Wiggle room.
It is a phrase that implies ambiguity. It is often used to refer to flexibility of interpretation or of options.
After last month's hearings on the proposed revisions to the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) for Science, it might also be an appropriate name for Room 1-104 in the William B. Travis Building.
At least that's where the current wiggling began.
In an earlier post, I commented on a blatantly false public statement from Texas State Board of Education Chairman, Dr. Don McLeroy.
Here's a quick summary of the situation:
At last month's hearing on the new draft standards, McLeroy uttered the following statement:
I don't think you'll find a single Board member that has ever advocated - in fact I don't know of a single Board member that has ever advocated - teaching creationism, teaching intelligent design, or teaching supernatural explanations in the science classroom.
It was quickly pointed out that McLeroy and other current Board members had done exactly that in their responses to questionnaires for voter's guides put out by the Texas affiliate of Dr. James Dobson's Focus on the Family.
The questionnaires seemed to leave the respondents with very little wiggle room:
2002 - CREATIONISM: Present scientific evidence supporting intelligent design, and not just evolution, and treat both theories as viable ones on the origin of life.
2006 - INTELLIGENT DESIGN: Present scientific evidence in our public schools supporting intelligent design, and not just evolution, and treat both theories as viable ones on the origin of life.
2006 - INTELLIGENT DESIGN: Present scientific evidence in our public schools supporting intelligent design, and not just evolution, and treat both theories as viable ones on the origin of life.
Respondents were asked to indicate their positions by choosing one of the following options:
SF - Strongly Favor
F - Favor
U - Undecided
O - Opposed
SO - Strongly Opposed
F - Favor
U - Undecided
O - Opposed
SO - Strongly Opposed
As Cheryl pointed out early in this saga, McLeroy and his fellow anti-evolution Board members all chose "Strongly Favor."
Now, over at Blog of the Airtightnoodle, we find the following from Dr. McLeroy:
I had forgotten about those voter guides when I made my statement. My mistake. It is true, however, that I have never stated that I want to teach Creationism or Intelligent Design nor do I want to. Voter guides leave little wiggle room sometimes; they will put you in a box and you have to choose which box in which [sic] best represents your views.
Someone who does not want to teach Creationism or Intelligent Design would select "Opposed" or "Strongly Opposed" when asked to respond to statements like the ones above.
The contradictory nature of Dr. McLeroy's public statements are not due to a lack of wiggle room.
There is too much wiggling going on as it is.
posted by Jeremy Mohn
