In response to the recent news article Dunlap dishes out polygraph ultimatum, and cited in Antipolygraph.org's In The News section I have written and sent the opinion copied below. I encourage all interested parties to do the same:

Dear Sirs,

In a news story dated 17 October, 2001 Brad Burke reports in part:

"Still, he said the police report is evidence enough to suspend the student-athletes and the polygraph merely is a chance for redemption... If a student "doesn't want to take the polygraph that's fine," Collier said. "I'll fall back on the sheet of paper that said you were at a party where there was drinking.""

It would appear that Mr. Collier has been duped by the polygraph community if he thinks a polygraph will determine truthfulness of the students who stand accused, but not convicted of, underage drinking. Polygraphy is a pseudo-science masquerading as a true science, along with such noted disciplines as phrenology and astrology.

Mr. Collier has unwittingly given his students a devil's choice between agreeing to have their honesty assessed based on a pseudoscientific trial by ordeal or refusing and appearing to have something to hide. Polygraph "testing" is theoretically unsound and is not a valid diagnostic technique. In fact, the Courts and the scientific community at large are firm in dismissing polygraphy as reliable scientific evidence. Just one example, from the Ninth Circuit, USA v Cordoba:

"The reliability of polygraph testing fundamentally depends on the reliability of the protocol followed during the examination. After considering the evidence and briefing, the court concludes the proposed polygraph evidence is not admissible under Fed. R. Evid. 702. Although capable of testing and subject to peer review, no reliable error rate conclusions are available for real-life polygraph testing. Additionally, there is no general acceptance in the scientific community for the courtroom fact-determinative use proposed here. Finally, there are no reliable and accepted standards controlling polygraphy. Without such standards, there is no way to ensure proper protocol, or measure the reliability of a polygraph examination. Without such standards, the proposed polygraph evidence is inadmissible because it is not based on reliable ‘scientific knowledge.’"

Put simply, there is no evidence in any peer-reviewed scientific literature that polygraphists can detect truth or falsehood at better than chance levels of accuracy. The Courts know this and thus dismiss polygraphy as a valid truth-finding technique. Indeed, the F.B.I.’s foremost expert on polygraphy, Dr. Drew Richardson, recently opined: "[polygraph screening] is completely without any theoretical foundation and has absolutely no validity.” (Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts on the 29th day of September, 1997)

The entire process depends on the polygrapher lying to, tricking, and deceiving the examinee. This should truly alarm the parents of the accused children for it has far-reaching psychological import. Apparently, in order for a polygraph machine to register anything, the interrogator relies on instilling fear (through deception) in the test subject prior to the exam during something called the ‘Stim Test’ or ‘Acquaintance Test’. I’m not sure what your feelings are on this, but I for one am uneasy with the thought of children-- solely on the basis of an unsubstantiated police report-- being subjected to the modern day equivalent of the rubber hose treatment all in the effort to prove a negative (a logical impossibility). The thought of someone in authority lying to and deceiving children in order to elicit some sort of response frankly makes me very uncomfortable as I hope it would all parents. 

As an aside to Mr. Collier, I fail to see what part of your District's Mission Statement of 'develop[ing] a challenging yet enjoyable environment where all students... can attain their potential in an atmosphere of compassion and respect towards the physical, emotional, and academic needs of others and self' would be in accordance to subjecting your students to the travesty of polygraph interrogation. I can't help but think of the liability issues you and your School District would face in civil court should you insist on continuing your ill-conceived plot.

Thank you for your time,

Sincerely,
(signature)

c.c. 
(via fax 309.243.7720) Dunlap Community Unit School District #323 Board of Education President Tom Hoerr
(via email) Opinion Forum, Journal Star newspaper forum@pjstar.com
Brad Burke, Journal Star reporter bburke@pjstar.com
Discussion Forum, Antipolygraph.org (http://www.antipolygraph.org)

If this were a criminal investigation, I wouldn't hesitate to opine that the families' lawyer's agreement to polygraphic interrogation would be entirely unsound. But given that the athletes involved seem to face certain punishment if they do not submit to polygraph "testing," and face no criminal sanction even if they "fail," the reported agreement to submit may not be entirely unreasonable.

By the way, I believe that the families' lawyer, Matt Jones, is Matthew P. Jones <jones@peorialawyers.com>, an associate with Johnson, Bunce, & Noble in Peoria, Ill. who is listed in the Martindale on-line lawyer locator (http://www.martindale.com), which is a very handy resource.

"Still, he said the police report is evidence enough to suspend the student-athletes and the polygraph merely is a chance for redemption... If a student "doesn't want to take the polygraph that's fine," Collier said. "I'll fall back on the sheet of paper that said you were at a party where there was drinking.""

This could be interpreted as the information in the police report is what the administrator is falling back on.  I have never seen or heard of a polygraph examiners report that stated an opinion of guilt or participation in a crime based solely on the results of the polygraph.

beech trees wrote on Nov 6^th, 2001 at 5:56pm:


Beech Trees

The good superintendent needs to be pushed a little harder to read The Lie Behind The Lie Detector. He must have gotten a glimpse of the opinion you sent to the School Board President.

I hope that the attorney that is representing the students and parents also have seen your well presented evidence against having these kids subjected to polygraphs just to find out who went to a party where alcohol was being consumed. 

These men need to remember that they too were kids once and "may" have taken a nip or two out of daddy's bar.

Lets hope that they show a little more common sense.


Fred F.