Freshwater files Notice of Appeal (Updated already!)

Posted 10 February 2011 by Richard B. Hoppe

See update at the end of the post. John Freshwater, the Mt. Vernon, Ohio, middle school science teacher recently terminated by the Board of Education, has filed a Notice of Appeal (search by name for "Freshwater") in the Knox County Court of Common Pleas. A Notice of Appeal is just that: It notifies the court (and public) that the plaintiff intends to appeal a decision of some other body to that court--it essentially reserves the option to file an appeal but does not require filing. Thereafter the plaintiff has a set period, typically 20 or 30 days (though I don't know if teacher terminations have a different deadline), to file the appeal document itself detailing the respects in which the decision being appealed was allegedly faulty and therefore warrants overturning by the court. Freshwater was terminated on two basic grounds outlined by the administrative hearing referee in his final report, violating the establishment clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution by teaching creationism and advocating for his fundamentalist Christian beliefs in school, and insubordination. Freshwater filed the Notice of Appeal pro se, meaning that he is acting as his own attorney in the action. I have no information on whether he will seek professional legal advice in preparing the actual appeal document. I do not presently have links to copies of the documents Freshwater submitted with the Notice of Appeal except for Hamilton's final brief, which is the Closing Statement Brief (4Mb PDF). The most interesting documents appear to be "Complaint Filed with Resolution", "Letter," "John Freshwater's Reply Brief to the Employer's Post-Hearing Brief," and "John Freshwater's Closing Statement Brief." As much as I can obtain will all be online soon on the relevant NCSE page. If the Court of Common Pleas denies the appeal, the next (and last!) step would be for Freshwater to appeal that rejection to the state appellate court. ======================= Update: I heard late this afternoon that Freshwater has gone ahead and actually filed his appeal, including the various documents and thousands of pages of the hearing transcript. I hope to have more information tomorrow.

137 Comments

Ryan Cunningham · 10 February 2011

This is starting to sound familiar:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4

J. Biggs · 10 February 2011

Freshwater made a very costly mistake, it's time for him to get on with his life. If Freshwater is lucky his appeal will be denied and he can look for a job teaching "science" at a private school that condones his teaching methods. Even though he did this to himself, I can't help feeling sorry for Freshwater. In the end all the support he thought he had dried up and now he is destroyed financially because he believed Hamilton.

D. P. Robin · 10 February 2011

Freshwater, grief that keeps on giving... Thanks for keeping us updated, Richard.

dpr

RBH · 10 February 2011

J. Biggs said: In the end all the support he thought he had dried up and now he is destroyed financially because he believed Hamilton.

Don't forget his other two main advisers, his pastor Don Matolyak and "Coach" Dave Daubenmire. They bear just as much responsibility as Hamilton. In the end, of course, Freshwater is responsible for his own actions, but his advisers surely contributed heavily to his decision-making once the main event began in April 2008.

RBH · 10 February 2011

Ryan Cunningham said: This is starting to sound familiar: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4

I get a "Malformed Video ID" error, Ryan.

seabiscuit · 10 February 2011

Ryan

I get the same.

All I can say to this appeal is O.M.G.!!!!!! This will most likely be a tragic move for John. He just doesn't get it. How sad, how very sad.

Matt Young · 10 February 2011

Copy and paste the URL - it looks like some (ugh!) HTML default superscripted the letters after the 7 and truncated the link. I get some Monty Python video, which I assume is the intended link, but I can't listen to it here.

Glen Davidson · 10 February 2011

What's the matter, is the going rate for creationist martyrdom declining?

Is the public recognizing the cheapness of the Expelled claim, now? I'm guessing that it does, since, when one has to explain how one is a martyr, it already isn't too convincing.

Oh, poor Freshwater, can't teach God in public schools, can't make a living off of crying over that fact.

Glen Davidson

Hieronymus Fortesque Lickspittle · 10 February 2011

I knew he was up to something because he hasn't appeared on Glenn Beck yet.

Just Al · 10 February 2011

Wow. There's clueless, and then there's self-destructive. Regardless of whether he's acting alone, or proceeding on the dubious advice of someone else, you'd think he would have learned something by now. Perhaps he prayed for guidance?

He needs to check in to Gamblers Anonymous - the "one more bet will hit the jackpot" schtick isn't going to cut it here, and is only wasting more taxpayer money on his self-indulgent fantasy.

W. H. Heydt · 10 February 2011

I seem to recall suggesting that Freshwater might appeal...so I can't say this surprises me. If he's really going to go ahead and do it pro se...we all know that adage about the man who has himself for his lawyer, and in this case, an untrained one.

I don't think Freshwater can imagine the world of hurt that is about to land on him.

--W. H. Heydt

Old Used Programmer

Mike Elzinga · 10 February 2011

Good grief; if this is anything like what we see on some of the religion channels on TV or when some of the local fundamental churches get up in arms about something, one can imagine the frenzied demonizing and war-painting that must be going on in Freshwater’s church about now. They declare war, work up the congregation about being persecuted, and talk about all the evils being brought down on a poor, dear, innocent lamb; and that keeps the congregation from thinking about the fact that they just might be wrong about something.

I don’t think Freshwater can imagine the world of hurt that is about to land on him.

He might be trying to rally some sympathy money and publicity from the far right. After all, loser Palin quit her governorship to enter the world of weird “reality” show money. The bigger the train wreck, the more money they can make off it; provided of course that they can tap into some of those deep pockets that provide culture war funding.

veritas36 · 10 February 2011

Who's paying all his legal fees? Does he have to pay the school's legal costs?

Should a school system have to go through all this to fire an incompetent, disobedient teacher? I'm not in favor of arbitary dumping of teachers, I support tenure, but this process has been consumptive.

RBH · 10 February 2011

veritas36 said: Who's paying all his legal fees? Does he have to pay the school's legal costs?

He himself is on the hook for legal fees associated with the administrative hearing and the appeal.

Should a school system have to go through all this to fire an incompetent, disobedient teacher? I'm not in favor of arbitary dumping of teachers, I support tenure, but this process has been consumptive.

Yup. The administrative hearing and this appeal will have eaten an amount equivalent to about 3% of the district's annual budget (not counting in-kind costs of the time and effort expended by school personnel), though it's been spread out over more than two years. The hearing process is specified by the Ohio Revised Code, so it has to be amended (if that's desired) by the state legislature. There have been some rumblings about doing that among legislators.

The Curmudgeon · 10 February 2011

I, for one, welcome Freshwater's appeal. He is becoming the Harold Stassen of creationism. It's good do see him persisting in this farce. Perhaps others like him will learn something.

anonymous · 10 February 2011

According the Mount Vernon News, he alleges nine things:
Breach of Contract
More "additional information" not available since the hearing
Hearing referee made errors
Allegations did not meet "burden of proof"
BOE did not allow Freshwater to object to the findings or recommentations
BOE actions were discriminatory and against public policy
BOE showed bias and "hostility toward Christianity"
Creationism and intelligent design are not religions
BOE terminated contract (this is quoted in the article) "simply because they diesire to suppress what they perceive as a Christian viewpoint."

He's got balls, I'll say that.

Edited to format list--RBH

Joshua Zelinsky · 10 February 2011

The Curmudgeon said: I, for one, welcome Freshwater's appeal. He is becoming the Harold Stassen of creationism. It's good do see him persisting in this farce. Perhaps others like him will learn something.

Unfortunately, the most likely lesson taken away from this will schools and school districts not trying to fire teachers in similar situations because it takes so much time and resources to do so.

Pierce R. Butler · 10 February 2011

My sympathies to Richard B. Hoppe!

I shudder to think what enormities he must have wrought in his past lives to incur this Sisyphean curse in the present one.

mrg · 10 February 2011

Pierce R. Butler said: I shudder to think what enormities he must have wrought in his past lives to incur this Sisyphean curse in the present one.

If FW is trying to put the fear of the Big G into people, he's succeeding with me, since if there's a Hell it couldn't be worse than this.

Hercules Grytpype-Thynne · 10 February 2011

I have no information on whether he will seek professional legal advice in preparing the actual appeal document.

If he really wants to lose, he could invite the Thomas More Law Center folks in.

mrg · 10 February 2011

Hercules Grytpype-Thynne said: If he really wants to lose, he could invite the Thomas More Law Center folks in.

OK. I think we just went to the next lower circle of Hell.

fnxtr · 10 February 2011

It's like "Bleak House" produced by the Coen brothers.

Flint · 10 February 2011

Unfortunately, the most likely lesson taken away from this will schools and school districts not trying to fire teachers in similar situations because it takes so much time and resources to do so.

This is my suspicion as well. And all this testimony has indicated that the same strategy was followed here, until Freshwater simply went too far off the local reservation, which was itself a territory arising from both administrative tolerance and religious influence. Freshwater wasn't the only preacher in the school system, and such preaching seems to have been both accepted and expected by the community. And that may at least partially explain Freshwater's inability to understand that he did anything wrong. Hamilton, Matolyak and Daubenmire are, at least in Freshwater's mind, exemplary of community standards, different from those of 20 years of school administrators and fellow teachers only in being more vocal and wanting more attention. He may sincerely think that, sooner or later, he HAS to encounter a judge who is actually godly, accepts Jesus, keeps a bible properly on his bench, and decides on the basis of what is RIGHT, rather than what is merely legal. When he discovers otherwise, he may "learn" only that not nearly enough people in his old position practiced the One True Faith as it should be done. When GOD tells you everyone in the parade band is out of step except you, who are you going to believe? Who are you ABLE to believe?

RBH · 10 February 2011

anonymous said: According the Mount Vernon News, he alleges nine things:

Hm. I don't see a story there yet.

Henry J · 10 February 2011

Good grief.

raven · 10 February 2011

After all, loser Palin quit her governorship to enter the world of weird “reality” show money. The bigger the train wreck, the more money they can make off it

Yeah, what I was thinking. He needs to have an out of wedlock baby*, preferably a cute one. Then he can appear on all the reality shows and far right Fox News shows for the next few years. And profit *I realize he can't have one himself, that biology thingy. No problem though, just find a teenage girl and have some sort of slip up. For obscure (to me) reasons, fundies think this sort of thing is normal. "The bigger the train wreck, the more money they can make off it." Something like this, in for a penny, in for a pound.

John Vanko · 10 February 2011

John Freshwater - Onward Christian Soldier.

Mike Elzinga · 10 February 2011

It’s like the embezzler who gets away with it for decades but finally gets caught.

And his excuse?

“I’m being treated unfairly because I (and some others as well) was doing this for many years and now these terrible people all of a sudden just up and fired me! If what I was doing was so bad, why did they let me do it for so long?”

Apparently the US Constitution has nothing to do with the law in his mind.

Gingerbaker · 10 February 2011

"...No problem though, just find a teenage girl and have some sort of slip up. "

Yes, it is remarkable what a teenage girl will do these days for three stopwatches, a whistle, and $45 in cash. It's all going exactly as planned.

Mike Elzinga · 10 February 2011

John Vanko said: John Freshwater - Onward Christian Soldier.

This seems to be one of the ways that the C.S. Lewis and John Bunyan Hero/Martyr fantasies play out in the melodramatic internal lives of many of these fundamentalists. They constantly wail that everybody is persecuting them when their unwelcome meddling in the affairs of others is finally rebuffed.

Stephen Wells · 11 February 2011

So... he's appealing on the grounds that he lost?

OgreMkV · 11 February 2011

Stephen Wells said: So... he's appealing on the grounds that he lost?

He can't appeal on the fact that he's an idiot.

Flint · 11 February 2011

Mike Elzinga said: It’s like the embezzler who gets away with it for decades but finally gets caught. And his excuse? “I’m being treated unfairly because I (and some others as well) was doing this for many years and now these terrible people all of a sudden just up and fired me! If what I was doing was so bad, why did they let me do it for so long?” Apparently the US Constitution has nothing to do with the law in his mind.

Except in this case, the embezzlers had the knowledge and tacit support of management. He didn't get into trouble until a customer complained. But oddly enough, I haven't read about management voluntarily getting up on the stand and defending him on the grounds that they condoned him. Normal management, I think - go ahead and do it BUT if you run into problems, we deny everything. As for the law and the Constitution, this has been covered many times. Laws, wherever written, are simply WRONG if they deny the creationist god. Not worth the paper they're printed on, tools of the devil. Bad laws call for civil disobedience.

386sx · 11 February 2011

Matt Young said: Copy and paste the URL - it looks like some (ugh!) HTML default superscripted the letters after the 7 and truncated the link. I get some Monty Python video, which I assume is the intended link, but I can't listen to it here.

How about "Monty Python-The Black Knight". Glad to be of help...

C.E. Petit · 11 February 2011

There's an obvious strategic reason that Freshwater filed this appeal pro se, rather than through counsel: A court is much less likely to sanction a pro se appellant for filing a frivolous appeal than it is a represented appellant, even for otherwise-identical appeals.

This really matters. The losing party to an appeal ordinarily has to pay the costs of an appeal... but only if the appeal is found frivolous does the losing party have to pay the other side's attorney's fees. To put that in perspective, the last appeal I was involved in in a state court involved approximately $1,100 in costs (filing fee, printing/binding/delivery of briefs and appendix) and well over $40,000 in attorney's fees.

If I thought that Freshwater and his team was that smart, I would think of this as part of the "make it expensive for the school district so no other school district will ever do this" meme... but I don't think they're that smart. Instead, this is simple minimization of their own risk, as Freshwater is pretty clearly judgment-proof against a sanction for the district's attorney's fees anyway.

The test of whether he's actually proceeding pro se will come with his opening brief. If it is too compliant in form with the picayune rules of appellate briefing (and believe me, many of those "rules" aren't in the Rules... like when to use parallel citations and when not to), I suspect that his "I'm proceeding pro se" curtain will be whisked away to expose the little man operating the mouthpiece.

JASONMITCHELL · 11 February 2011

Joshua Zelinsky said:
The Curmudgeon said: I, for one, welcome Freshwater's appeal. He is becoming the Harold Stassen of creationism. It's good do see him persisting in this farce. Perhaps others like him will learn something.
Unfortunately, the most likely lesson taken away from this will schools and school districts not trying to fire teachers in similar situations because it takes so much time and resources to do so.

one can HOPE that the State/District teacher contracts/ code could be amended so that this process is not as costly - at least for teachers that have not been hired yet

JDog · 11 February 2011

"He that represents himself in court has a fool for a client."

Old Proverb. Yet somehow all "freshwatery" and clean and ready for new application...

eric · 11 February 2011

Joshua Zelinsky said: Unfortunately, the most likely lesson taken away from this will schools and school districts not trying to fire teachers in similar situations because it takes so much time and resources to do so.

I assume the school district has some form of liability insurance. Could it be expanded to provide coverage of fees associated with firing actions above a certain threshold? Sort of like a medical deductible. I doubt insurers would agree to be on the hook for regular termination cases, they're too common. So the threshold would have to be significant. But it might be a way for a school system to protect its operating funds from Freshwater- and Dover-like cases.

Kevin B · 11 February 2011

C.E. Petit said: The test of whether he's actually proceeding pro se will come with his opening brief. If it is too compliant in form with the picayune rules of appellate briefing (and believe me, many of those "rules" aren't in the Rules... like when to use parallel citations and when not to), I suspect that his "I'm proceeding pro se" curtain will be whisked away to expose the little man operating the mouthpiece.

From what has been reported about this saga so far, there is no reason to suppose that Freshwater's chosen legal representation (as opposed to that chosen for him by the district's insurers) would be comply with the procedures correctly anyway.

SEF · 11 February 2011

Insurance against act-of-creationist instead of act-of-god?! :-D

RBH · 11 February 2011

C.E. Petit said: The test of whether he's actually proceeding pro se will come with his opening brief. If it is too compliant in form with the picayune rules of appellate briefing (and believe me, many of those "rules" aren't in the Rules... like when to use parallel citations and when not to), I suspect that his "I'm proceeding pro se" curtain will be whisked away to expose the little man operating the mouthpiece.

I've just received a copy of the opening brief--33 pages with 102 paragraphs--and skimmed through it. To my lay eye it looks to be professionally written. I've sent it to NCSE to be added to the relevant page of documents.

RBH · 11 February 2011

Mt. Vernon News story.

In addition to the list in the story, Freshwater also alleges (in paragraphs 13-15) that a portion of the Ohio Revised Code provisions that deal with teacher terminations (OC 3319.16) is unconstitutional.

Mike Elzinga · 11 February 2011

SEF said: Insurance against act-of-creationist instead of act-of-god?! :-D

One of the clichés used by fundamentalists whenever separation of Church and State is mentioned is to sneer that “freedom of religion doesn’t mean freedom from religion.”

Robin · 11 February 2011

anonymous said: According the Mount Vernon News, he alleges nine things: Breach of Contract Creationism and intelligent design are not religions

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! I'd like to see him (or anyone) prove that!

eric · 11 February 2011

JASONMITCHELL said: one can HOPE that the State/District teacher contracts/ code could be amended so that this process is not as costly - at least for teachers that have not been hired yet

At least in the Freshwater case, I think simply moving it into the legal system faster would have solved a lot of the problems. Without having any specific evidence, it seems to me that the judge in the civil case did not tolerate half the crap that the administrative hearing judge allowed. Which I guess is somewhat ironic, since arbitration systems are supposed to be less painful and costly than legal battles, not moreso.

Mike Elzinga · 11 February 2011

Freshwater evidently gets his much of his creationist intransigence and irrationality from AiG.

This characteristic emerges repeatedly no matter what facts others point out. Even other religious people can’t make a dent.

DS · 11 February 2011

RBH said: Mt. Vernon News story. In addition to the list in the story, Freshwater also alleges (in paragraphs 13-15) that a portion of the Ohio Revised Code provisions that deal with teacher terminations (OC 3319.16) is unconstitutional.

And there you have it folks. Obviously this case is going all the way to the Supreme Court. And when Freshwater loses there he will no doubt appeal. Now if Freshwater is using church contributions to finance his fleecing of America, does he have to report that as income? Does he have to pay income taxe on that money? Maybe they can get him for tax evasion, you know just like real gangsters.

mrg · 11 February 2011

DS said: And there you have it folks. Obviously this case is going all the way to the Supreme Court. And when Freshwater loses there he will no doubt appeal.

"I'M GOING TO TAKE THIS TO THE HIGHEST COURT IN THE LAND!" "But we ARE the highest court in the land." "Oh."

eric · 11 February 2011

Bullet #41 in his complaint For The Loss (FTL?). I'm sure the judge will get a kick out of the legal argument that it's okay to teach creationism because it doesn't advance any partcular religion, but rather many.

Athough #44 comes a close second for amusement value. 'I wasn't directed to stop teaching creationism, I was only directed to stop using these particular handouts.' Yeah, that'll fly.

david · 11 February 2011

I'm not sure this is going to end well for the Freshwater family. Because he's run out of options, I'm assuming the community support is waning from how long and drawn out this whole process has become.

He's representing himself by all accounts and he's not a great orator. It's only going to get him further into a quagmire of blame. He'll blame that he wasn't understood clearly by the judge(s), that the court reporter didn't type correctly or that he wasn't properly sworn in.

I get the overall impression that the insurance company won't fight but rather pay him to go away. I don't know if the school will instruct the insurance company to fight or just shut him up.

Everyway the is a really large hole John Freshwater is digging in Ohio.

Mike in Ontario, NY · 11 February 2011

What's really interesting is that Freshwater likely WON'T be the recipient of threats and hate mail like the Dennis family, even though he's done a lot of harm to the community and to the school. Worse than being an idiot, he's becoming a very expensive idiot.

I also think it's interesting to ponder whether or not he's better represented by himself than he was by Hamilton.

Robin · 11 February 2011

Richard,

For some reason a post of mine is not coming up in the thread. I tried reposting it, but that one hasn't shown up either. I sent them around noon today. I didn't think there was anything inappropriate in it - I meanly laugh at the claim that ID and Creationism aren't religion. Is there something else wrong with them?

Robin · 11 February 2011

Robin said: Richard, For some reason a post of mine is not coming up in the thread. I tried reposting it, but that one hasn't shown up either. I sent them around noon today. I didn't think there was anything inappropriate in it - I meanly laugh at the claim that ID and Creationism aren't religion. Is there something else wrong with them?

Errr...well... oops...merely laugh at the claim... Though I suppose Freshwater might think it's mean...

JASONMITCHELL · 11 February 2011

RBH said:
C.E. Petit said: The test of whether he's actually proceeding pro se will come with his opening brief. If it is too compliant in form with the picayune rules of appellate briefing (and believe me, many of those "rules" aren't in the Rules... like when to use parallel citations and when not to), I suspect that his "I'm proceeding pro se" curtain will be whisked away to expose the little man operating the mouthpiece.
I've just received a copy of the opening brief--33 pages with 102 paragraphs--and skimmed through it. To my lay eye it looks to be professionally written. I've sent it to NCSE to be added to the relevant page of documents.

wouldn't "secretly" having a lawyer be fraud? IANAL but as C.E. Petit noted above there are financial consequenses to the district/district's insurance - filing Pre Se(when you have a lawyer) to shield from paying attorney fee's (of the other side) seems smarmy at least - illegal? at least against the code of conduct of the Bar Association?

RBH · 11 February 2011

Robin said: Richard, For some reason a post of mine is not coming up in the thread. I tried reposting it, but that one hasn't shown up either. I sent them around noon today. I didn't think there was anything inappropriate in it - I meanly laugh at the claim that ID and Creationism aren't religion. Is there something else wrong with them?

It was the quote from "anonymous" that did it. I've approved it. Sorry.

Robin · 11 February 2011

RBH said: It was the quote from "anonymous" that did it. I've approved it. Sorry.

Ahhh...ok. No problem. I'll keep that in mind for the future.

DS · 11 February 2011

eric said: Bullet #41 in his complaint For The Loss (FTL?). I'm sure the judge will get a kick out of the legal argument that it's okay to teach creationism because it doesn't advance any particular religion, but rather many.

Your honor, the constitution says that I can't advocate for any particular religion, so I just advocated for lots of them. Isn't that OK? I mean, it's not like I was really playing favorites or anything. Man, I even pretended to like some religions I really hate just to keep up the sham. Are you telling me that you saw right through it? And I thought I was being so clever. Man you judges are just too smart for me. That can't be fair. I demand another trial! Someone should ask Freshwater why he is willing to spend two million dollars trying to keep a fifty thousand a year job for the next two years. Especially since he must know that no matter what, he ain't no way no how gonna be allowed pt preach in class anymore. Just admit you broke the law and quit. Go some place where you are wanted, if you can find a place like that.

eric · 11 February 2011

DS said: Your honor, the constitution says that I can't advocate for any particular religion, so I just advocated for lots of them. Isn't that OK? I mean, it's not like I was really playing favorites or anything.

If C.E. Petit is right and a lawyer did prepare that complaint, I would've loved to have heard his thoughts as he was writing that one down. I understand how a wingnut might think that a belief doesn't count as religious if it is shared by many religions (if, y'know, you ignore "God" as a belief. Duh). But this has got to be very well-trodden ground for a lawyer. Where is the point at which you tell the client "look, I understand that you think its a good argument, and all your friends think its a good argument, but I strongly advise you not put that in your complaint, because the judge isn't going to think its a good argument." Even the TMLC must recognize that some arguments have a very long, utterly consistent history of not working. Its that 'definition of insanity' thing; you don't keep using the same legal argument that's never worked before and expect it to work this time.

Doc Bill · 11 February 2011

Someone should ask Freshwater why he is willing to spend two million dollars trying to keep a fifty thousand a year job for the next two years.

Ask a dog, you'll get a better answer than from Freshwater! This is a guy who has to be right. Always. He'll never let it go. It's not about money, it's about being right and being vindicated. In the appeal document everybody is out to get him. He wants to be proved right, given a parade, key to the city and an annual John Freshwater Day. Reality is a lot more stark. If his friends and family really cared about the poor old sod they'd get him some treatment.

Lou FCD · 11 February 2011

eric said: But this has got to be very well-trodden ground for a lawyer. Where is the point at which you tell the client "look, I understand that you think its a good argument, and all your friends think its a good argument, but I strongly advise you not put that in your complaint, because the judge isn't going to think its a good argument." Even the TMLC must recognize that some arguments have a very long, utterly consistent history of not working. Its that 'definition of insanity' thing; you don't keep using the same legal argument that's never worked before and expect it to work this time.

You do if you're trying desperately to get a case to a SCotUS that seems to now have a majority of whackjobs just like yourself.

MichaelJ · 11 February 2011

I think the message will be to nip this stuff in the bud early and to follow the correct procedures.

Joshua Zelinsky said:
The Curmudgeon said: I, for one, welcome Freshwater's appeal. He is becoming the Harold Stassen of creationism. It's good do see him persisting in this farce. Perhaps others like him will learn something.
Unfortunately, the most likely lesson taken away from this will schools and school districts not trying to fire teachers in similar situations because it takes so much time and resources to do so.

Pierce R. Butler · 11 February 2011

Speaking of crazy creationist teachers clogging up the courts, even more cheap yucks can be enjoyed by following the adventures of Tom Ritter in Blue Mountain, Pennsylvania (with free bonus jab at the Disco Institute!).

RBH · 11 February 2011

I found this paragraph of Freshwater's complaint interesting:

12. Pursuant to RC§3319. 16 in any court action, the board may utilize the services of the prosecuting attorney village solicitor, city director of law. or other chief legal officer of a municipal corporation as authorized by section 3313.35 of the Revised Code. Freshwater asserts the board can avail itself of the city law director rather than incur the costs of outside legal counsel.

Since when does the plaintiff in an action in court make recommendations to the defendant about the defendant's legal representation? I think this is a ploy to deflect criticism of Freshwater that his intransigence is costing the District money.

mrg · 11 February 2011

Pierce R. Butler said: Speaking of crazy creationist teachers clogging up the courts, even more cheap yucks can be enjoyed by following the adventures of Tom Ritter in Blue Mountain, Pennsylvania.

Aw geez, not again. IANAL, but it would seem that this is just fighting -- or, maybe more appropriately losing -- the 1994 PELOZA "evolution is a religion" case all over again:

In 1994, in Peloza v. Capistrano School District, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a district court finding that a teacher's First Amendment right to free exercise of religion is not violated by a school district's requirement that evolution be taught in biology classes. Rejecting plaintiff Peloza's definition of a "religion" of "evolutionism", the Court found that the district had simply and appropriately required a science teacher to teach a scientific theory in biology class. (John E. Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School District, (1994) 37 F. 3rd 517) http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/peloza.html

I keep thinking: "Do these guys ever learn?" -- and immediately answer: "No."

RBH · 11 February 2011

RBH said: I think this is a ploy to deflect criticism of Freshwater that his intransigence is costing the District money.

On the other hand, the Mt. Vernon News story quotes Sarah Moore, identified as "the board's lawyer." Moore was the board's insurance company's lawyer in Doe v. Board of Education, the federal suit that was settled. David Millstone represented the board at the administrative hearing. Maybe the board's insurance coverage kicks in when it goes to a court rather than the administrative hearing, in which case Freshwater's 'recommendation' to the board concerning legal representation is a non-starter. No insurance company will leave its representation to a city law director.

Flint · 11 February 2011

I get the impression that once Freshwater gets beyond "Jesus loves you", he's pretty well exhausted his knowledge.

Wheels · 11 February 2011

Pierce R. Butler said: Speaking of crazy creationist teachers clogging up the courts, even more cheap yucks can be enjoyed by following the adventures of Tom Ritter in Blue Mountain, Pennsylvania (with free bonus jab at the Disco Institute!).

There are only to explanations for the existence of falling objects. Either a Faller caused them to Fall, or there is no Faller. Therefore teaching only gravity is forcing a religious view! Also please see my totally sane website to do away with public institutions. (Totally sane website may not be SFW)

Stuart Weinstein · 11 February 2011

Flint said:
Unfortunately, the most likely lesson taken away from this will schools and school districts not trying to fire teachers in similar situations because it takes so much time and resources to do so.
This is my suspicion as well. And all this testimony has indicated that the same strategy was followed here, until Freshwater simply went too far off the local reservation, which was itself a territory arising from both administrative tolerance and religious influence. Freshwater wasn't the only preacher in the school system, and such preaching seems to have been both accepted and expected by the community.

Losing an expensive lawsuit is no walk in the park. No, I think the lesson is to deal with this early and head it off before it becomes an issue

Britney · 12 February 2011

Freshwater is an embarrassment to Mt. Vernon for burning students. He should be in jail instead of free. If you hit someone on the streets you can be arrested and he burns students and gets off without jail time. Also, there are students of all religions and they need to be respected and not filled up with babble from someone who clearly doesn't care about other people's rights and beliefs, but prefers to cram something down the throats of others who are there to learn about science. This isn't a private Christian school John. Wake up! You knew what you were signing when you agreed to and decided to teach "science".

Don · 12 February 2011

The world of John Freshwater is either under a rock, or on another planet. Is this person so mindless that he doesn't understand that burning people isn't right? And there are children in his classes that might be of other religions and they should be respected. How would he like it if someone Islamic, or Hindu who happened to be a teacher decided to teach their religion to his kids without his permission? If he can do it anyone can! If he has a right everyone does! Real religion unites, respects, loves God and others. It isn't about bigotry, intolerance, division or competition to see how many converts you can get, or how many you can proselytize. He was in the wrong and this isn't about "his rights" at the expense of others. He just doesn't get it! We should respect all religions and allow people to teach their kids the religion they choose and not have to deal with the arrogant John Freshwater's of the world who think everyone should accept "his truth" as he wants to imagine it. No real Christian would defend him burning crosses or anything else on children. What is wrong with him? Doing something like that should land him in jail, or at least he should get a mental evaluation.

Hercules Grytpype-Thynne · 12 February 2011

mrg said: I keep thinking: "Do these guys ever learn?" -- and immediately answer: "No."

Upton Sinclair (more or less) said: It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his ~~job~~ eternal soul depends on not understanding it.

Don · 12 February 2011

Flint, Most school systems wouldn't have put up with this. They would have taken care of this much faster. In fact if this was Columbus and most other places there would have been abuse, or assault charges against him. For whatever reason there were too many people on the board who didn't do their job and have the backbone to end this sooner. It was certainly sad that people came out and took this like it was a freedom of religion issue rather than what is really was.

Debbie Henthorn · 12 February 2011

RBH said:
RBH said: I think this is a ploy to deflect criticism of Freshwater that his intransigence is costing the District money.
On the other hand, the Mt. Vernon News story quotes Sarah Moore, identified as "the board's lawyer." Moore was the board's insurance company's lawyer in Doe v. Board of Education, the federal suit that was settled. David Millstone represented the board at the administrative hearing. Maybe the board's insurance coverage kicks in when it goes to a court rather than the administrative hearing, in which case Freshwater's 'recommendation' to the board concerning legal representation is a non-starter. No insurance company will leave its representation to a city law director.

IIRC, that is the situation. The insurance didn't pay for the admin hearing because it wasn't a "real" court case. It covers actual lawsuits. It could very well be a deflection tactic, a way of saying "it's not my fault the board spent over $800K on an attorney when they could have used the law director." Again, the admin hearing was not a legal procedure. I will admit to not reading every word because, honestly, it was painful. But I agree with others that those are not John's words. Am I recalling correctly that the Coach acted as his own lawyer in the deal with the ACLU? What did jump out and hold my interest were the deflection tactics, especially in regards to Principal White. By digging up the performance evals and showing a record of not following through, being instructed to communicate better, et al - it wasn't John's fault. White didn't explain properly what he was supposed to do. And, oh my goodness, White has been a bad boy and been able to keep his job with pay while working toward correcting that behavior. One other statement jumped out - Freshwater said that at no time during the admin hearing was he ever asked to testify whether he was a Christian. As simple as that sounds - the referee often referred to John's Christianity in the written decision. Did no one ever ask John that question during the hearing?

Paul Burnett · 12 February 2011

RBH said: I've just received a copy of the opening brief--33 pages with 102 paragraphs--and skimmed through it. To my lay eye it looks to be professionally written.

(1) ...meaning Hamilton didn't write it. (2) ...meaning Casey Luskin didn't write it. (3) ...meaning Freshwater's getting help. Any way to find out who? The Dishonesty Institute or the Thomas More Law Center or some other christofascist group? It would be very interesting to find out who wrote this opening brief.

Beth Hoeffgen · 12 February 2011

I am James Hoeffgen's mother. He is the student who testified that Freshwater's teachings led him to tell his sister that science can't be trusted and can't teach you anything. When James was in that class he brought home a handout from class with many convoluted arguments about why carbon dating, etc. Was wrong. I found scientific rebuttals of all arguments on the handout, made copies of this material and gave them to James. James took the rebuttals to Freshwater and asked him if he could hand this information out to the students, so they could have the opposing view. Freshwater would not permit James to distribute this information in class and would not discuss it. In his appeal, Freshwater says that he encouraged students to debate and think critically. He did not. He made a point to suppress scientific thought.

Paul Burnett · 12 February 2011

Beth Hoeffgen said: Freshwater would not permit James to distribute this information in class and would not discuss it. In his appeal, Freshwater says that he encouraged students to debate and think critically. He did not. He made a point to suppress scientific thought.

Freshwater lied...what a surprise. I wonder what comment Messrs. Matolyak and Daubenmire would have about this direct violation of one of the Ten Commandments? Thank you for your comment, Beth. Do you know of any other parents who might be able to provide similar statements?

Stanton · 12 February 2011

Beth Hoeffgen said: ...In his appeal, Freshwater says that he encouraged students to debate and think critically. He did not. He made a point to suppress scientific thought.

To creationists like Freshwater, "debate" and "think(ing) critically" mean mindlessly repeating "GODDIDIT", and constantly going "Yay, Jesus!" respectively. Anything else, particularly actual scientific thought, is merely evil devil worship. I sincerely hope that your son, James, encounters competent science teachers in his science education from now on.

Flint · 12 February 2011

In his appeal, Freshwater says that he encouraged students to debate and think critically. He did not. He made a point to suppress scientific thought.

This is always amusing. What creationists always SAY is they want the controversy examined, they want "both sides" presented. What they always DO is suppress and censor whenever they can. But I've noticed a pattern to this inconsistency. When creationists control the discourse, they are ruthless in enforcing their views. When they do not control the discourse, they appeal to "fairness" and "equality". Until they gain control - then it's thumbscrews. And what's amusing is, they've been applying this double standard for decades, and it continues to fool enough people to make it worth doing. And like any other creationist tactic, the yardstick is persuasiveness. Accuracy (and integrity) are simply not involved. Even AiG has made an effort to distinguish lies that work, from lies that don't.

MaryM · 12 February 2011

Just a little humor to brighten up your Saturday morning....

http://vodpod.com/watch/2117150-cavalcade-of-cartoon-comedy-scene-8-die-sweet-roadrunner-die-wmv-v9

RBH · 12 February 2011

Beth Hoeffgen said: I am James Hoeffgen's mother. He is the student who testified that Freshwater's teachings led him to tell his sister that science can't be trusted and can't teach you anything. When James was in that class he brought home a handout from class with many convoluted arguments about why carbon dating, etc. Was wrong. I found scientific rebuttals of all arguments on the handout, made copies of this material and gave them to James. James took the rebuttals to Freshwater and asked him if he could hand this information out to the students, so they could have the opposing view. Freshwater would not permit James to distribute this information in class and would not discuss it. In his appeal, Freshwater says that he encouraged students to debate and think critically. He did not. He made a point to suppress scientific thought.

James' testimony is summarized here.

mrg · 12 February 2011

Flint said: This is always amusing. What creationists always SAY is they want the controversy examined, they want "both sides" presented.

And of course, never the "controversy" over the "controversy": "OK, class, as elective material you are to get onto YouTube and watch this multipart video titled WHY PEOPLE LAUGH AT CREATIONISTS." "That WASN'T the 'teach the controversy' we had in mind."

Mary · 12 February 2011

I had some problems posting last night. I hope this post doesn't some up more than once.

John Freshwater was interviewed on Coach Dave's radio show last Sat. If you are interested in listening, go to ptsalt.com and play the audio archive for 2/5/2011.

The first segment is Coach Dave's revisionist narrative of the Freshwater case. Dave claims that Freshwater "was fired because he is a christian", Freshwater was "vindicated by the referee" who said that the cross burning "never happened", and that Freshwater was a victim of "character assassination" because he refused to take his bible off his desk.

Freshwater's interview begins in the 2nd segment. Freshwater claims that he is $100,000 in debt and has had to put his house up for sale. He also said that he is unable to get a job - not even as a school bus driver - because he has been blackballed.

Dave went on to beg his listeners (his wife, his mother, a couple of local yokels and an atheist ) to call their pastors and ask that John Freshwater be allowed to speak in their churches in order to solicit donations to "save his house".

There were many parts of this interview that made me roll my eyes, but there was one part that made me laugh out loud. Dave recalled telling his elderly mother about Freshwater being fired for being a christian and having a bible on his desk. His mother responded that "there has to be more to it than that". HaHa! Even Coach Dave's MOTHER is suspicious of his version of the case. Dave went on to say that his naive mother just doesn't want to believe that there is EVIL in the world, the evil in this case being the conspiracy to ruin John Freshwater just for being a christian.

Glen Davidson · 12 February 2011

When they do not control the discourse, they appeal to “fairness” and “equality”. Until they gain control - then it’s thumbscrews.

It's a simple matter of not being capable of competing in a free marketplace of ideas. If they could do that, they would. They'd present the evidence to the science community, and they'd win--at least eventually--if they had the better ideas and better evidence. Since any honest discussion of creation/evolution will always expose how inadequate creationism/IDiocy really is, they must bypass the evaluations that real science undergoes. First, it must be given the legitimacy in education that it has never earned as "critical thinking" or "the alternative," under the pretense that it hasn't been fairly evaluated, and via claims of "fairness." Once that has happened, of course they'll suddenly notice that only one can actually be true, so why teach the "materialistic" theory that "doesn't even make sense"? Oh yes, they're on record. The Wedge:

Twenty Year Goals To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science.

How does this agree with another claim of the Wedge?

Phase I is the essential component of everything that comes afterward. Without solid scholarship, research and argument, the project would be just another attempt to indoctrinate instead of persuade.

It doesn't agree with it. Without solid scholarship, research, and argument, ID is indeed just another attempt to indoctrinate instead of persuade. And, as it's not capable of research and legitimate argument, it can only be another attempt to indoctrinate. Therefore, they seek opportunities to indoctrinate. Glen Davidson

raven · 12 February 2011

Freshwater claims that he is $100,000 in debt and has had to put his house up for sale.

Is that all? I would have thought it was more by now. He is ahead of the school district which has spent close to a million dollars already and is now going to spend some more money.

He also said that he is unable to get a job - not even as a school bus driver - because he has been blackballed.

Strange. Where are all those fundie xians when Freshwater needs them? Looks like they just decided to fight until Freshwater's last dollar is gone and then call it a day. The martyrdom business isn't what it used to be. Time was he would have been made a saint but Protestants don't even have saints. I'm surprised he hasn't been able to get a teaching job in a private xian school. They are everywhere. We have them around here on the coast. A few decades ago, there was a big battle over fundie xianity in the schools. The fundies lost. They all went out and set up private schools.

Mary · 12 February 2011

" Where are all those fundie xians when Freshwater needs them? Looks like they just decided to fight until Freshwater's last dollar is gone and then call it a day."

I have a feeling that Freshwater's few remaining fundie friends are going to be avoiding him now that Coach Dave has set him up as a christian martyr in need of money - a lot of money. A $20 bill crumpled up in a "christian handshake" is just a drop in the ocean so why bother at all.

"I'm surprised he hasn't been able to get a teaching job in a private xian school."

Dave is pushing Fairfield Christian Academy (where he coaches football) to hire Freshwater. Considering that 99% of the people in central Ohio are wondering why Freshwater isn't in jail for branding/burning/assaulting a student, I think it is unlikely that even a christian school would dare to hire him for fear of backlash from parents. Even the fundies in these parts view Coach Dave as a loose cannon even more extremist than Freshwater, so a recommendation from the Coach works more like a curse for the one being recommended.

J. Biggs · 12 February 2011

raven wrote: I’m surprised he hasn’t been able to get a teaching job in a private xian school. They are everywhere. We have them around here on the coast. A few decades ago, there was a big battle over fundie xianity in the schools. The fundies lost. They all went out and set up private schools.

One thing to consider here is that most schools, especially private ones, want to avoid potential litigation and Freshwater has involved himself in a considerable amount of it, in some cases (like this one) unnecessarily. Even if a private school approved of Freshwater's 'science' curriculum, they will most likely shun him until he decides to quit taking everybody to court. And many private schools simply wouldn't have the money to fight with him over a "wrongful termination" if they indeed needed to fire Freshwater for some reason. At this point, Freshwater has made sure that any potential employer will see that he is simply not worth the trouble.

raven · 12 February 2011

It looks like where Freshwater went wrong is ignoring The First Rule of Holes.

The First Rule of Holes: When you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is to stop digging.

He's going to keep digging his hole until his shovel is all worn down.

Dale Husband · 12 February 2011

raven said: I'm surprised he hasn't been able to get a teaching job in a private xian school. They are everywhere. We have them around here on the coast. A few decades ago, there was a big battle over fundie xianity in the schools. The fundies lost. They all went out and set up private schools.

What about homeschooling? That works for keeping kids isolated from reality too. But people should have to PAY for private schools or homeschooling out of their own pocket. I was infuriated when some fanatics tried to get vouchers for their kids to attend private schools when their parents otherwise couldn't afford it. To me, that's like demanding a lower price for restaurant food or department store clothing just because you are poor. No, go to a thrift store for your clothing and don't eat at restaurants anymore; just buy food from grocery stores and cook it yourself. You won't starve or end up naked! Likewise, you can still get educated at public schools, if they are well managed and properly funded. And that's the real issue; parents who want their kids to attend private schools don't want to pay through taxes to maintain public schools, which would ultimately eliminate the public school system and force most children to attend schools where religious indoctrination is the normal procedure.

tupelo · 12 February 2011

How'd that bit go in "Duck Soup"?

"Ladies & gentlemen of the jury! [Freshwater] might look like an idiot. He might talk like an idiot. But DON'T let that fool you! He really IS an idiot!"

And "Freshwater" even sounds like a MB character, needing only an appropriately silly first and middle name. I suggest "Scotch N."

mrg · 12 February 2011

While I don't recall the MB using these particular gags, I would have to think that "Scotty" Freshwater would have obtained his legal representation from the firm of Robham, Cheatham, and Steele -- or that failing, Dewey, Cheatham, and Howe.

raven · 12 February 2011

Eric: Bullet #41 in his complaint For The Loss (FTL?). I’m sure the judge will get a kick out of the legal argument that it’s okay to teach creationism because it doesn’t advance any partcular religion, but rather many.

Looks like Freshwater has contradicted himself here.

anonymous: Creationism and intelligent design are not religions.

In one part, he claims that teaching creationism is OK because it advances several religions. Which is sort of true, it could advance a minority of xian sects, a few Jews, and some Moslems. Leaving out a huge proportion of the world's population and it is irrelevant anyway. Then he also alleges that creationism and ID aren't religious. I read the claims posted on this thread and it is all pretty weak. Looks like someone threw handfuls of mud on the wall and hopes some of it sticks. Not sure what his goal is here. I suspect he's hoping for a jury trial with fundies on the jury who will overturn the BOE and the hearing results. Given how polarizing this has been for Mt. Vernon, it could happen. OTOH, given how polarizing it has been, they really should have to move a jury trial to another distant venue to get a neutral jury. That won't be easy or cheap.

raven · 12 February 2011

poster without a name: Creationism and intelligent design are not religions

Freshwater contradicts himself in his filings.

eric: ...legal argument that it’s okay to teach creationism because it doesn’t advance any partcular religion, but rather many.

First he says creationism doesn't advance any particular religion but many. Which is sort of true, it advances some sects of xianity, Judaism, and Islam while contradicting others. Then he says creationism isn't religious. A direct contradiction here. PS: This was part of a longer comment that seems to have been caught by a filter. See if this one makes it through.

Frank J · 13 February 2011

My usual question: Has the DI broken it's silence yet?

Even if not, I would bet that by now the DI has contacted him privately to discourage him from proceeding, and that he refused their "help."

RBH · 13 February 2011

Frank J said: My usual question: Has the DI broken it's silence yet? Even if not, I would bet that by now the DI has contacted him privately to discourage him from proceeding, and that he refused their "help."

Not a peep out of them of which I'm aware.

J-Dog · 13 February 2011

Frank J said: My usual question: Has the DI broken it's silence yet? Even if not, I would bet that by now the DI has contacted him privately to discourage him from proceeding, and that he refused their "help."

I am sure that the DI's Crack Attorney Casey Luskin is working on his brief as we post. Of course with Casey, his best brief is [s] created [/s] designed by Fruit Of The Loom.

Gingerbaker · 13 February 2011

So, what are the odds the request for appeal will be granted- 100 to one against? 1000 to one?

JoeBuddha · 13 February 2011

Let me see if I have the argument correct:
1) Creationism and intelligent design are not religions.
2) Creationism can be taught because it advances many religions
3) "Darwinism", however, is definitely religious.

Does that sound right?

Scott F · 13 February 2011

From paragraph #4 of FW's appeal:

"Freshwater alleges additional information has become available since the close of the hearing conducted by the referee, the information of which was not previously made available despite efforts by Freshwater to obtain."

So, what is he claiming here? That there is new information that would clear him of any wrong doing? If that's true, shouldn't he have included that information here in the appeal? Or would that normally be in some kind of followup paperwork? I would imagine that an appeals court would want to know what the "additional information" is, so they can even decide if it's worth allowing the appeal to go forward. On the face of it, this paragraph seems rather coy: "I've got something to show you, and if you let me appeal, I'll let you see it."

Scott F · 13 February 2011

From paragraph #6:

"Freshwater asserts the allegations made against him were not proved by the required burdens of proof."

So, even though the Referee and the Board were convinced that the allegations had been proven, Freshwater thinks that they weren't. "Please accept my appeal, because I disagree with the decision of the Board." WTF?

As a second point, most of these paragraphs (that I've read so far) seem to be a description of some law or code, and then a bald assertion that the stated law or code has been violated: "Freshwater alleges the board violated the provisions stated in this paragraph." There's no attempt to say why he believes the statute to have been violated. Is that typical of such appeals? There doesn't appear to be any meat there for an appeals court to hang their hat on.

Scott F · 13 February 2011

This is a laugh:

29. The Referee's own bias and hostility is revealed in the following five quotations from his report: A. "John Freshwater's bias grew from his fervent and deep seated Christian beliefs. Such beliefs and convictions, while admirable character traits in other settings, proved to be John Freshwater's downfall as an eighth grade science teacher in a public school. Time after time after time he injected his beliefs as associated with his own religious tenets into his science instruction."

Really? FW believes that this is a quote revealing bias and hostility? "I admire John's faith, but it is misapplied as a teacher of science." How in the real world can that be construed as "hostility"?

Scott F · 13 February 2011

32. The Referee recommended, and Board terminated John Freshwater's contract simply because they desire to suppress what they perceive as a Christian Viewpoint. In so doing, the Board violated the Establishment Clause."

IANAL, but it seems to me that FW, or his lawyer, seem to be confused about the constitution. In the same paragraph, he appears to be arguing "viewpoint discrimination" (which I understand to be a First Amendment issue), yet from that concludes that the Establishment Clause allows him (a state representative) to express a Christian Viewpoint to his students.

Hieronymus Fortesque Lickspittle · 13 February 2011

It's painful to listen to, but if you are interested in hearing John Freshwater lie to his "spiritual adviser" "Coach" Dave Daubenmire, here is the link: http://www.ptsalt.com/Audio-Archive.html

Hieronymus Fortesque Lickspittle · 13 February 2011

Hieronymus Fortesque Lickspittle said: It's painful to listen to, but if you are interested in hearing John Freshwater lie to his "spiritual adviser" "Coach" Dave Daubenmire, here is the link: http://www.ptsalt.com/Audio-Archive.html

I'm sorry, I just noticed this was already posted in the comments. Sorry for double posting!

Wheels · 14 February 2011

Scott F said:
32. The Referee recommended, and Board terminated John Freshwater's contract simply because they desire to suppress what they perceive as a Christian Viewpoint. In so doing, the Board violated the Establishment Clause."
IANAL, but it seems to me that FW, or his lawyer, seem to be confused about the constitution. In the same paragraph, he appears to be arguing "viewpoint discrimination" (which I understand to be a First Amendment issue), yet from that concludes that the Establishment Clause allows him (a state representative) to express a Christian Viewpoint to his students.

And furthermore that he wasn't advancing any Christian viewpoint since Creationism and ID are not religions!

MosesZD · 14 February 2011

pro se... It'll be over quick.

J. Biggs · 14 February 2011

44. Freshwater was never directed to cease teaching anti-evolution or intelligent design, or creationism. Freshwater was directed only to discontinue use of these three particular handouts. None of these three occasions resulted in a warning for future handout content.

I have three children and this reminds me of when I tell one of them them, "if you call your brother a jerkface again you'll get a timeout." Then they replace jerkface with butthead and argue with me about the timeout because they didn't use the word jerkface. Even my kids know this is a lame excuse for their behaviour, but they argue because they, unlike most adults, think they can skirt the rules with word games. Most adults understand that when Freshwater was told by his superiors to quit using three different creationist handouts on three different occasions that it was the same as saying, "Quit using creationist handouts in your class." But like a child, Freshwater thinks he can B.S. a judge with word games. If Freshwater knew he was being told to quit teaching creationism and continued it is subordination, if he didn't then he to stupid to form conceptual framework, in either case he shouldn't be teaching science.

JASONMITCHELL · 14 February 2011

Mary said: I had some problems posting last night. I hope this post doesn't some up more than once. John Freshwater was interviewed on Coach Dave's radio show last Sat. If you are interested in listening, go to ptsalt.com and play the audio archive for 2/5/2011. The first segment is Coach Dave's revisionist narrative of the Freshwater case. Dave claims that Freshwater "was fired because he is a christian", Freshwater was "vindicated by the referee" who said that the cross burning "never happened", and that Freshwater was a victim of "character assassination" because he refused to take his bible off his desk. Freshwater's interview begins in the 2nd segment. Freshwater claims that he is $100,000 in debt and has had to put his house up for sale. He also said that he is unable to get a job - not even as a school bus driver - because he has been blackballed. Dave went on to beg his listeners (his wife, his mother, a couple of local yokels and an atheist ) to call their pastors and ask that John Freshwater be allowed to speak in their churches in order to solicit donations to "save his house". There were many parts of this interview that made me roll my eyes, but there was one part that made me laugh out loud. Dave recalled telling his elderly mother about Freshwater being fired for being a christian and having a bible on his desk. His mother responded that "there has to be more to it than that". HaHa! Even Coach Dave's MOTHER is suspicious of his version of the case. Dave went on to say that his naive mother just doesn't want to believe that there is EVIL in the world, the evil in this case being the conspiracy to ruin John Freshwater just for being a christian.

how clueless can they be?! "fired just for being a Christian" when practically EVERY other teacher, every administrator, the referee, judge, students, parents, resident of the town is most likely a Christian also?

MaryM · 14 February 2011

It never ceases to amaze me how easily christians lie to themselves and other christians. All of these lies appear, at the time, to be accepted. The moderate christians speak out against the fundies from the anonymity of the Internet but I don’t think that happens much in person. It just wouldn’t be “polite”.

I used to worry that since I was raising my kids in a religion-free home, they might grow up to be sitting ducks for the first cultist that came along and filled their heads with supersticious nonsense. I’ve come to realize that teaching them to think critically, logically, and to do reality checks will go a long way towards vaccinating them against much of the BS they read/hear/see out there.

I hope.

mrg · 14 February 2011

J. Biggs said: But like a child, Freshwater thinks he can B.S. a judge with word games.

And as we know, a judge ranks in the category of the LAST sort of person to hand a snowjob. Snowjobs are a normal and significant part of their work environment, and as a rule they DON'T like them.

eric · 14 February 2011

raven said: Looks like Freshwater has contradicted himself here.

Yes. His complaint includes the standard creationist argument "its not religious, but preventing me from teaching it is religious discrimination against me/my faith." Raven you asked why he hasn't been hired by anyone. In addition to what J. Biggs said about him being lawsuit happy, he's only been without a job since January 10. Before that, he was on leave but still employed. So I think the whole jobless complaint is disingenuous. You haven't had a job for a month - boo hoo. Keep looking.

MaryM · 14 February 2011

", he’s only been without a job since January 10. Before that, he was on leave but still employed"

Freshwater has been on UNPAID leave since 2008, medical benefits still intact though.

J. Biggs · 14 February 2011

J. Biggs said: If Freshwater knew he was being told to quit teaching creationism and continued it is insubordination, if he didn't then he is too stupid to form conceptual framework, in either case he shouldn't be teaching science.

sorry, just had to correct that.

eric · 14 February 2011

MaryM said: ", he’s only been without a job since January 10. Before that, he was on leave but still employed" Freshwater has been on UNPAID leave since 2008, medical benefits still intact though.

Sure, but my point is that another district can't hire him full time while he's on leave. He might be able to get a job at Starbucks or something, but no career-type employer is going to offer him a full-time contract when he's currently IN a full-time contract. Taking a full-time job at any serious employer is usually conditional up you, y'know, leaving your current employment.

Scott F · 14 February 2011

MaryM said: I used to worry that since I was raising my kids in a religion-free home, they might grow up to be sitting ducks for the first cultist that came along and filled their heads with supersticious nonsense. I’ve come to realize that teaching them to think critically, logically, and to do reality checks will go a long way towards vaccinating them against much of the BS they read/hear/see out there. I hope.

We raised our son in a similar way. We didn't tell him what to believe or not to believe. We just told him that whatever position he did hold, he had to be able to justify it; to say why he believed it to be true. As a small boy looking for black and white answers, it drove him nuts. :-) But he grew up. He learned how to justify his beliefs. As a teenager, he attended all sorts of religious functions, because that's what was expected. People even preferred to call on him to lead prayers, because he was good at thinking on his feet. But for him it was just social glue, the customs and traditions. You go along to get along. He understood that some people actually believed in the literal truth of what was being said, but he never understood how they could. If you raise them right, you don't have to worry about the next cult to come along.

Central Ohioan · 15 February 2011

I've got a guess as to who might have written Freshwater's appeal. Coach Dave's son! Remember the son who got 5 years probation after being convicted of pandering child porn back in '07? He's now in his third year of law school.

SEF · 15 February 2011

JASONMITCHELL said: how clueless can they be?! "fired just for being a Christian" when practically EVERY other teacher, every administrator, the referee, judge, students, parents, resident of the town is most likely a Christian also?

Ah but those ones aren't TRUE Christians.

Kevin B · 15 February 2011

eric said:
MaryM said: ", he’s only been without a job since January 10. Before that, he was on leave but still employed" Freshwater has been on UNPAID leave since 2008, medical benefits still intact though.
Sure, but my point is that another district can't hire him full time while he's on leave. He might be able to get a job at Starbucks or something, but no career-type employer is going to offer him a full-time contract when he's currently IN a full-time contract. Taking a full-time job at any serious employer is usually conditional up you, y'know, leaving your current employment.

He's the one who strung the administrative hearing process out. If he'd conceded that his dismissal was well-founded, he'd have been back in the job market 2 years ago!

wonderin · 15 February 2011

Beth Hoeffgen said: I am James Hoeffgen's mother. He is the student who testified that Freshwater's teachings led him to tell his sister that science can't be trusted and can't teach you anything. When James was in that class he brought home a handout from class with many convoluted arguments about why carbon dating, etc. Was wrong. I found scientific rebuttals of all arguments on the handout, made copies of this material and gave them to James. James took the rebuttals to Freshwater and asked him if he could hand this information out to the students, so they could have the opposing view. Freshwater would not permit James to distribute this information in class and would not discuss it. In his appeal, Freshwater says that he encouraged students to debate and think critically. He did not. He made a point to suppress scientific thought.

Thank you for sharing. I hope you and others like you continue to let this be known. If not his "supporters" will convince everyone that non of this happened and it was all made up. Some of us know the truth though.......

Marion Delgado · 15 February 2011

Save the house from Kelly Hamilton! :)

Chris Winter · 16 February 2011

Tangentially related (this seemed the least OT place for it):

http://www.nmsr.org/leg2011.htm

New Mexicans for Science and Reason presents Creationist Legislation, New Mexico Legislature, 2011 60-day Session

wonderin · 21 February 2011

article here:
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2011/02/why_freshwater_is_gonna_lose_a.php

steve · 1 March 2011

So, no criticism is allowed. No alternative explanations allowed. Silence any discussion. We indoctrinate our children today, we no longer educate them. Scopes has come full circle, only now evolution is the only acceptable explanation and any evidence to the contrary (real or imagined) must be silenced. If everyone is so secure in their evolutionary beliefs, why can’t alternatives be examined. Let them stand or fall on the merits rather than censoring them completely. And please spare me the “there is not evidence to the contrary rhetoric,” that simply is not true.

mrg · 1 March 2011

Oh, how tiresome.

DS · 1 March 2011

steve said: So, no criticism is allowed. No alternative explanations allowed. Silence any discussion. We indoctrinate our children today, we no longer educate them. Scopes has come full circle, only now evolution is the only acceptable explanation and any evidence to the contrary (real or imagined) must be silenced. If everyone is so secure in their evolutionary beliefs, why can’t alternatives be examined. Let them stand or fall on the merits rather than censoring them completely. And please spare me the “there is not evidence to the contrary rhetoric,” that simply is not true.

No Steve. Criticism is absolutely allowed. Feel free to criticize creationism in every tax free church you want. Discussion isn't silenced, you can discuss evolution in any church you want to as well. Indoctrination? No, you don't have to do that in your church if you don't want to. Evidence to the contrary? Sure, go right ahead, present the evidence for evolution in your church as well. No evolutionary biologist will try to stop you, I promise. If you are so secure in your religious beliefs, why don't you tell everyone in your church about the real evidence for evolution? Let their beliefs stand or fall based on the real evidence. What, you don't think that it's appropriate to discuss science in church? Well, now you get it. Freshwater is screwed. He screwed himself. Whining about it isn't going to change anything.

Flint · 1 March 2011

I think steve's complaint is common enough to address with a bit less contempt:

So, no criticism is allowed.

In science class, scientific criticism is allowed. In high school, students are not expected to understand issues at the very cutting edge of research; they are presented with the broad outlines of the evidence collected over 150 years. As a rule, NONE of the science presented in high school is advanced enough for genuine scientific uncertainty to be meaningful. As an example, gravity is presented in high school as a fact, just as evolution is. But what is the underlying mechanism of gravity? What exactly causes mass? These are real issues, but far beyond the high school level.

No alternative explanations allowed. Silence any discussion.

Yes and no. At the elementary high-school level, there ARE no scientific alternative explanations. So discussion about such alternatives doesn't happen in high school. The only "alternatives" understandable to high school students are religious objections, and science classes are not the place to discuss religious objections.

We indoctrinate our children today, we no longer educate them.

This has in fact always been the case. Children are simply not capable of the level of understanding known to practicing scientists. So in childhood, we tell children those things commonly understood to be true, much as we tell them what's good to eat without trying to "educate" them with advanced courses in nutrition. We TRAIN children not to touch hot stoves, until they are old enough so that the "education" of putting their hand on one is no longer a necessity in order to learn. But as children grow older, the sophistication of the material they're exposed to increases, in depth and detail and interrelationship with other materials. Education must be age-appropriate.

Scopes has come full circle, only now evolution is the only acceptable explanation and any evidence to the contrary (real or imagined) must be silenced.

Not so. Evolution is taught as the only acceptable explanation at the high school level because there simply ARE no scientific alternative explanations. We do not teach the "magic fairy dust" explanation because there isn't any evidence for it. Seriously, if any good, solid, testable, predictive alternatives had ever been discovered, these would have become folded into the basic theory. At the high school level of understanding, there simply ARE no valid alternatives.

If everyone is so secure in their evolutionary beliefs, why can’t alternatives be examined. Let them stand or fall on the merits rather than censoring them completely.

But this is EXACTLY what has happened! A great many alternatives have been proposed over the decades, and each of them has been rigorously tested, and those that passed the tests have been included. Those that failed have been discarded. If anyone should come up with ANY genuine merits (those that pass scientific tests) for any alternative, these would be presented.

And please spare me the “there is not evidence to the contrary rhetoric,” that simply is not true.

While many people make this claim, NOT ONE has EVER been able to produce any valid scientific evidence to back it up. If anyone ever does, it will be recognized, studied, and understood. (As a footnote, the Templeton Foundation offered a million dollar research grant to anyone capable of even SUGGESTING A VALID PROGRAM to investigate religious objections to evolution scientifically. They didn't even necessarily need to DO the research, only suggest how it might be done. So far, there have been no takers. So where is all this evidence?)

Mike Elzinga · 1 March 2011

steve said: So, no criticism is allowed. No alternative explanations allowed. Silence any discussion. We indoctrinate our children today, we no longer educate them. Scopes has come full circle, only now evolution is the only acceptable explanation and any evidence to the contrary (real or imagined) must be silenced. If everyone is so secure in their evolutionary beliefs, why can’t alternatives be examined. Let them stand or fall on the merits rather than censoring them completely. And please spare me the “there is not evidence to the contrary rhetoric,” that simply is not true.

You seem to be another person who has never learned about the history of the intelligent design/creationist political movement. If you go to the National Center for Science Education website and read through these court cases it might become crystal clear for you. And here is a compilation of all of the behaviors this movement has engaged in over a period of something like 50 years. Many posting here have been eye-witnesses to this behavior. You might want to ask yourself if this is the kind of political movement you would like to be associated with.

Flint · 1 March 2011

What's ironic is, steve is regurgitating almost verbatim something he has memorized, that has been indoctrinated into him. None of which has been subjected to the slightest thought, much less question. He stands as the perfect illustration of exactly what he claims to object to - except of course the entire substance of his post is encoded.

And when decoded, there turns out to be nothing in there about evidence (whatever that is), or alternatives, or even silencing. It decodes to Goddidit. Praise Jeezus. Goddidit. Praise Jeezus. Goddidit. Praise Jeezus.

And we all ought to understand this by now. Imagine if science class consisted of nothing but memorizing selected bible verses between prayers. Do you suppose steve would be complaining about the lack of scientific alternatives, or lack of any criticism? Would he be questioning his beliefs, or demanding evidence?

Stanton · 1 March 2011

steve said: ...If everyone is so secure in their evolutionary beliefs, why can’t alternatives be examined.

The alternatives have been examined.

Let them stand or fall on the merits rather than censoring them completely.

And these alternatives have fallen: that is why they do not need repeating beyond a footnote or two.

And please spare me the “there is not evidence to the contrary rhetoric,” that simply is not true.

And yet, you haven't bothered to provide any evidence to the contrary of evolution. So, are you a hypocrite, or do you just like wasting people's time whining?

Flint · 1 March 2011

And yet, you haven’t bothered to provide any evidence to the contrary of evolution.

Right here is where we fail to communicate. There is scientific evidence, of which there is none. And there is religious evidence, which consists of SAYING something is true and sincerely believing it. In the scientific world, as Einstein noted, it doesn't matter if only one single objection is raised, IF it's valid. But in the religious world, the validity of an objective DIRECTLY IS the number of people raising it. Kind of like voting - if the overwhelming majority WANTS something to come true, that MAKES it true. Which is why politics is the natural habitat of the creationist, who couldn't understand scientific evidence even if staying out of hell depended on it. Scientists take their authority from reality, as determined by tests. Creationists take their authority from people who say what they like to hear. If enough of them say it, the religious evidence becomes incontrovertible. After all, surely nobody believes that the steves of the world are asking for scientific alternatives to be presented. No creationist has evern been able to even suggest such an alternative. Their ONLY suggested alternative is GODDIDIT, expressed in as many different ways as they can encode.

Mike Elzinga · 1 March 2011

Flint said: Kind of like voting - if the overwhelming majority WANTS something to come true, that MAKES it true. Which is why politics is the natural habitat of the creationist, who couldn't understand scientific evidence even if staying out of hell depended on it.

So steve should be satisfied with Project Steve.

Flint · 1 March 2011

Good point. As we can speculate without too much fear of contradiction, steve here will swallow the creationist list of "scientists" as "proof" of his delusions, and reject the huge Steve-list as irrelevant. Again, I believe that by the age of seven, creationism has either set up or it hasn't. And if it has, "evidence" is anything supporting the delusions, and anything else is not evidence. No matter how many people say so.

MaryM · 2 March 2011

A related article:

http://sciencestandards.blogspot.com/2011/03/are-academic-freedom-laws-anti-science.html

wonderin · 2 March 2011

http://www.mountvernonnews.com/local/11/03/02/board-asks-to-move-case-to-federal-court

and it continues.....

Ted Herrlich · 2 March 2011

MaryM said: A related article: http://sciencestandards.blogspot.com/2011/03/are-academic-freedom-laws-anti-science.html

I shudder to think what would have happened to Freshwater if one of those supposed 'academic freedom' laws had been enacted in Ohio? He probably could have justified burning crosses into people's arms. He certainly could have justified his Bible, ID literature, and teaching anti-evolution. I doubt the school district would have attempted to fire him -- no matter how deserving he was to be fired! Ted Ted Herrlich tedhohio@gmail.com http://sciencestandards.blogspot.com

seabiscuit · 3 March 2011

wonderin said: http://www.mountvernonnews.com/local/11/03/02/board-asks-to-move-case-to-federal-court and it continues.....

Yes, I just read that this morning. Ughhhhh!

MaryM · 4 March 2011

"Accountability in the Media" blog (a staunch Freshwater supporter) has a little more info and lot of spin:

http://www.accountabilityinthemedia.com/2011/03/case-closed-without-trial-without.html

Unless Freshwater drops his appeal, he's going to FEDERAL Court without a lawyer!
This episode will drag along another two years at least. What a glutton for punishment!

Kevin B · 4 March 2011

MaryM said: "Accountability in the Media" blog (a staunch Freshwater supporter) has a little more info and lot of spin: http://www.accountabilityinthemedia.com/2011/03/case-closed-without-trial-without.html Unless Freshwater drops his appeal, he's going to FEDERAL Court without a lawyer! This episode will drag along another two years at least. What a glutton for punishment!

A couple of questions.... Although this is an "appeal", this is the first appearance of the case in a "real" court, so is Freshwater technically the plaintiff? Is this removal to a federal court an indication that Freshwater filed in the wrong court, a move by the Board to reduce the number of appeals or a bit of manoeuvering for advantage?