Science teachers vs Al Gore


From the L.A. Times -


In a Washington Post op-ed piece, she (David) noted that whenever she screened the film, admiring viewers clamored that "every student in every school in the United States needed to see this movie." So how could a teachers' group turn down her generous offer while scooping up millions of dollars of oil company dough — including $6 million from Exxon Mobil since 1996?

"These companies have spent years misinforming the public about global warming … lying to the public about global warming!" David railed in a phone conversation that singed my right ear. If Big Oil really had students' best interests in mind, they could build playgrounds, she said, rather than trying to spin curriculum. "They're trying to infiltrate the schools."

Bill Aldridge, who served 16 years as executive director of the science teachers association, has followed the controversy and is appalled at his former organization's decision. "They don't want to offend oil companies and American Petroleum Institute," he said.


From the Oregonian:

The problem is, David is not telling the whole story. In a news release two days after David's article originally ran in The Washington Post, the teachers association provided the other side of the story; namely, it had offered an alternative means of distribution to David. That method was for the film company to purchase the association's mailing list and distribute the 50,000 copies on its own. However, that apparently wasn't good enough for David. The teachers association also explained that even though companies such as ExxonMobil and Shell donate millions of dollars to it, they give with the full knowledge that "the NSTA is solely responsible for developing, directing and implementing the programs we offer to teachers."

Then, two days later, on Nov. 30, Science magazine published an article about the tiff and shed even more light on the subject. First, the teachers association had not completely ignored the movie. In fact, it had done a few things to promote it:

Last month, the association's newsletter for middle-school teachers ran a five-page article on the topic of global warming and mentioned Gore's movie in the first paragraph.

The association also has offered to post a link to the movie on its Web site and to announce the availability of the DVD in a weekly e-mail letter and a monthly publication.

David subsequently admitted that, yes, the teachers group had offered the mailing list as an alternative means of distribution (although she conveniently neglected to mention it in her column). But, as she states, "You don't want to send out a cold letter, and it costs a lot of money." So, in effect, she is upset about two things:

First, the teachers association wouldn't provide a letter endorsing the movie, even though it would be in direct violation of its longstanding policy prohibiting endorsements of any product or message by an outside organization.

Second, the teachers association wouldn't pay for the costs of mailing 50,000 DVDs.

But, then, why should it? It wasn't the association's idea.

After looking at all this, it appears that the inconvenient truth is this case is that Laurie David should stop whining and start telling the whole story.