Mister Tredyffrin and Friends

Did you check your facts with others in attendance? Ask Ms. Bookstaber for a statement? At least post a disclaimer that you have not verified the information in this letter?

Fortunately, Ms. Bookstaber has posted a video of her answering this question.

http://debbiebookstaber.blogspot.com/2007/04/clearing-air-what-i-really-said-at.html

It is clear that what she really said is that EVEN at her Catholic school they had no problems with teaching evolution; that while she respects all views, many of these decisions about textbook content are made at the state level; and that curriculum decisions should be made in consultation with the teachers and administrators who have the appropriate knowledge base.

This is quite different than "I think the matter requires more study."

Which leaves me to wonder why there is an attempt to brand Ms. Bookstaber with a view she does not hold. Is it because of her party affiliation? Then why just attack her? Is it due to her religious affiliation? Now there's an ugly possibility.

How are our children better served? By concentrating on political squabbles? Or by comparing the credentials of the candidates and selecting the ones the voters believe will do the best job?

By examining Debbie's biography, statements, and resume, you can see that she is thoughtful and intelligent, well-educated, articulate, fiscally responsible (having overseen budgets in the hundreds of millions), an active volunteer, and cares deeply about education and her community.

If you still do not wish to vote for her because she is a Republican, that is of course your right. But please do not make up nonsense an a ridiculous attempt to convince others not to vote for a qualified candidate.

Debbie Bookstaber said that she respects all points of view and would leave curriculum decisions up to state experts. Does she respect the point of view of people who think the earth is flat? Do we need state experts to tell us every time the scientific method is tarnished?

Creationism-intelligent design is quackery and deserves no respect. It is not science.

Now "sage" wants to claim religious persecution. No dice. We're not falling for that change of subject.

I'm not afraid that Debbie Bookstaber would represent Republicans only. I'm afraid that she won't represent the views of 90% of the residents of Tredyffrin/Easttown.

Debbie Bookstaber does not share the values of our community. We need a school board member with established ties to Tredyffrin and the T/E school district.

I strongly support Art Post, "The Intelligent Choice." -- A.L.

I was at the meeting in question. The fact is, that both Kevin Mahoney & Kevin Grewell immediately dimsissed intelligent design (the part of the video not shown). However, Debbie Bookstaber refused to give a personal view. She stated that she "respected all views" and that it would have to be left to "teachers & administrators" to decide. That is not what was asked. Why was it she could not answer the question as Kevin Mahoney & Kevin Grewell did? I believe it is because Debbie did not want to alienate her very conservative base. Period.

From Ms. Bookstaber's site:

"While I am respectful of people who believe in creationism and intelligent design, I am not one of them. I have absolutely no intention of changing the way evolution is taught in our school district."

So, again, I ask, why the attack on Ms. Bookstaber.

On the video she says that EVEN a Catholic school taught evolution, that the State sets the textbooks (which include evolution), and that teachers and administrators (educational experts) would need to be consulted about curriculum--which reads to me as saying that accepted science would rule the day.

Perhaps she wasn't as clear as you would have wished her to be at the meeting, but she certainly did not say what the letter writer claims (the video proves this). Although I think her remark was clear enough if you aren't trying to read into it, she clarified her position further on her website.

So you have your definitive statement and you have your video tape...

Not to mention I don't think it is all that relevant what her PERSONAL belief is (although it is clearly in evolution). What is relevant is how she would act as a member of the school board.

Why the inflammatory, unfounded, and unverified accusations? Wouldn't it have been easier to simply contact Ms. Bookstaber and ask, "Your statement at the meeting has us wondering, would you or wouldn't you, yes or no?"

Roll tape, ...more tape.
It's very helpful to have the video excerpt at Ms. Bookstaber's website, but it would be add even more documentary clarity to view the responses on intelligent design from all the candidates that evening.
Okay, a longer video might require some viewer patience to digest more than just a sound bite, but the full flow of answers would enable us to compare and contrast, not just parse words.
I believe that Ms. Malard's point was that she found a significant difference between Ms. Bookstaber's answer and that of the other school board candidates.
Roll more tape, please!

I have to agree that more tape is needed to address the issue that you are pursuing, sage. Not only the answers from the others, to which Ms. Malard was comparing Ms. Bookstaber’s comments, but also the entire answer from Ms. Bookstaber. I am sure that there are good reasons for only posting such a tight and carefully spliced snippet of her answer. But if you want to defend against the claim that she said something in particular, you can not offer a video of only part of the answer as proof. Does that make sense?

Besides, the principle issue here is the evasiveness of the response, not the actual semantics. The other candidates offered a simple, short answer along the lines of, “ID? Creationism? No way.” Ms. Bookstaber’s carefully measured and “balanced” response lends credence to a major affront to the scientific method. Act Local is entirely correct in his analogy, but I would go still further. Would Ms. Bookstaber recommend the same protected delegation of authority to teachers and administrators if they wanted to teach Norse mythology as science? After all, if evolution is a theory, why can’t the theory of thunder being Thor’s hammer be taught? Or how about extremist jihad Islamic fundamentalism as science? Just a theory, after all…

No, the essence of the question to Ms. Bookstaber, which was answered clearly by the others on the panel, was would she have the moral conviction to step up to prevent the embarrassing Dover debacle from happening in our township. Her answer was clear, too: no. Or, perhaps, it is simply that she does have a moral conviction, but it is not one that she is thrilled to share with the ttdems audience?

I'm sure she'll be happy to post as much of the tape as you like. The reason for the "snippet" is just that she was answering an accusation. The tape proves she clearly did not say what she was accused of saying. The accusation made in the letter here is inaccurate and inflammatory. Period.

If you want more about her position, visit her website.

If you want more than that, ask.

She has stated she will answer all questions.

First the posters seem to argue that you are concerned someone will impose a moral conviction other than your own on the curriculum.

In that case, wouldn't it be better to have a candidate elaborate on her process for reaching a decision, instead of simply answering about one issue in a sound bite? This time all three candidates agree with you...but what about next time?

Now you have both. Ms. Bookstaber's opinion on evolution (she believes in it, along with the other generally accepted facts and theories of respectable science) AND how she would deal with a controversial issue.

1. Check the state curriculum for guidance (PA Science State Standard 3.3.D clearly deals with evolution)

2. Consult with the pedagogical and content experts (teachers and administrators).

The fact that this is her approach should be more reassuring than any one statement of personal belief.

There is no smoke, there is no fire, just an attempt to brand a candidate with a view she does not hold.

Hi all,

i'm just starting to pay attention to this race. and I find this blog really interesting, thank you!

Creationism and intelligent design are conservativeBS. No one really believes them, I think, or at least a very small minority. Frankly, I think it's a question that just gets asked to polarize elections. It doesn't seem like a particularly big threat--i'd rather hear about school funding, and how we can reach our children with special needs, and more about how no child left behind has ended up leaving behind our most talented children--like the article in time magazine a week or two ago.

in any event, i wasn't at this speech but i've read the blog and watched the video, and it doesn't seem like debbie bookstaber supports creationism. it just seemed to me like she was trying to be respectful and nice. and what's wrong with that, really? i'm pretty tired of all the hatemongering in politics. i think we're going to look pretty silly if we spend a lot of time trying to twist debbie's words and paint her as a creationist.

just my two cents. she doesn't look half bad to me actually. her website doesn't really make her look very conservative at all.

re: tredymom's comments about polarized elections
I served as the moderator for the forum where Debbie Bookstaber, Kevin Mahoney and Kevin Grewell addressed the Tredyffrin Democrats. Almost all of the questions dealt with funding, school board process and educational issues. The question regarding the teaching of intelligent design was the last question of the evening and was almost omitted due to time constraints. Had you been there and heard the candidates, you would have immediately recognized the glaring difference in the fundamental quality of three candidates' answers. The question was not polarizing, but Debbie Booksatber's response certainly was.

sage wrote: "I'm sure she'll be happy to post as much of the tape as you like. The reason for the 'snippet' is just that she was answering an accusation."

Posting the additional video, the whole sequence of candidate responses to this question, would be a service to the debate here. Please post a link in this thread. Thanks for the offer.

sage said: "...the posters seem to argue that you are concerned someone will impose a moral conviction other than your own on the curriculum."

You really don't get it, sage. This isn't about moral convictions, this is about teaching pseudo-theory contrary to scientific evidence.

Moral convictions can be discussed in an educational framework, but not taught, not even as alternate theory.

The creationists-intelligent designists are constantly trying to bring up moral convictions to confuse the issue.

You can keep trying to confuse the issue, but don't expect to fool people by asking for Debbie to be given a 2nd chance to refine, explain or restate her answer. I don't think I'll be voting for you for school board if you ever run, but if I ever need a personal apologist I'll keep your name on file. -- A.L.

I'm not the one who initiated the use of the language, "moral convictions," Act Local.

Ms. Bookstaber did, does, and will continue to believe in the accepted scientific theories regarding evolution.

Now, if the accusation is that some are concerned she will not fight those who do not believe this strongly enough, you can believe that if you choose to...but that is a far cry from the original post.

As for the video, I neither shot it nor have it in my possession. If you want more information, you should go ask for it. If Ms. Bookstaber has more, I'm sure she'd post it if asked. Although possibly she only videotaped her answers.

An accusation was made, clear proof presented that it was not true, and then the argument shifted elsewhere, with no retraction of the original nasty statement (or even a posting in a more visible place of the link so others could decide for themselves).

It is clear that most people here never would have considered voting for Bookstaber. Hopefully if some more open minded and moderate democrats see this thread, they will click the link and read Ms. Bookstaber's blog and reach their own conclusions. They may still vote for other candidates for this or other reasons, as is their right--but my only concern in this case is that they have more information.

I had a link, I provided it. It contradicts the original accusation. Now others can see it, too.

You appear rather confident in yourself, sage.

First off, I'll say this again, since you're obviously missing the logic:

clear proof presented that it was not true ... I had a link, I provided it. It contradicts the original accusation. Now others can see it, too.

You can not prove someone did not say something by only showing part of the answer. The video clip in the link you provided does not show Ms. Bookstaber's full answer. Neither does it show the answers that the others' provided. Maybe she did say it. Maybe she didn't. Maybe the others were just as evasive as she was. But what you provided in no way constitutes "proof", nor does it "contradict" anything. If you want to provide proof, do it. Otherwise please do not try and mislead the folks here.

Second,

then the argument shifted elsewhere

I'm assuming that you're talking about the fact that Ms. Bookstaber's answer was evasive, delegatory, and totally unlike her colleagues' answers? I would recommend you go back and read Sandy's original, very brief letter. It won't take long. Nothing shifted anywhere. I believe you're just trying to frame the argument in a way that you think looks better for your candidate. That seems to me to be somewhat disingenuous.

We're all just getting to know each other here. Throwing around words like "proof" without foundation endangers your credibility. I don't want that. As you can understand, most of the folks around here are of the more liberal, Democratic persuasion. I'd rather keep all sides of the issues represented, with respect offered from all.

From the original letter: "Debbie Bookstaber, however, would only say: 'I think the matter requires more study.'"

There is clearly proof that this is not true.

If you want to be fair, post the link with the letter so people can decide for themselves, like you did with those resumes.

My understanding from those that were there is that they are claiming that if we saw more, we'd see a "contrast" in the answers, but not that it didn't show her full answer. Either way, the original statement, that all Ms. Bookstaber would say is, "I think the matter requires more study," isn't true. YOU'RE argument would be strengthened if in the face of proof you'd admit that much.

The "argument shifting" is referring to this new idea from you that whether or not she is a creationist (and it would be nice if you admitted that she has since done what the original writer asked and clarified in a unambiguous statement that she is not), but rather "would she have the moral conviction to step up to prevent the embarrassing Dover debacle from happening in our township."

Now that is a horse of a different color.

You are of course feel free to argue that her answer did not satisfy you that she would be strong enough in resisting these elements.

Based on her various statements and her CV, I do believe she would be strong enough. You don't. Fine. There is room for debate on that point and I have no issue with someone holding a different opinion on a topic that is actually a matter of opinion.

But she is no creationist, and the original letter's accusation is false.

I guess we read Sandy's letter differently. You latched onto the details of the exact words that came out of her mouth, and your opinion that she is not, as was implied in the letter, in fact a Creationist, herself. I and others focused on the overall message that was there - the evasiveness of her answer, the difference between her answer and those of her colleagues, and the way she was so quick to defer to some other "experts". These three elements are either implied or directly stated in Sandy's letter. They were the point of the letter!

So, to satisfy your parsing of "Would only say..."? Semantic point conceded. Yes, she did not only say that. She did say other things, too. I guess your "proof" point would have been satisfied had Ms. Bookstaber published her introduction of herself, too, right? You win. And Bookstaber now clearly states on her blog that she is not a Creationist? Okay. she did. Forgive me if I don't dance with relief at this "revelation".

Let's step back and give closer listen to the portion of video that she actuallly did carefully choose to share with us. I did my best to transcribe it:

[hard video cut] When I first heard about evolution it was at Catholic School...and they...even at Catholic School they had no problem teaching evolution. So, you know, and I think it is important to respect all points of view, but a lot of those textbook decisions are made at the State level, anyway and anything like that should be made after consulting with the teachers and the administrators and the people who really know what they are doing.[hard video cut]

This is the message to which people are objecting, sage. You do not have to respect all points of view in a science class. You do have to respect all scientific points of view. Not mythology, for example – neither Norse nor ID. The “moral convicition” that I was referring to (which was not your usage) was whether she could step up to exactly that kind of silliness. The Dover debacle is no horse of any color, sage. The shadow of that embarrassment hangs over all Pennsylvania. If that hadn’t happened, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. The snippet of video she chose to share clearly states she would defer to the State, and "rely on those who really know what they’re doing". That was not enough in my book.

Oh - and "to be fair" - if Ms. Bookstaber publishes the entire video response to all the answers to that question, then a proper comparison is possible, and I would be happy to publish the link for a side-by-side comparison. Until then, though, there is too much opportunity for "creative editing".

Hey all,
Just in response to Irl Barg, why do you say the question isn't polarizing? Isn't the response on this blog a clear indication that is was? I can't speak for the quality of the other candidates' answers becuase I wasn't there, but if that video is all you have to say that Debbie Bookstaber is a creationist, I just don't think it's that convincing. And frankly, while I think creationists are crazy, if they're not pushing it in he schools, I don't care. And Debbie doesn't seem like she's pushing it in the schools. It just seems like she hedged a bit so as not to offend republicans. i'd rather she hadn't but it surely doesn't sound like she came out as a creationist.

And why do y'all think the video is edited? seriously? i've watched it a ton to try to see what you're talking about and i just don't see it!

And why do y'all think the video is edited? seriously?

Just to clarify - I don't think anyone has accused Ms. Bookstaber of changing the segment of video that she chose to put on her website - only that she specifically did not include the parts of her answer that came before and after that, or the answers of the other candidates.

re: treddymom's further comments about polarizing answers and about hedging a bit so as not to offend...

Again, the question itself was not polarizing. If the Bookstabers ever post Debbie's husband's entire video of the forum (or at least the entire video of the last question), you will see that there is nothing controversial about the responses from the other two candidates. There is a wide gulf between their remarks and Debbie Bookstaber's answer.

I do not believe Debbie Bookstaber is a creationist. But she has displayed a willingness to respect non-science, or at least a willingness to consider respect for non-science. I really don't care if she is sincere in that respect or is just trying to placate some different audience for her future political ambitions. This is just not an appropriate issue to hedge on. By the way, treddymom, you insult most Tredyffrin Republicans if you think anyone has to nod toward creationism in order not to offend them. The mainstream Democrats and Republicans in our community are not creationists. If you or Debbie Bookstaber honestly think anyone needs to "hedge a bit" on creationism, you are really out of touch with the shared values of our community.

My wife, Janet Walkow, served at various times as one of the school board liaisons when our children were in T/E elementary and middle schools. Our children spent a collective 35 "student-years" in the T/E school system. We know the schools, the district and the board fairly well. There are 3 candidates for Region 2 school director, 2 of whom are qualified for the position. Based on our knowledge of the candidates, their experience and views, Janet and I urge the residents of Tredyffrin & Easttown and the voters in Region 2 to support Art Post and Kevin Mahoney. And, yes, anything else could really be polarizing.
Thanks. --