Good-bye (Or, It took 11 years to finally fire dis guy?)

Holy macaroni. From Mount Vernon, Ohio:

Demonstrations on the town square show how divided people are over the school board's decision to fire a science teacher accused of preaching his Christian beliefs in the classroom and burning crosses on students' arms.

John Freshwater, 52, was fired last month after an outside consulting firm released a report concluding that he taught creationism and was insubordinate in failing to remove a Bible and other religious materials from his classroom at Mount Vernon Middle School.

Some residents consider him a courageous fighter for religious freedom. Others say he has brazenly violated the church-state divide.

"This is going to be a mess," said Dr. Allan Bazzoli, who has written letters to the local newspaper criticizing Freshwater. "Resident against resident, and worse, student against student."

Freshwater's supporters have rallied on the town's square urging school board members to resign. A much-viewed sign about a mile from town reads: "If the Bible goes, the school board should follow."

"The Bible, that should be OK to have," said James Mills, 25, a former student of Freshwater. "Isn't it in the Constitution that we have freedom of religion?"

Mount Vernon, a small city in central Ohio surrounded by farmland, is dotted by churches of just about every denomination. The town has a strong evangelical presence.

Freshwater, who has filed an appeal with the school board over his firing, said Monday he's disappointed with the way the investigation was conducted. His appeals hearing is scheduled for Aug. 26.

"They used half-truths. They didn't interview people who had been in my classroom," he said. "Science teachers at the high school: Why would you interview them?"

Freshwater likely will be suspended without pay during the appeals process, which could extend into the fall, said David Millstone, the school board's attorney.

Messages seeking comment were left with middle school Principal William White and other school administrators.

Freshwater has served as a science teacher and wrestling and football coach in Mount Vernon City Schools since 1987. In their report, investigators noted that some students described him as a great guy.

Some residents blame school leaders for letting the situation come to a boil. Officials knew that Freshwater used a science tool to burn images of a cross on students' arms in December, according to findings by outside investigators.

"I think things were just overlooked and overlooked and overlooked and then it just came to a head," said Kelly Montgomery, whose son was a student in Freshwater's class a few years ago. "It's been terrible for the whole community."

Freshwater told investigators he simply was trying to demonstrate the device on three to eight students and described the images an "X" not a cross. But pictures show the images depict a cross, the report said.

Investigators also found that at least one school administrator dealt with complaints about Freshwater for much of her 11 years at the district.

Jessica Philemond, an attorney for the unnamed student's family that is suing Freshwater and the school district, said that raises some troubling questions.

"I want to find out who had complained, to whom they complained and why for 11 years nothing was done," Philemond said. "They could have taken action a while ago."

Bazzoli and other critics say the public's support for Freshwater may be wavering. A demonstration last month in which supporters urged school board members to resign attracted just 25 people.

"When teachers have a contract, they have to follow the state guidelines, and he deliberately went against the guidelines," said Anita Van Winkle, 57, as she sipped coffee at a cafe near the public square.

Where to begin?

1. He was burning students' arms? He was BURNING. STUDENTS'. ARMS???!!??? I believe this is also known as "branding." And branding is a barbaric practice-- and if you've done this to yourself as an adult, uh, oooh-kayyy, but he was branding middle schoolers. The scars may or may not be permanent: I burned my arm severely in junior high, and it took about fifteen years for that scar to fade.

2. And the school administration tolerated this? The parents tolerated this? I could go on all day about this, but really, what more needs to be asked? Apparently, parents HAD complained about this "great guy's" methods for years, and administrators took no action until now? I am sure he is a great guy. But I would put to you that he is not a great teacher of science. Further, the administrators absolutely mishandled this situation-- and apparently for years.

3. This was an interesting quote by a former student: "'The Bible, that should be OK to have," said James Mills, 25, a former student of Freshwater. "Isn't it in the Constitution that we have freedom of religion?'" First of all, apparently his social studies education was apparently also lacking if he does not know the contents of the relatively short First Amendment to the Constitution, of which this is the very first clause:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ...."

To scratch the surface of this, the above clause means that Congress shall not pass any law directing that any particular religion be tax supported (that's what an "established" church is), nor shall Congress pass a law outlawing the practice of any religion. The word "freedom" actually never shows up in this clause. But besides that, one could make the case that a teacher preaching his religious beliefs could be prohibiting the free expression of other religious beliefs. Teachers are enormously powerful influences.

4. I'm sure the case will be made that the majority of people in the town share his religious outlook. This does not matter in the slightest. Even if only ONE student in his class did not every student in his class DOES share his religious sentiments, his proselytizing is completely out-of-bounds.

5. How does Mr. Freshwater's teaching of his religious beliefs fulfill the requirements of the science curriculum? See, there are things that are BELIEVED, and then there are things which are subject to scientific proofs. I am a person of faith, and I believe that this wonderful universe demonstrates divine providence and love in every natural law and in every meteor shooting across the night sky and in every toddler taking her first steps. But this is a religious belief-- NOT something that I should be "teaching" in my classroom.

I do have to teach about what various religious groups believe in my history class. But I outline the beliefs, explaining how those beliefs affect behavior (and therefore history) and then off we go to the next topic. Usually my students are unsure of my exact religious background (the Jewish kids often think I'm Jewish, in fact, which I find amusing and a complement).

My own children attended a private school for several years that was run by a denomination to which we do not belong. And yes, their science curriculum was chock full of stuff like this from that hilarious movie Mean Girls: "And on the third day, God created the Remington bolt-action rifle, so that Man could fight the dinosaurs. And the homosexuals. AYYY- MEN!" So I was constantly telling my children, "No, honey, we do not believe that Catholics will burn in hell. No, honey, we do not believe that dinosaurs and men lived on the planet at the same time." But I liked other aspects of the school, so we made the sacrifices and knew what we were getting into. And told my kids to just think for themselves.


Bottom line, though, is this: American students have an absolutely ABYSMAL grasp of scientific concepts in any case. Teach the SCIENCE, Mr. Freshwater, and leave the religious content to their parents and their clergy, PLEASE! And if you find that teaching science violates your conscience, then find something else to do for a living.

The state legislatures are wild: Utah bill attempts to cast doubt on evolution

Utah state senator Chris Buttars failed in his attempt to pass a bill which would have required students to be told that Darwinian theory is not "empirically proven."

The bill's sponsor, Republican state Sen. Chris Buttars, had said it was time to rein in teachers who were teaching that man descended from apes and rattling the faith of students. The Senate earlier passed the measure 16-12.

But the bill failed in the House on a 28-46 vote Monday. The bill would have required teachers to tell students that evolution is not a fact and the state doesn't endorse the theory.

Rep. Scott Wyatt, a Republican, said he feared passing the bill would force the state to then address hundreds of other scientific theories -- "from Quantum physics to Freud" -- in the same manner.

"I don't believe that anybody in there really wants their kids to be taught that their great-grandfather was an ape," Buttars said.

I dunno, one of my great-grandfathers did have a rather heavy brow, but I was told his laugh was more like a donkey than an actual ape....

Intelligent design and intelligent debate

Well, today there is this headline in the newspaper that caught my eye: President endorses teaching intelligent design. Quoth Mr. Bush: "I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought."

Y'don't say! Can I hold you to that? Because I'm all about open, civil, intelligent discourse-- I just wasn't sure that many of the people Mr. Bush is courting with this pronouncement cherished the same goal.

The article goes on to say that the State Board of Education in Kansas-- always a bellwether in cutting edge educational thinking-- "is considering changes to encourage the teaching of intelligent design in Kansas schools, and Christian conservatives are pushing for similar changes in other school districts across the country." Luckily, not everyone in Kansas is so ready to acquiesce in this. In the words of Leonard Krishtalka, who directs the Natural History Museum at the University of Kansas, intelligent design is "creationism in a cheap tuxedo," trying to sneak into the Ball under false pretenses.

Faith and reason: complementary attitudes in the search for truth, or implacable adversaries? My faith is so important to me that the last thing I want is a teacher attempting the tightrope walk of explaining it in science class. Although my own personal belief is that God's existence is proven by the wonders of natural laws that tick along in complexity, this is just that-- a very personal religious belief which I would never share in class. Now, do I mention religion in my history classes? Yes. I have to, since religion informs behavior throughout history. How can a teacher explain current challenges facing American society without discussing certain religious beliefs and how they influence human behavior? But do I tell students that they personally have to ascribe to the beliefs that I have to explain? Absolutely not. And when I do have students who have legitimate questions about their beliefs, I gently but firmly suggest that this is a discussion they should have with their parents or guardians or religious leaders, if they've got them. Period.

But this is more of a case of "damned if you do, damned if you don't"-- literally. One of the things alleged "conservatives" constantly decry is schools invading the prerogatives of parents, as with the teaching of sex ed, because it violates their religious beliefs. "This should be taught in the home!" it is cried. (Agreed! I would love to not have to teach this topic, but from what I've experienced, a majority of parents don't. My own parents were so embarassed by the thought of talking about this with me that they sent me to a class. My father can be reduced to stuttering incoherence by the mere word "menstruation.") I find it interesting that the people who are most concerned about schools usurping the role of parents don't see the hypocrisy of having schools teach religious doctrine. Further, many of the people who promote the teaching of creationism in schools also spend a majority of their time denigrating in the most vicious terms the intelligence, industry, capability and intentions of teachers in general when it comes to teaching supposedly "basic" topics like reading and writing. And now they want people they consider to be evil, or even worse, numbskulls, teaching religious beliefs, with their millions of interpretations, as science?

My Beloved Offspring are occasionally taught things with which I do not agree. That doesn't mean that I will demand that the teacher conform the day's lesson to my beliefs. That means that as, a parent, I pay attention to what MBO are studying, and then we discuss our beliefs in our home. I also do not send said offspring to sally forth into class the next day and argue the point with the teacher. It is my responsibility as a parent to attend to my children's religious education as a part of our home life.

Another problem is this: many people who denounce the separation of religious teachings from schools only want THEIR religion taught, to the exclusion of viewpoints which conflict with their beliefs. Hmm, how should be handle this conundrum? Obviously, a show of hands won't work, because if democratic principles applied in religion, we would all still be placing offerings before altars to Jupiter-- Christians were once greatly outnumbered by those who adhered to the Roman state religion, and that was before Christianity was divided up into dozens of denominations with competing dogma. Judaism as a minority religion worked so well against the same Roman juggernaut that the Jews were expelled from Palestine for a millenia or two. If those examples are to remote for you, we can look at the modern example of the former Yugoslavia, or northern Ireland as cautionary tales of what happens when religions struggle for supremacy. Once we start injecting religious interpretation into schools, the next big problem, is: Whose interpretation? The Roman Catholic one? The Baptist one? The Jewish one? The Lutheran one (would that be Missouri Synod or Evangelical)? The Hindu one? Even people within denominations and religions do not agree with each other on matters of doctrine.

Let's just say that Mr. Bush gets his way on this one. Many people of faith aren't going to be satisfied with intelligent design, either, since some believe that Adam was created from clay and divine breath (or, if we interpret that etymologically, as "inspiration"), and that he and his male descendants are missing a rib under his armpit (Shall we teach that in anatomy?) Intelligent design fudges on this issue, to say the least. Religious people, beware! Intelligent design is still the injection of a small part of an overall religious interpretation with which only a minority of you would agree. It is also highly presumptuous that the only religious beliefs which should be promoted in our schools are Christian beliefs.

Another article about this story on the 'net contained the following quote: John G. West, an executive with the Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based think tank supporting intelligent design, issued a written statement welcoming Bush's remarks. "President Bush is to be commended for defending free speech on evolution, and supporting the right of students to hear about different scientific views about evolution," he said. But does any one else see the irony of this championing of free speech in this context?

The concept of intelligent design is a Trojan horse for adding religious content with which you probably disagree to schools' already overburdened curricular load. Speaking of Trojan horses, I know of several teachers who have been challenged for teaching Greek mythology, since the stories once served a religious purpose-- suddenly, then the cry from the religious right is that we are teaching religion in the schools! Apparently some schools of thought ought not to be subjects for exposition, freedom of speech be damned. Perhaps we should make sure not to teach FALSE religions.

Okay. Which ones were those, again?