it were. However, if this individual at OSU were to pass then it would be an absolute travesty (all personal bias aside as I graduated BS from Michigan).

Robert DiSilvestro, the nutrition professor, said in an e-mail message that he wanted to hold off on discussing the matter until he received more information from Ohio State. "Unlike the people who started the controversy, I don't want to go public until we interact with the university," he said.

Tricia, do I understand correctly that your son did NOT have Mr. Leonard as his instructor?

If your son did have Mr. Leonard, there seems to be a breach of protocol in informing parents.

OMG - I just realized that I know DiSilvestro from my time as a grad student at OSU. I published with one of his research collaborators in the Human Nutrition Dept (that prof has since left). Don't let DiSilvestro's misguided ideas tarnish that Dept - most of the folks were good people and by that I mean real scientists.

Tricia from Ohio wrote: "This @$$hole teaches in MY school system and the school board blew me off. I'm working on other lines now. I would be willing to attend his doctoral, if only to prove a CASHIER knows more science than that bum..."

Tricia, why have you chosen to attack this mans character and intellect? Better yet, why have you reduced yourself to name calling? Perhaps the school board blew you off because they view YOU in the light that you are trying to portray him in...

A. Yes. Thank you. My name is Bryan Leonard. I received my Bachelor's of Science Degree in biology education. I received my Master's Degree in microbiology. I'm currently working on my Ph.D., actually a Ph.D. candidate at the Ohio State University studying science education. Q. And are you also employed as a high school teacher? A. Yes, I am, with-- in a suburban area right outside Columbus, Ohio Q. Is that a privatized school? A. Yes, it is. Q. And how long have you been teaching high school? A. Teaching high school biology for nine years now.

The wiki oracle says: Hillard Davidson High School. I don't know where the US keeps its school ownership data though.

Hmmm, could all of this fuss really be about the movement to use science to discredit the theory of evolution?

Has Mr. Leonard been brought under fire because he dares to seek a degree that will give him the credentials to fight the theory of evolution from a scientific perspective?

It's easy for you evolutionist to discredit religion... How do you plan to discredit science?

Religion is rather notable for discrediting itself. Evolution wasn't required for that. :-D

Meanwhile, the theory of evolution is science - and, moreover, a particularly useful component of science. It isn't any discredit to it.

Hmmm, could all of this fuss really be about the movement to use science to discredit the theory of evolution?

you evolutionist

I wonder what type of high school Mr. Leonard is currently employed because this is relevant to the data he collected about his "teach the controvery" method. If he teaches at a Christian school, then the majority of students would be more receptive to intelligent design and any evidence that would refute evolutionary biology. Does anybody know what type of school Mr. Leonard is employed?

Q. Is that a public high school? A. Yes, it is.

Hmmm, could all of this fuss really be about the movement to use science to discredit the theory of evolution?

— LDR

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank wrote: What's an "evolutionist"? Is it anything like a "gravityist" or a "moleculist"?

The American Heritage® Dictionary defines an evolutionist as follows:

Main Entry: evo·lu·tion·ist
Pronunciation: -sh(&-)n&st
Function: noun
: a student of or adherent to a theory of evolution

Actually, there are TWO high schools here in Hilliard, Darby and Davidson. My Kids will go to Darby. Mr. Leonard teaches at Davidson. The only response I've gotten is "it's legal to teach the controversy". ummm, WHAT controversy?

Rev Dr' Lenny Flank wrote: What's an "evolutionist"? Is it anything like a "gravityist" or a "moleculist"? The American Heritage® Dictionary defines an evolutionist as follows: Main Entry: evo·lu·tion·ist Pronunciation: -sh(&-)n&st Function: noun : a student of or adherent to a theory of evolution

You mean ID has some science to present? Great, glad to hear it. Can I see it, please?

Has Mr. Leonard been brought under fire because he dares to seek a degree that will give him the credentials to fight the theory of evolution from a scientific perspective? It's easy for you evolutionist to discredit religion . . . How do you plan to discredit science?

Students will be exposed to scientific information both supporting and challenging macroevolution

Students will be exposed to a course modeled on a book written by a Moonie minister, which has been deplored by every reputable scientist that has reviewed it.

Wow, I was involved in a vaguely similar situation last academic year. A former students of mine, a creationist, talked me into being on his undergrad Honors thesis committee in adult education. He said he was going to do some surveys to determine whether learning about evolution made students more likely to be atheists and suchlike. "O.k.," sez me, "I guess that's worth asking." A month before the thesis is due, I discover that it is going to contain a chapter arguing (a) for creationism and (b) for the claim that rejecting theism leads to moral nihilism.

Took myself off the committee, of course. Someone, somewhere might be able to argue interestingly for these (false) claims, but I knew that this student couldn't, and didn't want to be involved in the ensuing academic train wreck.

LDR wrote "Tricia, why have you chosen to attack this mans character and intellect? "

Why not? I'm not saying I'd do it the way Tricia is doing it. But the revelations springing forth from OSU do cast aspersions on Lenoards character and intellect.

Sorry, but his "character and intellect" are open to criticism.

Re "is "evolutionist" anything like a "gravityist" or "moleculeist"?"

Well, it doesn't have the "weight" of gravityism, or the bonding of "moleculeism", so I'd guess not.

Henry

Henry J,

LOL! Yes, but an evolutionist has the potential to develop into so much more!

You mean, rejecting evolution stunts your personal growth?

It appears to thwart one's reasoning abilities, judging from the species-ous arguments put forth in opposition.

Most of the commenters don't seem to understand how dissertation committees are set up. They are chosen by the student, with the consent of the members, not by the university. It is entirely legitimate for a student to pick a committee that agrees with his approach, and three is common (standard, at my university; at MIT, where I got my PHD, it was 2). The one outside member *is* chosen by somebody other than the student, and is meant to control quality. I am puzzled that a French prof would be chosen for an education degree, but it was not the student who chose her.

True, in this case the rules were violated, because the student had to choose two Science Education members, and had either zero or one (it's hard to tell). Education schools are noted for the low quality of their dissertations, thoug. This student had one *more* science member than required (i.e., he had one one from entomology), and one from Nutrition, which might be a real scientist. So while he violated the rules, it was in the direction of more rigor, not less.

Education schools are noted for the low quality of their dissertations, thoug.

True, in this case the rules were violated, because the student had to choose two Science Education members, and had either zero or one (it's hard to tell)....This student had one *more* science member than required (i.e., he had one one from entomology), and one from Nutrition, which might be a real scientist. So while he violated the rules, it was in the direction of more rigor, not less.

I'll also note that at least half a dozen other posters in this thread have Ph.D.s too, and several to my knowledge are faculty members at Ph.D. granting institutions. Practices vary from institution to institution. For example, I had 5 members on my committee, chosen in consultation with my advisor to represent the range of subdisciplines my area of emphasis spanned (cog psych, neuro, CS, and psycholinguistics). I recognize that 'breadth' requirements have eroded away, and I think that's not a 'good thing' (thank you, Marsha Stewart).

RBH

Earlier, from R.D.L.Flank:
"Those who can, do.

Those who can't, teach.

Those who can't teach, go to work for the Center for (the Renewal of) Science and Culture."

Thanks for providing encouragement to those of us who are teaching in the trenches, fighting this battle on the front lines. I'd come to expect more from PT than this.

don't stress about it, Lenny's kind of a jerk. He generally goes in the right direction, so it's not so bad.

Just got off the phone with the assistant superintendent in charge of the curriculum, she had no clue. She is doing further investigations, because they told her they WEREN'T teaching ID, when the biodesign class is all about it. She was not happy.

Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. Those who can't teach, go to work for the Center for (the Renewal of) Science and Culture.

Posted by Tricia from Ohio Comment #34980:

"Just got off the phone with the assistant superintendent in charge of the curriculum, she had no clue. She is doing further investigations, because they told her they WEREN'T teaching ID, when the biodesign class is all about it. She was not happy."

Careful here. The people at the Ohio Department of Education concerned with pandering to fundamentalist constituents will swear that the "Critical Analysis of Evolution" lesson plan doesn't teach ID, when it clearly takes it's points directly from Well's "Darwin's Black Box". All but the final, sanitized, version of the lesson contained references to creationist materials. What would be helpful is if you could learn exactly what is taught. The majority of the material in Leonard's course will be good science, even if it is called "Biodesign". I suspect that one or two days though are spent with the "Critical Analysis of Evolution" lesson plan, either Leonard's own version, or the one approved by the OBOE. If you can get details of that it could be extremely helpful.

Mike:The majority of the material in Leonard's course will be good science, even if it is called "Biodesign".

Tricia is being extremely helpful. I'm sure other concerned families in Hilliard will join her in time. IMO, the overriding problem with teaching creationism as science isn't conflict with the first amendment. That's just one convenient way of stopping it in the courts. The real problem is that it totally destroys the public's understanding of what science is, even if only presented for a few minutes in a class that otherwise uses good material. The primary goal of educating the general public in science isn't the memorization of factoids. What we need is a voting public that knows the process of science: how science is conducted, what peer is, and why consensus opinion in the scientific community matters. Gone are the days when science could be left to the educated elite. The public now has to be able to evaluate science reports they hear on the news, differentiate between science and psuedo-science, and weigh ethical concerns based on current scientific knowledge. Creationism teaches that one person's "theory" is as good as the next one, and any ridiculous claim is enough to bring doubt to a theory. We can't afford it.

coupla things:

Darkling said: "Teaching well is hard work."

I guess Lenny was being flip, and should maybe be sent to his room with no supper to think about his words. But good teaching well is what Panda's Thumb is all about, all kidding aside. When I become emperor of the world, teachers will be the highest paid professionals there are, and it will be a very competitive choice of careers.

TriciaFromOhio said: "Just got off the phone with the assistant superintendent in charge of the curriculum, she had no clue. She is doing further investigations, because they told her they WEREN'T teaching ID, when the biodesign class is all about it. She was not happy."

Well, I'd largely echo what Mike wrote. But just to refresh everyone's memory. It's an easy concession to make, to say you're not teaching ID, because as we have seen abundantly demonstrated here at PT, there is no theory of ID to teach! It pretty much consists of bogus arguments against evolution with the alternative (Goddidit!) hovering in the background, either explicitly (when rallying the christian soldiers) or implicitly (when trying to sneak it into public schools). The "critical analysis of evolution" plan Leonard co-wrote looked like it was cribbed directly from ID celebrity Jonathan Wells' "Icons of Evolution". Does that book promote ID? Or just raise bogus objections to evolution? Is there a difference?

The "critical analysis" plan as originally submitted to the BoE was riddled with patently religious web links, and other references - including to Wells' book - that were purged last year before the final version was approved. But if Leonard has been teaching this for years, I'm guessing the lesson plan would have been more objectionable than the one made public by the BoE.

Re: "We're not teaching ID" doublespeak

Case in point: http://tinyurl.com/7t52p
The latest from those people with no shame at the Discovery Institute.

test before double posting

Earlier, from R.D.L.Flank: "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. Those who can't teach, go to work for the Center for (the Renewal of) Science and Culture." Thanks for providing encouragement to those of us who are teaching in the trenches, fighting this battle on the front lines. I'd come to expect more from PT than this.

I guess Lenny was being flip, and should maybe be sent to his room with no supper to think about his words.

— Russel

"One requites a teacher badly if one remains merely a student"

Comment #34912 Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 12, 2005 07:08 PM (e) (s) Education schools are noted for the low quality of their dissertations, thoug. Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. Those who can't teach, go to work for the Center for (the Renewal of) Science and Culture.

— 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank

One repays a teacher badly if one always remains only a pupil. And why, then, should you not pluck at my laurels?