Freshwater: The Rutherford Appeals Court Brief

Posted 14 December 2011 by Richard B. Hoppe

As I noted in October, 2011, John Freshwater's termination by the Mt. Vernon City Schools was appealed to the Knox County Court of Common Pleas. That court denied Freshwater's request for additional hearings and ruled that "...there is clear and convincing evidence to support the Board of Education's termination of Freshwater's contract(s) for good and just cause,...". Subsequently, the Rutherford Institute announced that it would support Freshwater's appeal of the Common Pleas Court's decision to the Ohio 5th District Court of Appeals. Now the brief supporting that appeal is available on NCSE's site. The brief purports to be from R. Kelly Hamilton, Freshwater's lawyer, "in conjunction with The Rutherford Institute." Having read way too much of Hamilton's prose over the last three years, I'd say that Rutherford Institute staff wrote the brief and Hamilton's main contribution was to sign it. More below the fold The brief makes four basic arguments. Teaching "alternative theories" is OK The first argument of the brief is that teaching about alternative scientific theories is justifiable and appropriate, and that's all Freshwater did. The brief argues that "The fact that one competing theory on the formation of the universe and the beginning of life is consistent with the teachings of multiple major world religions simply does not transform good teaching practice into a violation of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause" (p. 10). It argues that for Freshwater to "simply [inform] students of various alternative theories without regard to those theories' religious or anti-religious implications" (p. 10) was an appropriate pedagogical practice in a public school science class. Consistent with Freshwater's claim that he taught "robust evolution," this argument translates to 'Creationism is a valid scientific alternative to evolution, and therefore it's OK to teach it in the public schools." Throughout this argument, the brief refers to multiple "theories"--it refers to "popular alternative theories" (p. v); "various alternative theories" (p. 10); "competing theories" (twice on p. 10); "alternative theories" (p. 12, p. 14); "alternative origins of life theories" (p. 14); and "widely-accepted theories on the origins of life" (referred to as consistent with "the views of multiple world religions" on p. 14). All the references are attempts to represent Freshwater's presentation of creationist materials as "a permissible and valuable pedagogical exercise" (p. 15) in a middle school science classroom. But of course Freshwater didn't teach "various alternative theories." As the record in the administrative hearing and his public statements show, Freshwater presented various creationist critiques of evolution, period. This argument on the part of the Rutherford Institute is a disingenuous attempt to bamboozle the appeals court into sanctioning a long-discredited creationist tactic: 'teach the evidence against evolution,' which Freshwater thinks is "great evidence". Freshwater had a free speech right to teach "alternative theories" The second main argument of the brief is that the termination violated Freshwater's First Amendment right to free speech, calling academic freedom a subsidiary right of that Constitutional protection. The brief goes on to argue as though academic freedom for a middle school teacher is tantamount to the right to teach whatever damn fool notion the teacher might wish to introduce in class. The brief says, "While these concepts have been expounded in a variety of factual contexts, the High Court has extrapolated from them a specific, First Amendment-based right to academic freedom that applies in the public school context." The brief goes on to say "The official suppression of ideas is precisely what the Board has undertaken in this case, and its action is thus utterly repugnant to the First Amendment and the Board's own policies,...". A flat earther could make exactly the same argument. At base, the Rutherford brief re-argues part of Rodney LeVake's failed argument, and it should fail here for the same reasons. LeVake,like Freshwater, argued that requiring him to teach evolution and to eschew teaching so-called evidence against evolution was unconstitutional, violating both his free speech and free exercise rights under the First Amendment. LeVake's suit was dismissed by the federal district court in a summary judgment which was upheld by the federal appeals court, and his appeal to the Supreme Court was declined by that court. Both the free speech and free exercise arguments for teaching creationism in public schools have been rejected by federal appeals courts. Freshwater is essentially arguing that he has a free speech right to teach whatever glop he wishes if he only calls it an "alternative scientific theory." Insubordination The brief argues that Freshwater was not insubordinate in refusing to remove all religious articles displayed in his classroom. It reclassifies the poster depicting George W. Bush and Colin Powell praying as a "patriotic" display, and argues that the Bible and "Jesus of Nazareth" book that Freshwater brought into his room and placed on his lab table after he was instructed to remove religious materials were merely a couple of library books that happened to be in his room. The brief claims that it is "nonsensical for the Board to terminate a teacher's employment based on the presence of school library books in his classroom" when Freshwater displayed a second Bible and a book titled "Jesus of Nazareth in his classroom. But by collapsing the chronology of the appearance of those two books--Freshwater brought them into his room after he was instructed to remove religious materials--the brief misrepresents Freshwater's defiance. It ignores testimony that Freshwater knew that refusing to remove religious materials would be considered to be insubordination, according to Principal William White's testimony cited in the Referee's recommendation (pdf). Religious animus the motivation for termination The brief ends its argument by alleging that Freshwater's termination was the result of religious animus against him, that "each and every cited basis for the decision was connected to the religious faith for which Freshwater had become infamous as a result of the rumors and speculation that stemmed from the sensationalized Tesla coil incident." In fact, Freshwater has claimed in public statements that he has been targeted for removal ever since his 2003 proposal to adopt the Intelligent Design network's "Objective Origins" policy (see, e.g., this Thumb post. The link in the post is now dead, and I don't recall where the interview was--possibly Bob Burney's radio program.) Somewhere in this rural, conservative, and heavily churched (59 identifiable churches) school district, with a Nazarene University, the district headquarters of the 7th Day Adventist Church, and two parochial schools, somewhere there's a cabal of anti-Freshwater activists sufficiently powerful to infuence two different school boards (2003 and 2011) strongly enough to get John Freshwater fired. Sure, and if you buy that I've got a bridge for sale, cheap. There's another explanation for the fact that the various bases for termination were related to Freshwater's religious beliefs: He was incapable of operating in a public school science classroom without allowing those sectarian beliefs to influence the content he taught. He found it impossible to teach science as it is, but rather imported into his classroom a range of anti-science and anti-evolution materials having their origin in clearly fundamentalist Christian dogma. I recommend the Board's termination resolution for the complete story on why Freshwater's teaching contract was terminated and for comparison to the Rutherford Institute's highly selective and cherry-picking misrepresentations.

62 Comments

Leszek · 14 December 2011

I don't understand.

Besides that all of those arguments do not fly at all, why isn't the fact that he branded children not the #1 issue.

Seriously that's child abuse. Case closed. Of all the times where "think of the children" is abused why in the name of all that is sane is it not mentioned here?

Did I misunderstand the case? I thought the cross (Or X if you prefer) was visible on the children arms for some time?

I am not trying to minimize the fight against creationism but it seems that the priorities are a bit off. Or do I just misunderstand the whole thing?

j. biggs · 14 December 2011

All I can gather is Freshwater really enjoys wasting money. First he has wasted all his own for no good reason. He then went on to cost his school district and their liability carrier millions and now he is happy to cost all of the taxpayers in his state millions, again for no apparent good reason. Freshwater surley is a fine example of Christian conservatism.

DS · 14 December 2011

So now he admits to teaching creationism and is trying to say that it's just fine to do so. Great. So that means he was lying when he claimed he didn't teach creationism. Of course, he is also lying now and will continue to lie in the future. After all, he is desperate to preserve the morals of the young children. What a role model.

mplavcan · 14 December 2011

It just never ends.

Flint · 14 December 2011

I get a 404 error on the second link above ("Rutherford institute announced") at

http://www.rutherford.org/articles_db/press_release.asp?article_id=972

apokryltaros · 14 December 2011

DS said: So now he admits to teaching creationism and is trying to say that it's just fine to do so. Great. So that means he was lying when he claimed he didn't teach creationism. Of course, he is also lying now and will continue to lie in the future. After all, he is desperate to preserve the morals of the young children. What a role model.

It's not a lie if you lie with Jesus in your heart, just as it's not a sin if you sin with Jesus in your heart... Nevermind that the Bible said that Jesus hate hate hate hates such behavior to begin with.

eric · 14 December 2011

I would love for the court to ask Freshwater to describe the alternative theories he taught, and what source materials he used to teach them. If he thinks they're legitimate, he has no reason not to simply describe them. Of course, he'll lie, but it never hurts to put yet another inconsistent statement of his on the record.

alicejohn · 14 December 2011

I am not a lawyer, so I have a few questions:

1. I don't recall the details of his administrative hearing but I assumed he testified. If he did, he admits in this briefing that he perjured himself during the original hearing. If the original hearing was a trial, he would be in legal trouble. Has he caused himself any legal trouble in this case?

2. If this was an appeal of a trial verdict, he would only be able to argue an error was made during the trial which hindered his ability to defend himself. But it appears he is trying to retry his case by bringing up new arguments. Is that permissible?

3. What First Amendment rights do teachers have in the classroom? I would assume they are required to teach any subject to a certain curriculum standard. I don't see how a teacher can ever invoke a First Amendment right while teaching core curriculum subjects. During classroom instruction time, they are either teaching the subject or not doing their job.

Matt G · 14 December 2011

The Bible is just a library book that happened to be in his room? I guess the Bible is only religious when you want it to be, and not when you don't! Just like ID itself....

apokryltaros · 14 December 2011

alicejohn said: 3. What First Amendment rights do teachers have in the classroom? I would assume they are required to teach any subject to a certain curriculum standard. I don't see how a teacher can ever invoke a First Amendment right while teaching core curriculum subjects. During classroom instruction time, they are either teaching the subject or not doing their job.

As far as I know, you can not legally invoke your First Amendment rights to excuse yourself from doing the job you are contractually obligated to perform, nor are you allowed to invoke your First Amendment rights to infringe upon other people's rights or wellbeing. In other words, if you got a job as a taste-tester at Mary's Porkchop Emporium, management is within their legal rights to fire you if you convert to Islam and adhere to halal rules. And, you can not legally invoke "freedom of religion" if you exercise your religious freedoms by turning your classroom into a captive audience to preach religious propaganda at.

Roger · 15 December 2011

Leszek said: I don't understand. Besides that all of those arguments do not fly at all, why isn't the fact that he branded children not the #1 issue. Seriously that's child abuse. Case closed. Of all the times where "think of the children" is abused why in the name of all that is sane is it not mentioned here? Did I misunderstand the case? I thought the cross (Or X if you prefer) was visible on the children arms for some time? I am not trying to minimize the fight against creationism but it seems that the priorities are a bit off. Or do I just misunderstand the whole thing?

With such weak arguments it is indeed hard to see what meaningful results Rutherford and Freshwater are trying to achieve especially as Freshwater is easily discredited as a witness. It almost appears they are trying to fail - are they that stupid or do I misunderstand the situation??

Paul Burnett · 15 December 2011

Roger said: It almost appears they are trying to fail - are they that stupid or do I misunderstand the situation??

They are creationists...they really are that stupid.

raven · 15 December 2011

What First Amendment rights do teachers have in the classroom?

There is no First Amendment right to teach whatever you want in a public school. If you are contracted to teach science, you are supposed to teach science. This defence has been tried before and it failed rather quickly. Some social sudies teacher in Indiana (??) decided to teach the kids creationism because he was a kook and claimed it. It didn't work.

Religious animus the motivation for termination

All of their claims are bogus. But this is probably the most outrageous. Chances are, the vast majority of the school district people involved were...xians. They do make up 76% of the US population.

Dave Luckett · 15 December 2011

With respect, there are other explanations than stupidity.

I agree, simple stupidity often suffices. After all, I have been dealing with people like Byers and Biggy here for some time, and they really are stupid. How much of this is nature and how much is nurture - the propensity creationists have for crippling their own intellect to defend their values - is moot, though.

Because they're not all stupid, and in some of the aspects of their intellect they're not deliberately self-destructive. The essential fact that must be understood about them, incredible as it may seem, is that they know they're right.

They know they're right on a level far more profound than the rational. That's why rational argument, facts and evidence simply make no impression on them at all. Those things are entirely irrelevant before their certain knowledge that they're right.

And not only irrelevant. Contrary facts and opposing evidence simply doesn't exist. As one of our little crosses, Athenoclast, has shown over and over, it's perfectly possible for the brighter ones to read a scientific paper and draw from it a conclusion exactly opposed to that of its authors after peer review, and when this fact is pointed out, to simply behave as though those very words do not exist.

So it's impossible for Freshwater and his cohorts to believe that there is no court that is going to vindicate him, because he knows he's right. He's been unfortunate so far to meet with people who do not recognise God's truth as he does, but sooner or later he will find an upright judge who will rule according to the plain rightness of his case. It cannot occur to him that his prevarications and flim-flam on the stand will cause any judge to throw him out of court. Such minor quibbles are completely immaterial. He was right. That's all that matters.

And he can hold that attitude while being perfectly able to reason on other matters. He is not necessarily stupid or self-destructive, even though his actions in this matter are plainly stupid and self-destructive.

marion.delgado · 15 December 2011

This is definitely not promoting Christianity or at least faith anymore. For instance, I read this and thought "Please God, make it stop!" and He did not appear and stop it. Just very disappointing all around.

This is the case that never ends
It just goes on and on, my friends
Someone started it not knowing what it was
And they'll go on litigating it forever just because
This is the case that never ends ,,,,

D P Robin · 15 December 2011

Roger said:
Leszek said: I don't understand. Besides that all of those arguments do not fly at all, why isn't the fact that he branded children not the #1 issue. Seriously that's child abuse. Case closed. Of all the times where "think of the children" is abused why in the name of all that is sane is it not mentioned here? Did I misunderstand the case? I thought the cross (Or X if you prefer) was visible on the children arms for some time? I am not trying to minimize the fight against creationism but it seems that the priorities are a bit off. Or do I just misunderstand the whole thing?
With such weak arguments it is indeed hard to see what meaningful results Rutherford and Freshwater are trying to achieve especially as Freshwater is easily discredited as a witness. It almost appears they are trying to fail - are they that stupid or do I misunderstand the situation??

What we have to realize is that to the people "in the trenches", like Freshwater, these ARE compelling arguments in their side's favor. While us in the PT community see this as a case of "trying the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result", they see it as patiently waiting for a righteous judge to come and vindicate their faith. The more sophisticated anti-evolutionists at in places like DI, ICR, etc., know this isn't going to work, but they do share the hope that one judge can change the game in their favor, so they don't go into the spasms of embarrassments one might thinks they would over cases like this. Their manifestation of the craziness is that they expect that there is out there some sort of lipstick they can put on the pig that will have the legal system fall in love with some version of anti-evolutionism as science. After that, its Wedge, Wedge Wedge, right back to 1066. dpr

xubist · 15 December 2011

I think Dave Luckett is right: Clowns like Freshwater know they're right, with all the faith and fervor with which they know that baby Jesus loves them. In addition, one cannot discount the possibility that they are fully aware of the exorbitant amounts of money which go into these kinds of legal proceedings -- and they regard these grossly excessive costs as a feature, not a bug. After all, the more money a school district is forced to pour down the rathole of a case like this, the less money is available for the district to spend on teaching evilutionary lies, right?

eric · 15 December 2011

Flint said: I get a 404 error on the second link above ("Rutherford institute announced") at http://www.rutherford.org/articles_db/press_release.asp?article_id=972

Flint, try this link It is not clear to me whether Rutherford is asking for money from Freshwater. After all, it should be pretty clear to them that he has none. And if they're doing it pro bono, he'd be stupid not to appeal. More speculation here...IMO their announcement makes it sound like they are really pushing the academic freedom angle. While that has never worked in the past, this may be an indication of a long-term, multi-case strategy by conservative christian legal organizations to shop around courts until they find one that buys it, just so it can be appealed up to the Supremes. IOW RI may be using Freshwater, rather than the other way around.

DS · 15 December 2011

eric said:
Flint said: I get a 404 error on the second link above ("Rutherford institute announced") at http://www.rutherford.org/articles_db/press_release.asp?article_id=972
Flint, try this link It is not clear to me whether Rutherford is asking for money from Freshwater. After all, it should be pretty clear to them that he has none. And if they're doing it pro bono, he'd be stupid not to appeal. More speculation here...IMO their announcement makes it sound like they are really pushing the academic freedom angle. While that has never worked in the past, this may be an indication of a long-term, multi-case strategy by conservative christian legal organizations to shop around courts until they find one that buys it, just so it can be appealed up to the Supremes. IOW RI may be using Freshwater, rather than the other way around.

I sure hope so. It would be great if Freshwater took this all the way to the Supreme Court. What better way to show the public what religious fundamentalists are trying to get get away with in this country. Every teacher teaching creationism would be out on notice that this kind of crap isn't going to be tolerated. The case would be a sure loser. WIth the history and testimony on file, Freshwater cannot possibly be vindicated by any court anywhere. Let the religious bigots use him all they want to. They are just whipping a dead, smelly, lying horse. If by some miracle the Supreme Court did rule in his favor, that would mean the end of science in this country. At least then the fundamentalists would get what they asked for. In that case, I think I would learn Chinese and move real fast. Freshwater could stay behind and die from lack of fresh water, what irony.

harold · 15 December 2011

eric said:
Flint said: I get a 404 error on the second link above ("Rutherford institute announced") at http://www.rutherford.org/articles_db/press_release.asp?article_id=972
Flint, try this link It is not clear to me whether Rutherford is asking for money from Freshwater. After all, it should be pretty clear to them that he has none. And if they're doing it pro bono, he'd be stupid not to appeal. More speculation here...IMO their announcement makes it sound like they are really pushing the academic freedom angle. While that has never worked in the past, this may be an indication of a long-term, multi-case strategy by conservative christian legal organizations to shop around courts until they find one that buys it, just so it can be appealed up to the Supremes. IOW RI may be using Freshwater, rather than the other way around.

Rutherford is dead wrong in this case, but they are eccentric rather than hard core mainstream right wing (sometimes work with ACLU), and it is my impression that they genuinely represent their clients pro bono. Taxpayers still have to pay for the other side, though. I am cautiously optimistic here. The main problem with the case is that, as has been documented on this site repeatedly, the Rutherford Institute does not seem to be working on the case that they think they are working on. As noted above, Freshwater was not teaching "alternative theories", he did not necessarily have the right to teach "alternative theories" that are not in the curriculum (*this in isolation is the least ridiculous argument in the brief, of course; a teacher fired for actually mentioning a valid alternative theory could have a strong case, but that isn't at all what happened here, so it doesn't apply*), and he was insubordinate. The "religious animus" bit is especially funny, because, if I recall correctly, Freshwater previously argued (probably correctly) that other teachers were allowed mild Christian displays*. Another example of his contradictory claims. "It's not fair that I was fired because other people are allowed to be religious, no wait, it's not fair that I was fired because I was fired for being the only religious one". And of course, his religion is essentially the same as that of the majority of the community. (*As I've noted before, I strongly support the right of teachers to openly hold spiritual beliefs, if done in a way which carefully avoids any confounding of the teacher's personal views with the curriculum, and which does not conflate, in the minds of students, a teacher holding a personal view with state favoritism for that view.)

raven · 15 December 2011

ncse.org: Webster et al. v. New Lenox School District et al. (Full title: Ray Webster and Matthew Dunne, by and through his parents and next best friends, Philip and Helen Dunne, Plaintiffs, v. New Lenox School District No. 122 and Alex M. Martino, and as Superintendent of New Lenox School District No. 122, Defendants) In 1987, Ray Webster and Matthew Dunne sued the New Lenox School District of Illinois, as well as Alex Martino, the district superintendent. Webster was a junior high school social studies teacher in that district, and Dunne was one of his students. After complaints about proselytizing in his class, Webster had been advised by the district to refrain from religious advocacy in his teaching, and in particular to refrain from teaching creation science. In the suit, Webster argued that he had a first amendment right to determine his own teaching curriculum, and that it was necessary to teach creation science in order to balance pro-evolution statements in the social studies textbook. Dunne, for his part, argued that he had the right as a student to hear about creation science in school. On May 25, 1989, US District Judge George Marovich dismissed their complaint, ruling that Webster could not teach creation science without violating the first amendment, and that the district had a right to require Webster to teach within its established curriculum framework. Marovich also ruled that Dunne's desires to learn about creation science in school were outweighed by the district's interest in avoiding the violation of the estalishment clause or other students' first amendment rights. Webster appealed, but on November 6, 1990, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the district court decision. All the legal documentation available to us for this case is provided at the bottom of this page. It is arranged in chronological order.

There is a lot of case law on the First Amendment issue. Freshwater will lose and probably in a summary judgement. Here is one case from the National Center for Science Education, the good people who are part of the Reality Based Community.

patrickmay.myopenid.com · 15 December 2011

(*As I've noted before, I strongly support the right of teachers to openly hold spiritual beliefs, if done in a way which carefully avoids any confounding of the teacher's personal views with the curriculum, and which does not conflate, in the minds of students, a teacher holding a personal view with state favoritism for that view.)

Out of curiosity, why do you support this? A public school teacher's job is to teach the subject matter in accordance with the approved curriculum. There is no pedagogical benefit to allowing personal religious displays and such could easily make children with different beliefs feel excluded or unequal, in the eyes of the teacher, to their peers who share the teacher's beliefs.

Kevin B · 15 December 2011

patrickmay.myopenid.com said:
(*As I've noted before, I strongly support the right of teachers to openly hold spiritual beliefs, if done in a way which carefully avoids any confounding of the teacher's personal views with the curriculum, and which does not conflate, in the minds of students, a teacher holding a personal view with state favoritism for that view.)
Out of curiosity, why do you support this? A public school teacher's job is to teach the subject matter in accordance with the approved curriculum. There is no pedagogical benefit to allowing personal religious displays and such could easily make children with different beliefs feel excluded or unequal, in the eyes of the teacher, to their peers who share the teacher's beliefs.

I would suggest that "personal religious displays" is not synonymous with "openly hold spiritual beliefs". If the latter were not allowed, can you imagine the fun all those narrow-minded extreme Protestant bigots would have hounding Catholic teachers who dared to openly attend mass on Sunday?

Frank J · 15 December 2011

Leszek said: I don't understand. Besides that all of those arguments do not fly at all, why isn't the fact that he branded children not the #1 issue. Seriously that's child abuse. Case closed. Of all the times where "think of the children" is abused why in the name of all that is sane is it not mentioned here? Did I misunderstand the case? I thought the cross (Or X if you prefer) was visible on the children arms for some time? I am not trying to minimize the fight against creationism but it seems that the priorities are a bit off. Or do I just misunderstand the whole thing?

I can understand PT and RBH emphasiing the "creationism" part because the rest is off-topic here. But it seems that that has been the emphasis for both prosecution and defense too, which I find as mind-boggling as you do. Don't get me wrong, I do think that misleasing students about evolution does more long-term harm than the minor burn, but there are, and ought to be, clear laws against physical abuse, so I'm amazed that this was not settled immediately. BTW, even though Freshwater comes across more as a severely-compartmentalized Biblical literalist rube than, say, a DI fellow who seems to know that he is deliberately misleading his audience, Freshwater apparently knows well enough to keep it all about "weaknesses" of evolution, and omit any details of his own "theory" whereby students can see where the real weakesses lie. I understand that church-state issues are necessary to keep ID/creationism out of public school science class, but I for one see more than enough reason to ban them even if they did not violate the Establishment clause.

eric · 15 December 2011

patrickmay.myopenid.com said:
(*As I've noted before, I strongly support the right of teachers to openly hold spiritual beliefs, if done in a way which carefully avoids any confounding of the teacher's personal views with the curriculum, and which does not conflate, in the minds of students, a teacher holding a personal view with state favoritism for that view.)
Out of curiosity, why do you support this? A public school teacher's job is to teach the subject matter in accordance with the approved curriculum. There is no pedagogical benefit to allowing personal religious displays and such could easily make children with different beliefs feel excluded or unequal, in the eyes of the teacher, to their peers who share the teacher's beliefs.

Just a guess, but Harold was probably talking about letting teachers say grace before meals (in public) and other such displays. While having nothing to do with science pedagogy, I think letting kids see that reasonable adults can switch between "personal hat" and "represent the state hat" without Freshwater's problems is an excellent lesson. It teaches them that people can keep personal and professional conduct separate, and directly undermines fundie claims that one's personal religious beliefs "must" be allowed a voice in one's professional conduct. It also gives the kids an example of how mature adults handle such context-based differences.

Frank J. said: I can understand PT and RBH emphasiing the “creationism” part because the rest is off-topic here. But it seems that that has been the emphasis for both prosecution and defense too, which I find as mind-boggling as you do.

The school district did not fire him for burning students, so his appeals have no reason to bring it up. You can boggle at the school's decision to drop that matter, but once it was made, there was simply no reason for Freshwater to contest the fact that they dropped it.

SWT · 15 December 2011

Kevin B said:
patrickmay.myopenid.com said:
(*As I've noted before, I strongly support the right of teachers to openly hold spiritual beliefs, if done in a way which carefully avoids any confounding of the teacher's personal views with the curriculum, and which does not conflate, in the minds of students, a teacher holding a personal view with state favoritism for that view.)
Out of curiosity, why do you support this? A public school teacher's job is to teach the subject matter in accordance with the approved curriculum. There is no pedagogical benefit to allowing personal religious displays and such could easily make children with different beliefs feel excluded or unequal, in the eyes of the teacher, to their peers who share the teacher's beliefs.
I would suggest that "personal religious displays" is not synonymous with "openly hold spiritual beliefs". If the latter were not allowed, can you imagine the fun all those narrow-minded extreme Protestant bigots would have hounding Catholic teachers who dared to openly attend mass on Sunday?

At the risk of going off topic, I want to respond to this -- the distinction between "openly religious" and "having personal religious displays" is important. I am a professor at a public university. I am also openly Christian. Some of my undergrad students might know this (it's never been a point of discussion in or out of class). Some, perhaps all, of the graduate students in my research group know I'm Christian -- it's been a topic of several mutually enjoyable and enlightening discussions with with some of my Muslim students. Anyone who knows who I am can see my religious affiliation by looking at publicly accessible information (for example, on Facebook), and I'm willing to discuss my beliefs with people who ask as long as it's outside the classroom. (There are already precious few instructional hours and I can't afford to waste any of them with off-topic discussion.) I neither hide nor advertise my faith in my workplace. I don't have a Bible in my office. I don't wear religious symbols as jewelry. I don't invite students to church events. I judge this all to be within the bounds of proper behavior, and were I to become a high school teacher in a public school, I would follow the guidelines. Were I to write a math textbook with a creationist Appendix and require my students to use the book for a class I taught, or to use my university web page to promote my religious beliefs, I think that would cross a line. YMMV

marion.delgado · 15 December 2011

Richard Hoppe:

In fact, Freshwater has claimed in public statements that he has been targeted for removal ever since his 2003 proposal to adopt the Intelligent Design network’s “Objective Origins” policy (see, e.g., this Thumb post. The link in the post is now dead, and I don’t recall where the interview was–possibly Bob Burney’s radio program.)

I just looked at the transcript I did at the time: http://fascistoar.blogspot.com/2010/01/freshwater-on-bob-burney-transcript.html I think Richard is right: Freshwater:

Started, I believe, in 2003. At that time President Bush did No Child Left Behind policy came out and Santorium[sic] out of Pennsylvania senator there he attached to No Child Left Behind policy the, the, to critically analyze evolution. I, I was studying it very closely through the years I'm kind of watching the process of all this and at that time I brought a proposal to the school board to critically analyze evolution. And I followed the Administration's steps that they wanted me to follow and I went to the science, science committee and then I, it did - didn't fly there and so I asked the principal at that time his name was Mr. Kuhns and he said, well, take it to the school board, so I proceeded to go to the school board, that would be my next step.

Burney:

So this was following the guidelines of federal legislation.

Freshwater:

Yes, yes, yes.

Burney:

Okay. Alright.

Freshwater:

And it - we worked through the process, it took two, three months and was very, it was very outspoken then. It was, a lot of people showing up at the meetings, hundreds were showing up there, and giving their..

Don Matoilyak:

Support of you, John.

Freshwater:

Thanks, pastor. In support there was a, it was, it ended up not passing, and all I wanted to do was critically analyze evolution. And I was tagged then, I believe, and let's use the word that they used on me, branded, that was the word that they you know they attached onto me, I'll use it, I was branded and at that time and,

Burney:

Even though, even though I don't want, and we'll back up because I want to make sure this is clear, you were asking the school board to follow federal guidelines in the No Child Left Behind legislation

Freshwater:

Yes, Mmm hmm.

Burney:

Okay

Freshwater:

At that time it was a 10th grade standard to critically analyze evolution in biology at the 10th grade and I was trying to bring it down to the lower grades and be able to critically analyze evolution. And at that time there was some letters to the editor some different things out there and they started branding me some religious freak, you know, they sort of attaching onto me oh he's trying to teach creationism, he's trying to teach intelligent design, and no I don't teach creationism, I don't teach intelligent design, just let's examine evolution, and let's look at evolution and what's out there, what, what are the facts out there with evolution, what does the scientist, dig em up, and let's examine them, let's use the scientific method. So that, that was the beginning of it

Richard B. Hoppe · 15 December 2011

Flint said: I get a 404 error on the second link above ("Rutherford institute announced") at http://www.rutherford.org/articles_db/press_release.asp?article_id=972

Hm. That link seems to have gone dead. Wonder why--it was good for me when I wrote the earlier post, and also for NCSE when it posted its story. The alternative link given above has a good summary, also from the Rutherford Institute.

Richard B. Hoppe · 15 December 2011

marion.delgado said: Richard Hoppe:
In fact, Freshwater has claimed in public statements that he has been targeted for removal ever since his 2003 proposal to adopt the Intelligent Design network’s “Objective Origins” policy (see, e.g., this Thumb post. The link in the post is now dead, and I don’t recall where the interview was–possibly Bob Burney’s radio program.)
I just looked at the transcript I did at the time: http://fascistoar.blogspot.com/2010/01/freshwater-on-bob-burney-transcript.html I think Richard is right:

Many thanks!

Mary M · 15 December 2011

Professor Bob Altemeyer, psychologist, has studied the authoritarian personality for 30 years and gives the best explanation of the fundy Christian mindset that I have ever read. He has made his book available on PDF file:

http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer/drbob/TheAuthoritarians.pdf

His writing style is quite conversational and makes for an enjoyable read.

Richard B. Hoppe · 15 December 2011

Mary M said: Professor Bob Altemeyer, psychologist, has studied the authoritarian personality for 30 years and gives the best explanation of the fundy Christian mindset that I have ever read. He has made his book available on PDF file: http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer/drbob/TheAuthoritarians.pdf His writing style is quite conversational and makes for an enjoyable read.

Thanks for reminding me of that!

harold · 15 December 2011

patrickmay.myopenid.com said:
(*As I've noted before, I strongly support the right of teachers to openly hold spiritual beliefs, if done in a way which carefully avoids any confounding of the teacher's personal views with the curriculum, and which does not conflate, in the minds of students, a teacher holding a personal view with state favoritism for that view.)
Out of curiosity, why do you support this? A public school teacher's job is to teach the subject matter in accordance with the approved curriculum. There is no pedagogical benefit to allowing personal religious displays and such could easily make children with different beliefs feel excluded or unequal, in the eyes of the teacher, to their peers who share the teacher's beliefs.

That is a very good question, and although Eric 's explanation above is correct, I will also answer. I am completely non-religious but believe in freedom of religion and conscience. Some rights-respecting people do choose to make their spiritual beliefs overt, in a way that does not violate the rights of others. For example, if a Jewish math teacher wears a yarmulka, while appropriately teaching math. It is a good question because it is a question of balance. It is crucial to keep public schools from violating rights. But a ridiculous level of objection to non-proselytizing personal display of spiritual affiliation would probably also create a biases atmosphere. You do raise a valuable point. Any religious display may be used as an indirect way to signal favoritism or exclusion. There is no perfect solution, but I suppose I favor erring on the side of inclusion. It is the creationists like Freshwater who are violating rights. I strongly support their right to live and believe as they see fit. That isn't enough for them. They want to take that right away from me. Not the other way around.

Richard B. Hoppe · 15 December 2011

That's all undoubtedly OK, but my guide when it comes to respecting the various beliefs that are out there is John Scalzi:

If you want me to treat your ideas with more respect, get some better ideas.

Quoted from Your Hate Mail Will Be Graded.

cmb · 15 December 2011

eric said:
patrickmay.myopenid.com said:
(*As I've noted before, I strongly support the right of teachers to openly hold spiritual beliefs, if done in a way which carefully avoids any confounding of the teacher's personal views with the curriculum, and which does not conflate, in the minds of students, a teacher holding a personal view with state favoritism for that view.)
Out of curiosity, why do you support this? A public school teacher's job is to teach the subject matter in accordance with the approved curriculum. There is no pedagogical benefit to allowing personal religious displays and such could easily make children with different beliefs feel excluded or unequal, in the eyes of the teacher, to their peers who share the teacher's beliefs.
Just a guess, but Harold was probably talking about letting teachers say grace before meals (in public) and other such displays. While having nothing to do with science pedagogy, I think letting kids see that reasonable adults can switch between "personal hat" and "represent the state hat" without Freshwater's problems is an excellent lesson. It teaches them that people can keep personal and professional conduct separate, and directly undermines fundie claims that one's personal religious beliefs "must" be allowed a voice in one's professional conduct. It also gives the kids an example of how mature adults handle such context-based differences.
Frank J. said: I can understand PT and RBH emphasiing the “creationism” part because the rest is off-topic here. But it seems that that has been the emphasis for both prosecution and defense too, which I find as mind-boggling as you do.
The school district did not fire him for burning students, so his appeals have no reason to bring it up. You can boggle at the school's decision to drop that matter, but once it was made, there was simply no reason for Freshwater to contest the fact that they dropped it.

I don't recall exactly what the referee for the administrative hearing said but he (for reasons unknown) dismissed the burning/branding of the student as hearsay or rumor or some such nonsense. The burning/branding incident was not listed as one of the reasons to fire Freshwater in the referee's report.

Leszek · 15 December 2011

Frank J said:
Leszek said: I don't understand. Besides that all of those arguments do not fly at all, why isn't the fact that he branded children not the #1 issue. Seriously that's child abuse. Case closed. Of all the times where "think of the children" is abused why in the name of all that is sane is it not mentioned here? Did I misunderstand the case? I thought the cross (Or X if you prefer) was visible on the children arms for some time? I am not trying to minimize the fight against creationism but it seems that the priorities are a bit off. Or do I just misunderstand the whole thing?
I can understand PT and RBH emphasiing the "creationism" part because the rest is off-topic here. But it seems that that has been the emphasis for both prosecution and defense too, which I find as mind-boggling as you do. Don't get me wrong, I do think that misleasing students about evolution does more long-term harm than the minor burn, but there are, and ought to be, clear laws against physical abuse, so I'm amazed that this was not settled immediately. BTW, even though Freshwater comes across more as a severely-compartmentalized Biblical literalist rube than, say, a DI fellow who seems to know that he is deliberately misleading his audience, Freshwater apparently knows well enough to keep it all about "weaknesses" of evolution, and omit any details of his own "theory" whereby students can see where the real weakesses lie. I understand that church-state issues are necessary to keep ID/creationism out of public school science class, but I for one see more than enough reason to ban them even if they did not violate the Establishment clause.

As far as I can tell, the arguments have become so weak there is almost no point in discussing them, in fact it isn't really a discussion, it is intellectual rubbernecking at a mangled wreck. They have fallen back to 1st amendment rights. It is over. Nothing to see here. Meanwhile if the guy had just branded the kid and left out the religion, then he would have been barred from ever teaching again. Or at least you would think. {shrugs} Regarding religious displays. In my Catholic high school we had a Jewish teacher. He used to ware that little beany thing they wear on their head. (sorry I can't think the name) It was obvious what religion he was, he didn't hide it in any way. However, it didn't matter. He taught whatever class he was supposed to teach and that was that. He didn't try to convert anyone or anything. AFAIK there were never any parental complaints and as far as the students were concerned his religion was just another stat like eye colour or height. I think that was just fine and appropriate. No need to hide it, no need to push it, no need to stress about it. If it had been a public school and the teacher had been catholic and wearing a little crucifix or something, who cares. If the content of her class had been on topic what does it matter? It only becomes an issue because some fundamentalists just can't resist preaching in school. And if they are banned from outright preaching, they just squirm and pull the kind of tricks that are worthy of no more response than "so you think your smart?" Those fundamentalists just need to get canned. Which seems to be a rather harder thing to do in the states than here in Canada. Or so it seems to me anyway. I am not in the Canadian version of the Bible Belt.

Leszek · 15 December 2011

The school district did not fire him for burning students, so his appeals have no reason to bring it up. You can boggle at the school’s decision to drop that matter, but once it was made, there was simply no reason for Freshwater to contest the fact that they dropped it.
I don’t recall exactly what the referee for the administrative hearing said but he (for reasons unknown) dismissed the burning/branding of the student as hearsay or rumor or some such nonsense. The burning/branding incident was not listed as one of the reasons to fire Freshwater in the referee’s report.

I didn't know that. I am not sure how it could have been dismissed as such but if it was then the rest makes sense.

Joe Felsenstein · 15 December 2011

Imagine a teacher from some religious tradition far removed from Christianity, say a Hindu, proposing to teach children in Freshwater's district the "evidence" for that creation story.

I imagine Freshwater and friends would go ballistic and demand that this be shut down. It would be much like someone proposing to put "In Allah we trust" on the coins as a "noncontroversial", "nonreligious" statement. Just imagine the uproar.

bigdakine · 15 December 2011

Leszek said:
The school district did not fire him for burning students, so his appeals have no reason to bring it up. You can boggle at the school’s decision to drop that matter, but once it was made, there was simply no reason for Freshwater to contest the fact that they dropped it.
I don’t recall exactly what the referee for the administrative hearing said but he (for reasons unknown) dismissed the burning/branding of the student as hearsay or rumor or some such nonsense. The burning/branding incident was not listed as one of the reasons to fire Freshwater in the referee’s report.
I didn't know that. I am not sure how it could have been dismissed as such but if it was then the rest makes sense.

I'm pretty sure there were phtographs taken of the student's arm. I don't know how you dismiss the photographs so easily.

Richard B. Hoppe · 15 December 2011

cmb said: I don't recall exactly what the referee for the administrative hearing said but he (for reasons unknown) dismissed the burning/branding of the student as hearsay or rumor or some such nonsense. The burning/branding incident was not listed as one of the reasons to fire Freshwater in the referee's report.

The referee said (pdf) the Tesla coil matter was settled by administrative action and was therefore irrelevant to his own decision concerning the grounds for termination. He did comment on the "provocative and sensational nature" of the allegations concerning the Tesla coil.

Richard B. Hoppe · 15 December 2011

bigdakine said: I'm pretty sure there were phtographs taken of the student's arm. I don't know how you dismiss the photographs so easily.

The evidential worth of those photos was arguable. They were taken by the parents, passed on to the administration, and published in a newspaper. But no 'official' body--Children's Services, cops, school administrators--saw the actual marks on the boy's arm. So the provenance of the photos could have been attacked. In fact, at least one Freshwater supporter (Daubenmire, IIRC) alleged they were faked, and in the administrative hearing Freshwater's lawyer, R. Kelly Hamilton, suggested that the boy's grandfather had photographic expertise, with the unspoken implication that he could have doctored the photos.

bigdakine · 15 December 2011

Richard B. Hoppe said:
bigdakine said: I'm pretty sure there were phtographs taken of the student's arm. I don't know how you dismiss the photographs so easily.
The evidential worth of those photos was arguable. They were taken by the parents, passed on to the administration, and published in a newspaper. But no 'official' body--Children's Services, cops, school administrators--saw the actual marks on the boy's arm. So the provenance of the photos could have been attacked. In fact, at least one Freshwater supporter (Daubenmire, IIRC) alleged they were faked, and in the administrative hearing Freshwater's lawyer, R. Kelly Hamilton, suggested that the boy's grandfather had photographic expertise, with the unspoken implication that he could have doctored the photos.

Did they not take the boy to a Doctor?

Richard B. Hoppe · 15 December 2011

bigdakine said: Did they not take the boy to a Doctor?

Nope. The boy's mother is an ex-surgical technician and treated it herself.

Doc Bill · 15 December 2011

Two points relying on my failing memory in this case:

First, Did they not take the boy to a doctor? No, I don't think they did. The skin irritation became noticeable to the boy during hockey practice, but the parents went to the school later. They didn't want to make a scene, just find out what happened. It was Freshwater being an ass that inflamed the situation out of control.

Second, if I recall either the Principal or Super (White?) wrote Freshwater an official letter laying down the law for his classroom. Freshwater replied, in writing (?) that he would comply with everything except removing his Bible from his desk. He then threw down the gauntlet writing that if that was insubordination, so be it. Or words to that effect. Or I dreamed the whole thing.

No question, though, that Freshwater has had his back up and been defensive from the outset, which in large part is why he is where he is today.

(I stand corrected in advance by those more knowledgeable and/or precise than I.)

patrickmay.myopenid.com · 15 December 2011

harold said:
patrickmay.myopenid.com said:
(*As I've noted before, I strongly support the right of teachers to openly hold spiritual beliefs, if done in a way which carefully avoids any confounding of the teacher's personal views with the curriculum, and which does not conflate, in the minds of students, a teacher holding a personal view with state favoritism for that view.)
Out of curiosity, why do you support this? A public school teacher's job is to teach the subject matter in accordance with the approved curriculum. There is no pedagogical benefit to allowing personal religious displays and such could easily make children with different beliefs feel excluded or unequal, in the eyes of the teacher, to their peers who share the teacher's beliefs.
That is a very good question, and although Eric 's explanation above is correct, I will also answer. I am completely non-religious but believe in freedom of religion and conscience. Some rights-respecting people do choose to make their spiritual beliefs overt, in a way that does not violate the rights of others. For example, if a Jewish math teacher wears a yarmulka, while appropriately teaching math. It is a good question because it is a question of balance. It is crucial to keep public schools from violating rights. But a ridiculous level of objection to non-proselytizing personal display of spiritual affiliation would probably also create a biases atmosphere. You do raise a valuable point. Any religious display may be used as an indirect way to signal favoritism or exclusion. There is no perfect solution, but I suppose I favor erring on the side of inclusion. It is the creationists like Freshwater who are violating rights. I strongly support their right to live and believe as they see fit. That isn't enough for them. They want to take that right away from me. Not the other way around.

Thanks for the detailed response. The yarmulka is a great gray area example. It can be seen as a cultural as well as religious symbol, so I wouldn't personally have an issue with it. A Sikh turban or a Muslim's beard seem to fall under this category as well. Display of one's personal sacred texts, posters with sectarian quotations, or religious objects such as crosses are qualitatively different in that they show that the teacher's faith is so important that he or she feels the need to broadcast it in every aspect of his or her life. That's where I see the line being crossed into the appearance of excluding certain students.

harold · 15 December 2011

Richard B. Hoppe said: That's all undoubtedly OK, but my guide when it comes to respecting the various beliefs that are out there is John Scalzi:
If you want me to treat your ideas with more respect, get some better ideas.
Quoted from Your Hate Mail Will Be Graded.

Complete agreement. I respect peoples' right to hold their ideas, not necessarily the ideas themselves. In fact, anyone who tries to compel you to respect their ideas (as opposed to their rights) is actually arguing against their own rights. If you don't have the right to express your opinion of their ideas freely, then by extension, they don't have a secure right to express the ideas either.

cmb · 15 December 2011

Richard B. Hoppe said:
cmb said: I don't recall exactly what the referee for the administrative hearing said but he (for reasons unknown) dismissed the burning/branding of the student as hearsay or rumor or some such nonsense. The burning/branding incident was not listed as one of the reasons to fire Freshwater in the referee's report.
The referee said (pdf) the Tesla coil matter was settled by administrative action and was therefore irrelevant to his own decision concerning the grounds for termination. He did comment on the "provocative and sensational nature" of the allegations concerning the Tesla coil.

Thanks for correction and explanation Richard. So much for relying on my memory!

Frank J · 16 December 2011

The school district did not fire him for burning students, so his appeals have no reason to bring it up.
— eric

Sad but not surprising. I find myself increasingly complaining about the "foot shooting" among those opposed to teaching creationism/ID/academic anarchy, etc. Case in point:

At that time it was a 10th grade standard to critically analyze evolution in biology at the 10th grade and I was trying to bring it down to the lower grades and be able to critically analyze evolution. And at that time there was some letters to the editor some different things out there and they started branding me some religious freak,...
— John Freshwater

There's no need to call him a "religious freak" even if he is one. It's the courts' job to determine if what he teaches violates religious freedom. We have a different job, and I think we're doing it as poorly as the courts are doing their job well. "Branding" and religious references aside, Freshwarter was clearly misleading students about science. He knew well enough to know that, had the evidence truly supported any of the mutually-contradictory accounts, he'd be teaching that, and having students subject it to a critical analysis - a real one, not phony arguments "designed" only to promote unreasonable doubt. That's what I the "fence sitters," those who say things like "what's the harm, let them believe," need to know, but mostly do not.

eric · 16 December 2011

patrickmay.myopenid.com said: Thanks for the detailed response. The yarmulka is a great gray area example. It can be seen as a cultural as well as religious symbol, so I wouldn't personally have an issue with it. A Sikh turban or a Muslim's beard seem to fall under this category as well. Display of one's personal sacred texts, posters with sectarian quotations, or religious objects such as crosses are qualitatively different in that they show that the teacher's faith is so important that he or she feels the need to broadcast it in every aspect of his or her life. That's where I see the line being crossed into the appearance of excluding certain students.

Also keep in mind that, traditionally, the US courts support 'reasonable accommodation.' They are not as bright-hard-line as, say, the French seem to be. Based on the history of this case, IMO if Freshwater had chosen to wear a cross or crucifix outside his clothes, where visible, and kept a bible in his desk, but not taught creationism, not sought to lead FCA students in prayer, and not been insubordinate, he'd probably still be teaching.

Just Bob · 16 December 2011

OK, I did this once before, and I'll do it again, and I'm perfectly willing to be unloaded upon.

1) Freshwater SHOULD have been fired for teaching creationism (and other religious activity in school)--much earlier in the process, especially after having been instructed to cease and desist.

2) Freshwater SHOULD NOT have bee fired for using the Tesla coil as described--UNLESS he continued to use it after being told not to. Granted, using it on kids (volunteers, mind you), was not the smartest thing to do, and he should not have done it (and he was asking for more trouble by making crosses). HOWEVER, he was not "branding kids"! From all I've read about the case, the results of using the coil might best be described as mild and temporary skin irritation. Red marks that fade after a few hours or a day are NOT "branding"! There was no blistering or charring, and not even anything to see the next day. There was also apparently very slight or no pain (I've personally experienced shocks from that very type of device--it's not exactly pleasant, but it doesn't really hurt).

If every action that leaves a temporary red mark on a student is to be considered "child abuse", then EVERY sports program and even gym class is child abuse! Look at the backs of the legs of a kid wearing shorts after he or she gets up after an hour of sitting at a typical kid's desk. Hideous RED MARKS!

I don't think we gain anything by hyperbolizing some temporary red marks into "branding," "burning," and "child abuse."

Some guy in a western movie: "Branding? You call that branding? I'll show you branding!"

Richard B. Hoppe · 16 December 2011

Just Bob said: OK, I did this once before, and I'll do it again, and I'm perfectly willing to be unloaded upon. 1) Freshwater SHOULD have been fired for teaching creationism (and other religious activity in school)--much earlier in the process, especially after having been instructed to cease and desist.

That's correct: Prior administrations were woefully negligent in handling previous incidents and kept piss-poor documentation. Bear in mind, though, that the administrators in the current case--the middle school principal and superintendent--were new in 2007-2008, when the events I've chronicled occurred.

2) Freshwater SHOULD NOT have bee fired for using the Tesla coil as described--UNLESS he continued to use it after being told not to.

He wasn't. The referee specifically excluded that incident from the grounds for his recommendation that Freshwater's contract be terminated, and it wasn't included in the school board's final termination resolution.

Granted, using it on kids (volunteers, mind you), was not the smartest thing to do, and he should not have done it (and he was asking for more trouble by making crosses). HOWEVER, he was not "branding kids"! From all I've read about the case, the results of using the coil might best be described as mild and temporary skin irritation. Red marks that fade after a few hours or a day are NOT "branding"! There was no blistering or charring, and not even anything to see the next day. There was also apparently very slight or no pain (I've personally experienced shocks from that very type of device--it's not exactly pleasant, but it doesn't really hurt).

A couple of remarks on that paragraph. I'll preface my remarks by noting that I was trained as a missile technician in the Navy and worked with RF-generating equipment in both missile guidance systems and telemetry, and was also trained as an emergency medical technician and ran for 30+ years with a volunteer fire department emergency squad. I'm not an expert, but neither am I ignorant of RF and its potential dangers. First, the device used is a radio frequency (RF) generator, producing a signal at 500KHz, just below the AM radio band. RF burns are not like ordinary thermal burns. RF can do substantial subdermal tissue damage while causing little or no pain and little visible surface damage. Both physicians who testified--Levy and Johnston--appeared to be wholly ignorant of that. The correlation between pain and tissue damage is not 1.0. Second, the marks lasted more than "a few hours or a day," but according to testimony from several witnesses lasted as long as a week. That suggests to me the possibility--probability?--of non-trivial subdermal damage.

If every action that leaves a temporary red mark on a student is to be considered "child abuse", then EVERY sports program and even gym class is child abuse! Look at the backs of the legs of a kid wearing shorts after he or she gets up after an hour of sitting at a typical kid's desk. Hideous RED MARKS!

Sports programs require parental consent. That was not the case here.

I don't think we gain anything by hyperbolizing some temporary red marks into "branding," "burning," and "child abuse."

Nor do we gain anything by over-minimizing those marks, given what I've said above.

Some guy in a western movie: "Branding? You call that branding? I'll show you branding!"

Again, the erroneous conflation of ordinary thermal burns and RF burns.

Just Bob · 16 December 2011

No argument--I'm sure you know a lot more about RF than I do.

Still, I think "branding," "burning kids," and "child abuse" are over-the-top, and perhaps that's why that aspect of the case was dropped by the referee.

eric · 16 December 2011

Richard B. Hoppe said:
Just Bob said: If every action that leaves a temporary red mark on a student is to be considered "child abuse", then EVERY sports program and even gym class is child abuse! Look at the backs of the legs of a kid wearing shorts after he or she gets up after an hour of sitting at a typical kid's desk. Hideous RED MARKS!
Sports programs require parental consent. That was not the case here.

That's an important point that I think keeps getting lost. Schools typically require consent forms for anything that has the potential for significant damage should something go wrong - bungee jumping, canoeing, etc... So, focusing on what damage the device did in this case is even camping trips.

eric · 16 December 2011

Arg, got cut off.

...Focusing on what damage this device did is the wrong way to think about it. Freshwater was negligent and exercised poor judgement because he didn't gain parental consent for something that (IMO) obviously should have required consent. And the amount of damage or lack of damage done to students is largely irrelevant.

Scott F · 17 December 2011

Just Bob said: No argument--I'm sure you know a lot more about RF than I do. Still, I think "branding," "burning kids," and "child abuse" are over-the-top, and perhaps that's why that aspect of the case was dropped by the referee.

My recollection agrees with what was said above. The "branding" issue was dropped because: A) No one had told Freshwater not to do it; and B) When the principal asked Freshwater to stop doing it, he did (or at least agreed not to do it any more). The principal considered that matter closed. Apparently the "branding" demonstration wasn't even Freshwater's original idea. IIRC, he got the idea from another teacher. So (he said), if another teacher had been doing it, he didn't believe that there would be any problem with it. Again, IIRC. The only tie-in with the actual case was that the "brand" was described as a "cross", adding weight to the charge of religious proselytizing in class.

Frank J · 17 December 2011

2) Freshwater SHOULD NOT have bee fired for using the Tesla coil as described–UNLESS he continued to use it after being told not to. Granted, using it on kids (volunteers, mind you), was not the smartest thing to do, and he should not have done it (and he was asking for more trouble by making crosses). HOWEVER, he was not “branding kids”!
— Just Bob

If that's the case, it would not have been as slam-dunk, nor should it have been, as I thought, had the prosecution pursued the branding instead of the pseudoscience. I had my knuckles whacked by teachers back in the '60s. Like most parents back then, mine reacted with "you must have deserved it" (which I did :-)). I also think that we have gone too far in the other direction since then. Sadly, the habit of "beating up on the easy targets instead of the serious culprits" will probably get even worse after the Sandusky affair. Anyway, I feel mostly sad for Freshwater. And more contempt than ever for the DI for being too cowardly to take a position on this issue.

Paul Burnett · 17 December 2011

patrickmay.myopenid.com said: Display of one's personal sacred texts, posters with sectarian quotations, or religious objects such as crosses are qualitatively different in that they show that the teacher's faith is so important that he or she feels the need to broadcast it in every aspect of his or her life.

The fundagelical ignorami react to pictures of Einstein and Darwin, or posters such as the Tree of Life or the Periodic Table, as if they were "sacred texts" because their leaders have convinced them that science / biology / evolution is a religion - it's the only paradigm they can understand.

apokryltaros · 17 December 2011

Paul Burnett said:
patrickmay.myopenid.com said: Display of one's personal sacred texts, posters with sectarian quotations, or religious objects such as crosses are qualitatively different in that they show that the teacher's faith is so important that he or she feels the need to broadcast it in every aspect of his or her life.
The fundagelical ignorami react to pictures of Einstein and Darwin, or posters such as the Tree of Life or the Periodic Table, as if they were "sacred texts" because their leaders have convinced them that science / biology / evolution is a religion - it's the only paradigm they can understand.

It's sad, pathetic, and simultaneously hilarious watching these idiots spout on about how Evolution/Science is a religion (of evil), whereas Creationism/Intelligent Design magically is not religious (yet, they also never fail to praise Jesus for this particular miracle, too).

Just Bob · 17 December 2011

Scott F said: My recollection agrees with what was said above. The "branding" issue was dropped because: A) No one had told Freshwater not to do it; and B) When the principal asked Freshwater to stop doing it, he did (or at least agreed not to do it any more). The principal considered that matter closed. Apparently the "branding" demonstration wasn't even Freshwater's original idea. IIRC, he got the idea from another teacher. So (he said), if another teacher had been doing it, he didn't believe that there would be any problem with it. Again, IIRC. The only tie-in with the actual case was that the "brand" was described as a "cross", adding weight to the charge of religious proselytizing in class.

My impression is that it was "the straw that broke the camel's back," i.e. it made someone finally act to put an end to his nonsense. But the point is it was still just a straw. In and of itself, it wasn't bad enough to warrant termination. It was dumb, and ill-advised; it should have been stopped, and it was. But I'll take his word for it: some other teacher had been doing it for years, apparently with no complaints (and MY teacher did it back in the '60s), and up to that time, no one had told him to desist. And there was no indication that it was doing any serious harm to students. That "straw", by itself, didn't amount to much, but added to the crushing burden already on the camel (preaching on the taxpayers' dime), it was enough to precipitate the avalanche.

Kevin B · 17 December 2011

Is the best way to summarise the Tesla coil issue, perhaps, to say that the combination of the (minor) burn produced by the coil and the subsequent rubbing of the burn during the after-school sports session produced an injury sufficiently serious that the child's parents reported the incident to the school authorities? If that had been all, the school's action in stopping the use of the coil would have been sufficient. The referee thought that this was so and explicitly removed the incident from his ruling.

However, the incident led to other questions being asked about Freshwater's activities in class, and when told to back away from some practices which were too close to First Amendment territory for the authority's comfort, he, instead, tried to push the issue, and opened up several cans of worms.

Richard B. Hoppe · 17 December 2011

Kevin B said: Is the best way to summarise the Tesla coil issue, perhaps, to say that the combination of the (minor) burn produced by the coil and the subsequent rubbing of the burn during the after-school sports session produced an injury sufficiently serious that the child's parents reported the incident to the school authorities? If that had been all, the school's action in stopping the use of the coil would have been sufficient. The referee thought that this was so and explicitly removed the incident from his ruling. However, the incident led to other questions being asked about Freshwater's activities in class, and when told to back away from some practices which were too close to First Amendment territory for the authority's comfort, he, instead, tried to push the issue, and opened up several cans of worms.

Yup, that's a good summary.

Just Bob · 18 December 2011

RBH: "Sports programs require parental consent. That was not the case here."

BTW, PE classes, which typically involve sports activities, do NOT require parental permission. Instead, participation is required for graduation, AFAIK, in most states. And injuries way more serious than the so-called "branding" are not uncommon. My personal score was one cracked tailbone (excruciating), and one broken finger (just inconvenient). But I still mostly enjoyed PE.

And thanks so much, RBH, for all your time and effort in following and summarizing this Kafka-esque nightmare for us!

Mary M · 18 December 2011

RBH,

You might be interested to know that there is a debate going on between some enlightened citizens and
Freshwater's No. 1 fan Sam Stickle.

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Legal/Default.aspx?id=1493088