GrammarBlog

As a science graduate I'm not a big fan of creationism. I have nothing against religion but I object to creationism being taught as a scientific theory in schools. This is much more of an issue in the US; especially in the mid-west and southern states where, it would appear, nearly everyone is a raving lunatic.

I've been following the story of Chris Comer, who was fired as Director of Science Curriculum for the Texas Education Agency. She forwarded an email to a group of friends and colleagues about a lecture by a leading critic of Intelligent Design. This was seen an endorsement of evolution and she was fired. That's like being fired for endorsing gravity.

An appeal is in progress that is focused on the skewed logic of this sacking. The main objection seems to be that it is wrong to interpret the forwarding of an email as an endorsement of the content. Language log commented in favour of Comer in a post. I would argue that it's wrong to fire a science teacher for condoning the teaching of science but apparently this argument doesn't hold water in Texas.

Anyway, disregarding the politics for a moment, Mr. Verb found issue with a quote from Ms. Comer reported here by the NYT:

I don’t see how I took a position by F.Y.I.-ing on a lecture like I F.Y.I. on global warming or stem-cell research,” Ms. Comer said.

To fyi, or to F.Y.I. as the Times copy editors prefer, just had to be out there … it sounds like perfect bureaucratic talk ... but I don't think I'd ever heard it and I'm pretty sure I'd never seen it in print.

Labels: grammar, justice, language, rants, verbing, wrong word