Science Education Act provides plenty of reasons to be scared: James Gill

Science Education Act provides plenty of reasons to be scared: James Gill
By James Gill
NOLA.com

"What are we scared of?" Gov. Bobby Jindal asked when he appeared on TV last week to endorse teaching creationism in public school science classes. So let's tell him our fears. We're scared that a lawsuit will be filed to invalidate the Louisiana Science Education Act, because it is plainly unconstitutional and defending it would be futile. We lost on the issue in the U.S. Supreme Court 30 years ago, and it beggars belief that our thinking hasn't evolved since then. We tremble to think how much it would cost to go through that rigmarole again. The courts have slapped down every attempt to smuggle Adam and Eve into school.

The Louisiana law purports to encourage "critical thinking," but that is just a fig leaf. Creationists wheeled it out when "intelligent design" was laughed out of court.

We're scared all right, and not just about money. We're scared the rest of the country will think we're all as dumb as Jindal down here. When you go out of state you can never be sure the locals won't start giggling among themselves because they figure you're on the way to an exorcism and believe a humorous God fabricated the fossil record in an instant.

It would be hard to match that for a practical joke, but only 6,000 years later along came Jindal. His routine is a side-splitter. Although consumed with ambition to be its presidential nominee, he ups and calls the GOP "the stupid party." Perhaps it would not be reasonable to expect a politician ruled by superstition to perceive the irony here.

Then Jindal campaigns for a constitutional amendment that subjects gun laws to strict scrutiny, calls it "an ironclad guarantee of freedom" and thereby may have invalidated laws that disarm felons. That question remains to be settled by the state Supreme Court, but, regardless, Louisiana citizens already exercise their freedom to pump one another full of lead at a rate unmatched in any other state.

The constitutional amendment passed, but what were its proponents scared of? If they really believe that President Barack Obama is plotting to confiscate their guns and leave them at the mercy of criminal gangs and jackbooted government troops, then the country is afflicted with mass paranoia. If they think this, or any president, could repeal the Second Amendment, they are too unbalanced to be trusted with a firearm anyway.

At least, in springing to the defense of the Science Education Act, Jindal does not deny that its purpose is to push creationist dogma. Legislators who approved it at the behest of the Louisiana Family Forum have always denied that it was named for what it is designed to undermine and pretended a secular justification for confusing science with faith.

Jindal is, however, sticking with the fraudulent claim that the act encourages students to develop "critical thinking skills" by exposing them to competing theories. That is the essence of the creationist fraud - the idea that Darwin can be scientifically gainsaid.

But, if the Holy Spirit could be tested in the laboratory, the point would be lost. The spiritual and the scientific have nothing in common. It is for science to encourage critical thought, and for religion to suspend it. Logic serves us in one sphere, and damns us in the other. If the story of creation comported with the laws of physics, there would be no need for faith. Critical thinking skills are vital in the workaday world, but a higher truth is needed to enter heaven.

That's the main reason we're scared of the Science Education Act. By encouraging biology teachers to supplement the curriculum with "supplementary materials," it ferments confusion. Darwin and Genesis cannot both be literally true, and allowing teachers to contradict themselves is an odd way for encouraging critical thinking.

So we're scared decent universities will disdain the products of our public schools. We already know that scientists have declined to teach at LSU for fear of encountering students with the kind of critical skills Jindal values. God help us all.
James Gill can be reached at jamessydneygill@gmail.com.

I got no problem with it.

The greatest tyranny ever is not the one that uses force to ensure uniformity and compliance, but the one that removes all evidence of other possibilities.

Teach them side-by-side. If you have faith in what it is you believe in so strongly, this case would be science, then you should have enough faith that it will succeed without trying to stifle other views. Stifling the idea of creationism makes you just as wrong as a religious man stifling Darwinism.

What is so hard about that???

Do you believe that I am.......dumb???

Like lol

Marconius wrote:I got no problem with it.

The greatest tyranny ever is not the one that uses force to ensure uniformity and compliance, but the one that removes all evidence of other possibilities.

Teach them side-by-side. If you have faith in what it is you believe in so strongly, this case would be science, then you should have enough faith that it will succeed without trying to stifle other views. Stifling the idea of creationism makes you just as wrong as a religious man stifling Darwinism.

What is so hard about that???

Do you believe that I am.......dumb???

The reason is that many teachers aren't even well trained in science (nat sci degrees are a joke) and tend to lack sufficient background in the biologic principles of Evolution. Many do have religious backgrounds and have an imperative to not give an equal presentation. Finally, even if the teacher is adequately educated on the principles of evolution and points out the slew of holes in the creationist argument, then they have to deal with all the pissed off parents and community members and all the accusations of bigotry (if you point out the flaws of Islam in the US your a hero, but if you point out the flaws in Christianity your a bigot). Beyond that, why should a secular institution waste precious class time going over ancient myths when they could be covering...you know...actual evidence based science. I think Berkman and Plutzer (2011) did an excellent job of analyzing the challenges to science education in the United States.

Marconius wrote:I got no problem with it.
The greatest tyranny ever is not the one that uses force to ensure uniformity and compliance, but the one that removes all evidence of other possibilities.

Teach them side-by-side. If you have faith in what it is you believe in so strongly, this case would be science, then you should have enough faith that it will succeed without trying to stifle other views. Stifling the idea of creationism makes you just as wrong as a religious man stifling Darwinism.

Heh, do you really think that the religious right would ever, ever allow schools anywhere to "remove all evidence of other possibilities" when it comes to creationism vs evolution? :-P They'd prefer it the other way around, that evolution would disappear...

So in places that have Bible/religion class, if a teacher is talking about the book of Genesis or the Creation story, they should also mention that other people believe in evolution instead? Or they should encourage or at least not stifle debate in the class if some students want to bring that up? Or maybe they can talk about what Islam or Judaism believes the creation story is? Yeah, can see that one going down real well with the type of people that are proposing these bills....

If creationism (oops, "intelligent design", sorry. Oops, "critical thinking" now apparently, sorry) was a valid scientific theory than I say sure yeah, teach away. But it isn't. A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step—known as a theory—in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon.. Creationism/ID falls down on the "supported with repeated testing" and "evidence" part there. And poking holes in theory A doesn't make theory B valid, it's not a zero sum game. Most of the arguments "for" ID/creationism are really arguments against evolution, no-one is saying (can say?) "ID is a better explanation than Evolution because of these facts supporting it that have been repeatedly tested and proven by multiple groups of independent scientists". If you want to mention while teaching that not everyone believes in evolution then fine, but if you say that then you can't just give ID/Creationism equal billing, because in a science class, which is about science, they're not equal. You can say that evolution is a theory but then you have to teach what the correct scientific definition of a theory is as opposed to the general public perception of a theory which is "something that someone has made up and that hasn't really been proven in any real way yet". And if you use the proper definition of a theory that then you can't put Creationism/ID forward as an equally valid theory to Evolution, because it isn't one.

Bryant wrote:

Marconius wrote:I got no problem with it.

The greatest tyranny ever is not the one that uses force to ensure uniformity and compliance, but the one that removes all evidence of other possibilities.

Teach them side-by-side. If you have faith in what it is you believe in so strongly, this case would be science, then you should have enough faith that it will succeed without trying to stifle other views. Stifling the idea of creationism makes you just as wrong as a religious man stifling Darwinism.

What is so hard about that???

Do you believe that I am.......dumb???

The reason is that many teachers aren't even well trained in science (nat sci degrees are a joke) and tend to lack sufficient background in the biologic principles of Evolution. Many do have religious backgrounds and have an imperative to not give an equal presentation. Finally, even if the teacher is adequately educated on the principles of evolution and points out the slew of holes in the creationist argument, then they have to deal with all the pissed off parents and community members and all the accusations of bigotry (if you point out the flaws of Islam in the US your a hero, but if you point out the flaws in Christianity your a bigot). Beyond that, why should a secular institution waste precious class time going over ancient myths when they could be covering...you know...actual evidence based science. I think Berkman and Plutzer (2011) did an excellent job of analyzing the challenges to science education in the United States.

If the teachers are that bad at it, maybe the correct course would be to teach neither. It is a disservice to students to force them to be taught a subject that the teacher doesn't know.

I think you also overestimate power of the church down here. In the south, we are mostly raised Catholic, but most are only religious for about 30 min a week. Many of us down here left religion. Up north is a different story. They are mostly Baptists and would love to see evolution forced out.

Miles1 wrote:

Marconius wrote:I got no problem with it.
The greatest tyranny ever is not the one that uses force to ensure uniformity and compliance, but the one that removes all evidence of other possibilities.

Teach them side-by-side. If you have faith in what it is you believe in so strongly, this case would be science, then you should have enough faith that it will succeed without trying to stifle other views. Stifling the idea of creationism makes you just as wrong as a religious man stifling Darwinism.

Heh, do you really think that the religious right would ever, ever allow schools anywhere to "remove all evidence of other possibilities" when it comes to creationism vs evolution? :-P They'd prefer it the other way around, that evolution would disappear...

So in places that have Bible/religion class, if a teacher is talking about the book of Genesis or the Creation story, they should also mention that other people believe in evolution instead? Or they should encourage or at least not stifle debate in the class if some students want to bring that up? Or maybe they can talk about what Islam or Judaism believes the creation story is? Yeah, can see that one going down real well with the type of people that are proposing these bills....

If creationism (oops, "intelligent design", sorry. Oops, "critical thinking" now apparently, sorry) was a valid scientific theory than I say sure yeah, teach away. But it isn't. A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step—known as a theory—in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon.. Creationism/ID falls down on the "supported with repeated testing" and "evidence" part there. And poking holes in theory A doesn't make theory B valid, it's not a zero sum game. Most of the arguments "for" ID/creationism are really arguments against evolution, no-one is saying (can say?) "ID is a better explanation than Evolution because of these facts supporting it that have been repeatedly tested and proven by multiple groups of independent scientists". If you want to mention while teaching that not everyone believes in evolution then fine, but if you say that then you can't just give ID/Creationism equal billing, because in a science class, which is about science, they're not equal. You can say that evolution is a theory but then you have to teach what the correct scientific definition of a theory is as opposed to the general public perception of a theory which is "something that someone has made up and that hasn't really been proven in any real way yet". And if you use the proper definition of a theory that then you can't put Creationism/ID forward as an equally valid theory to Evolution, because it isn't one.

So since those with religion would want to force evolution out(no evidence of that since people of faith are still a huge majority in this country and evolution is taught in every school), that would justify others forcing religion out???

As I said, that makes all of you just as bad and intolerant as they others.

Bottom line, I think some would only be happy if they had their version of a book burning.

Am I overstating???

Marconius wrote:
So since those with religion would want to force evolution out(no evidence of that since people of faith are still a huge majority in this country and evolution is taught in every school), that would justify others forcing religion out???

Forcing religion out of what, schools altogether? No, I never said that. I have as much time for the militant athiests as I do for the militant "believers". Religion has no place in science class though, unless you present it as an opinion rather than a competing theory.

Idk, ive always felt that since there is no hard science behind creationism, that it shouldn't be taught as "science." With that said however, i think the lefts urge to completely remove religion from schools, has left a great need for theology classes, oh no! That could lead to real critical thinking and possible offenses to just about all faiths and atheists alike lol. Heaven for if we were to have an open dialogue in this country anymore, rather than just an ordained monologue of ideas.

We dont rly want kids to think in school, just soak up information for later lol

Marconius wrote:

Bryant wrote:

Marconius wrote:I got no problem with it.

The greatest tyranny ever is not the one that uses force to ensure uniformity and compliance, but the one that removes all evidence of other possibilities.

Teach them side-by-side. If you have faith in what it is you believe in so strongly, this case would be science, then you should have enough faith that it will succeed without trying to stifle other views. Stifling the idea of creationism makes you just as wrong as a religious man stifling Darwinism.

What is so hard about that???

Do you believe that I am.......dumb???

The reason is that many teachers aren't even well trained in science (nat sci degrees are a joke) and tend to lack sufficient background in the biologic principles of Evolution. Many do have religious backgrounds and have an imperative to not give an equal presentation. Finally, even if the teacher is adequately educated on the principles of evolution and points out the slew of holes in the creationist argument, then they have to deal with all the pissed off parents and community members and all the accusations of bigotry (if you point out the flaws of Islam in the US your a hero, but if you point out the flaws in Christianity your a bigot). Beyond that, why should a secular institution waste precious class time going over ancient myths when they could be covering...you know...actual evidence based science. I think Berkman and Plutzer (2011) did an excellent job of analyzing the challenges to science education in the United States.

If the teachers are that bad at it, maybe the correct course would be to teach neither. It is a disservice to students to force them to be taught a subject that the teacher doesn't know.

I think you also overestimate power of the church down here. In the south, we are mostly raised Catholic, but most are only religious for about 30 min a week. Many of us down here left religion. Up north is a different story. They are mostly Baptists and would love to see evolution forced out.

I think the problem is that most (but far from all) aren't given sufficient training. I think natural science degrees should be scrapped, all they do is create a professional with a very shallow understanding of a great many things. I think biology should only be taught by biologists who have actually studied the processes they are to teach. If you can find the full text of the article I posted, I think it does a good job of analyzing the problems that biology teachers come up against (both in their educational background as well in regard to their fears). If you cant find it but are interested, shoot me an email and I'll send you the .pdf.

I don't know the culture in your corner of the woods, but I know that even in California many of the churches (we have lots of those mega churches with multimillion dollar budgets) like to stick their noses in everything the schools/government does. Take prop 8 for example, it was supported by religious groups and bank rolled by the Mormon Church out of Utah.

Here is a scenario for you. Little Johny lives in a religious home in a religious community. Little Johny's high school biology teacher is required by law to place the scientific theory of evolution side by side with the Christian concept of creationism and examine the strengths and weaknesses of both ideas. The biology teacher, who has a strong background in science, pokes countless holes in the Christian story and shows the biblical account to be false. What happens then?

I know what would happen in most parts of this country (unfortunate even where I live). Little Johny goes home crying to his parents about how his teacher said the Bible was wrong. Mommy and daddy get mad. The neighbors kids come home and tell them the same stories. Many members of the community rise up and demand the teacher be fired for 'filling their kid's minds with Atheist filth.' The teacher is labeled a bigot for criticizing the failing of creationism. Right wing news sources pick up the story (nothing sells in that circle like perceived Christian persecution), and now the teachers name is slandered across the country.

I know that if I were in the teachers place, I'd feel mighty uncomfortable being in that position. While I can be bold when the need arises, especially when giving fundamentalist nutters a hard time, I'd hate to be in the middle of that kind of shit storm.

Pun wrote:Idk, ive always felt that since there is no hard science behind creationism, that it shouldn't be taught as "science." With that said however, i think the lefts urge to completely remove religion from schools, has left a great need for theology classes, oh no! That could lead to real critical thinking and possible offenses to just about all faiths and atheists alike lol. Heaven for if we were to have an open dialogue in this country anymore, rather than just an ordained monologue of ideas.

Go for it. Teach it as philosophy or comparative religion. So long as you aren't preaching to the kids (which isn't what your proposal sounds like), I think you would be stunned by how much support you would get out of both the left and the atheist/agnostic crowds.

Miles1 wrote:

Marconius wrote:
So since those with religion would want to force evolution out(no evidence of that since people of faith are still a huge majority in this country and evolution is taught in every school), that would justify others forcing religion out???

Forcing religion out of what, schools altogether? No, I never said that. I have as much time for the militant athiests as I do for the militant "believers". Religion has no place in science class though, unless you present it as an opinion rather than a competing theory.

Nah, I do not believe it should be taught as science. I just don't see where the fear of it comes from. I guess I am more like you than we realize.

Bryant wrote:

Marconius wrote:

Bryant wrote:

Marconius wrote:I got no problem with it.

The greatest tyranny ever is not the one that uses force to ensure uniformity and compliance, but the one that removes all evidence of other possibilities.

Teach them side-by-side. If you have faith in what it is you believe in so strongly, this case would be science, then you should have enough faith that it will succeed without trying to stifle other views. Stifling the idea of creationism makes you just as wrong as a religious man stifling Darwinism.

What is so hard about that???

Do you believe that I am.......dumb???

The reason is that many teachers aren't even well trained in science (nat sci degrees are a joke) and tend to lack sufficient background in the biologic principles of Evolution. Many do have religious backgrounds and have an imperative to not give an equal presentation. Finally, even if the teacher is adequately educated on the principles of evolution and points out the slew of holes in the creationist argument, then they have to deal with all the pissed off parents and community members and all the accusations of bigotry (if you point out the flaws of Islam in the US your a hero, but if you point out the flaws in Christianity your a bigot). Beyond that, why should a secular institution waste precious class time going over ancient myths when they could be covering...you know...actual evidence based science. I think Berkman and Plutzer (2011) did an excellent job of analyzing the challenges to science education in the United States.

If the teachers are that bad at it, maybe the correct course would be to teach neither. It is a disservice to students to force them to be taught a subject that the teacher doesn't know.

I think you also overestimate power of the church down here. In the south, we are mostly raised Catholic, but most are only religious for about 30 min a week. Many of us down here left religion. Up north is a different story. They are mostly Baptists and would love to see evolution forced out.

I think the problem is that most (but far from all) aren't given sufficient training. I think natural science degrees should be scrapped, all they do is create a professional with a very shallow understanding of a great many things. I think biology should only be taught by biologists who have actually studied the processes they are to teach. If you can find the full text of the article I posted, I think it does a good job of analyzing the problems that biology teachers come up against (both in their educational background as well in regard to their fears). If you cant find it but are interested, shoot me an email and I'll send you the .pdf.

I don't know the culture in your corner of the woods, but I know that even in California many of the churches (we have lots of those mega churches with multimillion dollar budgets) like to stick their noses in everything the schools/government does. Take prop 8 for example, it was supported by religious groups and bank rolled by the Mormon Church out of Utah.

Here is a scenario for you. Little Johny lives in a religious home in a religious community. Little Johny's high school biology teacher is required by law to place the scientific theory of evolution side by side with the Christian concept of creationism and examine the strengths and weaknesses of both ideas. The biology teacher, who has a strong background in science, pokes countless holes in the Christian story and shows the biblical account to be false. What happens then?

I know what would happen in most parts of this country (unfortunate even where I live). Little Johny goes home crying to his parents about how his teacher said the Bible was wrong. Mommy and daddy get mad. The neighbors kids come home and tell them the same stories. Many members of the community rise up and demand the teacher be fired for 'filling their kid's minds with Atheist filth.' The teacher is labeled a bigot for criticizing the failing of creationism. Right wing news sources pick up the story (nothing sells in that circle like perceived Christian persecution), and now the teachers name is slandered across the country.

I know that if I were in the teachers place, I'd feel mighty uncomfortable being in that position. While I can be bold when the need arises, especially when giving fundamentalist nutters a hard time, I'd hate to be in the middle of that kind of shit storm.

In my own experience, which is very limited, I went to a Catholic school until high school. I learned all about evolution while at the Catholic school. We had seperate classes, taught by nuns, on the Catholic doctrine. At no time did they actively try to conflict one another.

When I went to public school, religion was only mentioned during history or literature classes and they never conflicted with what was taught in science class. I left school with a positive outlook towards both science and religion. Of course the rise of the Evangelists was beginning to take hold at that time. Evangelicals seem, at least to me, to be even more intolerant than the Baptists.

I can agree with the lack of specialized science teachers. I can only think of 2 really good ones in my school years. The rest just taught from the book and woulda been lost without it.

Marconius wrote:
So since those with religion would want to force evolution out(no evidence of that since people of faith are still a huge majority in this country and evolution is taught in every school), that would justify others forcing religion out???

As I said, that makes all of you just as bad and intolerant as they others.

I disagree. I think there is plenty of examples that pop up every year of some religious folks trying to get evolution forced out of science classes. These 'critical reasoning' bills, which ironically encourage the opposite, are an attempt to forge a foothold in the school system. The courts banned the teaching of 'intelligent design' and creationism long ago, this is that same group trying to regain their old foothold. These are the intellectual descendents of those who passed the Butler Act.

Bryant wrote:

Marconius wrote:
So since those with religion would want to force evolution out(no evidence of that since people of faith are still a huge majority in this country and evolution is taught in every school), that would justify others forcing religion out???

As I said, that makes all of you just as bad and intolerant as they others.

I disagree. I think there is plenty of examples that pop up every year of some religious folks trying to get evolution forced out of science classes. These 'critical reasoning' bills, which ironically encourage the opposite, are an attempt to forge a foothold in the school system. The courts banned the teaching of 'intelligent design' and creationism long ago, this is that same group trying to regain their old foothold. These are the intellectual descendents of those who passed the Butler Act.

This cuts both ways. We have a large group of the populace who now mistakenly believe that separation of church and state means that there can be absolutely no sign of any religion anywhere that has anything to do with government. That is not the intent of separation. It is to keep government out of church and not church out of government. If it were about keeping church outta government, that would be impossible since most of the constituents and most of the politicians are members of church.

Marconius wrote:

Bryant wrote:

Marconius wrote:
So since those with religion would want to force evolution out(no evidence of that since people of faith are still a huge majority in this country and evolution is taught in every school), that would justify others forcing religion out???

As I said, that makes all of you just as bad and intolerant as they others.

I disagree. I think there is plenty of examples that pop up every year of some religious folks trying to get evolution forced out of science classes. These 'critical reasoning' bills, which ironically encourage the opposite, are an attempt to forge a foothold in the school system. The courts banned the teaching of 'intelligent design' and creationism long ago, this is that same group trying to regain their old foothold. These are the intellectual descendents of those who passed the Butler Act.

This cuts both ways. We have a large group of the populace who now mistakenly believe that separation of church and state means that there can be absolutely no sign of any religion anywhere that has anything to do with government. That is not the intent of separation. It is to keep government out of church and not church out of government. If it were about keeping church outta government, that would be impossible since most of the constituents and most of the politicians are members of church.

If you want any meaningful amount of freedom, government has to be completely divorced from religion. What is more dangerous to liberty than having the government tell you what you can think, to threaten you with holy punishment for blasphemy? A free man has the right to choose to lead such a life; however if you give the church the keys to government, if you take away the choice to believe or reject, we loose everything.

Is this to say that religious people have no role in government? Of course not! There are countless government employees who have religious views, but are able to keep their faith and the secular job separate. My old supervisor is a great example of this, he is a deeply religious man. He understands that it is inappropriate to use his post to further his religious views. One can be a believer and act in a secular manner at the same time.

What marc was saying, i believe, was that SOCAS (not actually mentioned in the const) was simply about preventing a church run state or theocracy. Thats all.

The language is clear

Pun wrote:What marc was saying, i believe, was that SOCAS (not actually mentioned in the const) was simply about preventing a church run state or theocracy. Thats all.

Exactly

Or state-run church, either way lol

Becuzthe const i all about what we can do, and what the government cant. Not the other way around

Bryant wrote:

Pun wrote:Idk, ive always felt that since there is no hard science behind creationism, that it shouldn't be taught as "science." With that said however, i think the lefts urge to completely remove religion from schools, has left a great need for theology classes, oh no! That could lead to real critical thinking and possible offenses to just about all faiths and atheists alike lol. Heaven for if we were to have an open dialogue in this country anymore, rather than just an ordained monologue of ideas.

Go for it. Teach it as philosophy or comparative religion. So long as you aren't preaching to the kids (which isn't what your proposal sounds like), I think you would be stunned by how much support you would get out of both the left and the atheist/agnostic crowds.

Hell, just call the class "critical thinking" and remove the hand-wavey ambiguity - and make it "real" critical thinking, not the type that the creationists are trying to wheel out because they can't cal it "intelligent design" any more. This sort of goes with the thread on college education, teach the kids how to think instead of what to think. Give them the basics of how to constructively analyze something, and let them loose on religion and science and anything else you want. I think tho that while you'll get a lot of support, you'll also get a lot of opposition from both the left and the right, from the religious and the athiests, and from pretty much anyone in a position of power/authority (or who wants to be in a position of power/authority). There's a lot of vested interests on both sides who would prefer it if people didn't start thinking for themselves and asking awkward questions, as people who think are harder to "lead" and harder to control. They might start asking stuff like "Why does healthcare and education cost so much money in this country compared to everywhere else?" or "How come none of the people who caused the big crash in 2008 are in jail or were ever even prosecuted, and most are still in charge and making even bigger profits than before?", or "why doesn't congress seem to be able to get anything done when they used to be able to work together to get necessary stuff passed?" or "why whenever people complain about the bloat and lack of responsiveness of government, does the answer always seem to be to add another layer of bureaucracy to control the bureaucracy that is already there?" .....

Nothing to see here, back to the herd