No critical thought allowed!

May 1, 2009 8:17 PM

James Corbett, a California high-school educator of twenty years, has been found guilty of violating the establishment clause of the first amendment. The lawsuit (PDF) was brought to a U.S. District Court on December 12th, 2007 by student Chad Farnan and his parents with the aid of the legal group 'Advocates for Faith and Freedom' against Corbett and the Capistrano Unified School District as a result of comments made which were critical of Christianity. During the sixteen month legal battle, hundreds of students in support of the teacher demonstrated outside the school while the Farnan family appealed to opinion outlets like 'The O'Reilly Factor'.

Two key quotes cited as evidence in the case:

"How do you get the peasants to oppose something that is in their best interest? Religion. You have to have something that is irrational to counter that rational approach."

"Conservatives don't want women to avoid pregnancies. That's interfering with God's work. You've got to stay pregnant, barefoot, and in the kitchen and have babies until your body collapses. All over the world, doesn't matter where you go, the conservatives want control over women's reproductive capacity. Everywhere in the world. From conservative Christians in this country to Muslim fundamentalists in Afghanistan. It's the same. It's stunning how vitally interested they are in controlling women."

posted by cgomez (122 comments total)

.
posted by 3.2.3 at 8:25 PM on May 1, 2009

And the arguments the other way around never get brought in front of a court.

This is how freedom dies.
posted by kldickson at 8:26 PM on May 1, 2009 [5 favorites]

I hope the newspaper fixes its PDF link to the judge's decision, which isn't working.
posted by Kirklander at 8:29 PM on May 1, 2009

...Yet, Creationism IS “religious, superstitious nonsense”.

I don't see the problem here, he was just telling the truth.
posted by Malice at 8:31 PM on May 1, 2009

Look, I agree with him, but you've got to admit that these quotes, especially the second one, are pretty incendiary.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 8:31 PM on May 1, 2009

"help - ideas hurt my head - i'm suing for pain and suffering"
posted by pyramid termite at 8:31 PM on May 1, 2009 [6 favorites]

yeah, high school shouldn't be a place to mouth off under color of authority; it is a place for everyone to come together in safety and not a place to be attacked.

Now, if this were a college-level class one could establish these as propositions to be debated, but ideological, my-way-or-the-highway thinking has no place in a classroom.

Using the Lemon test this way is a bit odd, though.
posted by mrt at 8:31 PM on May 1, 2009

I too am guilty of insulting Christians, but I guess my efforts are largely unappreciated.
posted by kuujjuarapik at 8:33 PM on May 1, 2009 [5 favorites]

"Corbett states an unequivocal belief that Creationism is 'superstitious nonsense,'" U.S. District Court Judge James Selna said in a 37-page ruling released from his Santa Ana courtroom. "The court cannot discern a legitimate secular purpose in this statement, even when considered in context."

I'm struggling to find something to write after that quote other than "WTF?".

Regardless of the content, aren't Lecturers employed to make students think? Isn't that their primary purpose? That this one makes one of his students think of a lawsuit to defend his personal beliefs against 'attack' is enormously misguided as a reaction - how about you just think.

The fact that the law system chose to entertain this challenge for even a second (never mind find the lecturer guilty) is beyond contempt for a country that claims to be based on 'free speech' and 'freedom'.
posted by Brockles at 8:33 PM on May 1, 2009 [2 favorites]

"Liable," not "guilty." Bad enough as it is.
posted by palliser at 8:34 PM on May 1, 2009

His comments are incendiary because they're true.
posted by zinfandel at 8:37 PM on May 1, 2009 [3 favorites]

If you look at PZ's recent post about Alberta on Scienceblogs, you'll find that Alberta is doing much the same.

Spread the word if you value reason and logic.
posted by kldickson at 8:37 PM on May 1, 2009

Also, I don't think the woman wearing the weird-ass t-shirt had any grasp of irony.
posted by kldickson at 8:44 PM on May 1, 2009

if cgomez could have waited 43 measly minutes, we would have gone with only one LOLXIANS thread today.
posted by l33tpolicywonk at 8:47 PM on May 1, 2009

If this was a Christian teacher denigrating atheism, I wonder if we'd all jump to his defense so quickly.
posted by Turbo-B at 8:47 PM on May 1, 2009 [2 favorites]

aren't Lecturers employed to make students think?

it's OK to fuck with childrens' worldviews but you got to be artful about it.
posted by mrt at 8:48 PM on May 1, 2009 [1 favorite]

The link to the ruling has an extraneous %20 at the end.
posted by fleacircus at 8:48 PM on May 1, 2009

If this was a Christian teacher denigrating atheism, I wonder if we'd all jump to his defense so quickly.

Well, that's what the Lemon test is all about. Here, the Lemon test is being turned around to combat the teaching of rationality.
posted by mrt at 8:49 PM on May 1, 2009

Huh. I hear anecdotes about teachers promoting religion in classes. Imagine if they all got sued. I wonder how this would play out. I mean presumably you'd also be able to use this precedent to sue any time a teacher badmouthed evolution too.

Also, I don't think the woman wearing the weird-ass t-shirt had any grasp of irony.

What are you talking about?
posted by delmoi at 8:52 PM on May 1, 2009 [1 favorite]

Turbo-B: if this were a Christian teacher denigrating atheism, it would not even be a news story, atheists are in no way a protected class, and we don't tend to gather together under the proud banner of our martyrdom and persecution. I had teachers say similar things about atheism, and worse. I had the choice of disagreeing quietly or arguing in class. We would not have gotten far with a court case, had my parents thought to bring one on my behalf (and like most atheists, I don't have atheist parents).
posted by idiopath at 8:56 PM on May 1, 2009 [4 favorites]

Ah, but Corbett is telling the truth, which has plenty of historical evidence to support it.
posted by kldickson at 8:57 PM on May 1, 2009 [1 favorite]

And sadly, idiopath, that's going to be the case until the bots get off their high-horse and are disavowed of the ridiculous notion that they are exempt from the law of the rest of society.
posted by kldickson at 8:58 PM on May 1, 2009

Here is fairly impressive a biography of Judge Selna, who was appointed by George W Bush in 2003. He was rated 'well qualified' by a substantial majority of the ABA committee that unofficially vets judicial nominees and confirmed 97-0 after less than two minutes of discussion. He gave modest amounts of money to some Republican causes for a few years but stopped two years before being nominated.

The decision is still terrible, though. Creationism, particularly young earth creationism, makes specific claims that have been refuted over and over again. It is one thing when a religion says "after you die, you go to heaven"--to argue for or against that in a classroom should probably run afoul of the establishment clause. It's quite another when a religion says "the earth is 6000 years old"--refuting that is a good way to teach critical thinking and geology.

The same is true of religion and the rights of women. It is a matter of historical fact that religious conservatives have often relied about their interpretation of religion to oppress women. Discussing that they have done so and exploring why they would do so is a good way to teach history, sociology, psychology, and anthropology.

When religion starts treading on empirically verifiable facts rather than sticking to unverifiable claims about the supernatural, it becomes fair game in a secular classroom. In short, I think the teacher will do well at the Ninth Circuit.
posted by jedicus at 8:59 PM on May 1, 2009 [8 favorites]

There was an AskMe yesterday discussing the excess of people with "light" qualifications being employed to teach social studies. That's what I think of, when I read quotes like Corbett's in the linked complaint.

The guy is a hack. Even if you agree with the basic points he was trying to make—even if they had any bearing whatsoever on European History, what he was supposed to be teaching (some do; many don't)—it's apparent that he's not particularly informed about the topics, and he's certainly not articulate about discussing them. He was just ranting, and poorly. Even if you wanted to offer an advanced-placement elective focused on liberal (or conservative) politics: If those quotes were his interview for the job, he wouldn't have a prayer. (Ha.)

Putting aside the kid's individual complaint, Corbett's worse crime is wasting class time. American education being what it is? Schools have cut music and art classes? And this guy's getting paid for that? Fire him and hire somebody who knows their trade.
posted by cribcage at 9:02 PM on May 1, 2009 [1 favorite]

If this was a Christian teacher denigrating atheism, I wonder if we'd all jump to his defense so quickly.

If they had something valid and intelligent to say, then yes.
posted by Malice at 9:03 PM on May 1, 2009

cribcage: I was in Corbett's class four years ago. He has one of the highest national pass rates for the AP European History and AP Art History exams. His purpose is to engage students in critical thought about the subject matter and he does that through current event topics. Students are free to respond to his points as they often do. The second to last read link in the post shows some views from other students who believe he was a refreshing change from the lobotomized public school system that barely covers any material in its standard classes. The AP program courses Corbett taught offered him some room to help students challenge conventional thought.
posted by cgomez at 9:06 PM on May 1, 2009 [20 favorites]

The flipside of not being able to proselytize for religion in class is not being able to proselytize against it.

Ah, but Corbett is telling the truth,

C'mon. He's not "telling the truth", as in laying out 2+2=4. He's laying out an interpretation of history and society. I happen to agree with it, but it's not evident in the same way that the truths of math or science are.
posted by fatbird at 9:09 PM on May 1, 2009 [1 favorite]

I am fortunate enough to teach in a high school where Christians are in the minority. That said, I encourage them to speak up about their faith where appropriate (these are lit classes), and I do not allow Christian bashing. I, of course, do not denigrate religion or atheism. These are kids, for Christ's sake. They are influenced by authority figures, especially those whose intellectual and cultural intelligence is valued by the kids. It is not a high school teacher's job to indoctrinate his/her charges.

I do not go overboard in my objectiveness, however, as I am a human being. If it comes up, I do acknowledge that I am a Buddhist and a progressive. My leftist leanings are obvious, if subtle. But I go overboard to play the Devil's advocate (or should that be the Christ's advocate) in the interest of fair play. Plus, being a Western Literature teacher, I find myself in the peculiar position of explaining the doctrine of Original Sin and other crucial elements of Christian doctrine to my kids, many of whom were raised as atheists, as was my mom, which is why she sent us to Sunday School: she was at a loss in her college English Literature classes.

I've turned into a Sunday school teacher, in a public school.

That said, if Creationism or "Scientific Design" ever comes up in a private conversation with a student, I am not shy about expressing the difference between science-based and scriptural-based evidence.
posted by kozad at 9:10 PM on May 1, 2009 [2 favorites]

So am I reading it right that the only thing the judge didn't like, in the end, was calling creationism "superstitious nonsense"?
posted by fleacircus at 9:11 PM on May 1, 2009

I am fortunate enough to teach in a high school where Christians are in the minority.

I do not allow Christian bashing.*

* ...in my classroom by my students.
posted by palliser at 9:24 PM on May 1, 2009

He's laying out an interpretation of history and society.

This is something that all historians, sociologists, and anthropologists do. It is distinct from proselytizing for or against a religion because it deals with facts and their interpretation within a secular framework, not the truth or falsity of supernatural beliefs. It is (or should be) every bit as fact-oriented as math or science.

For example, discussing the Crusades as a factual matter should not run afoul of the establishment clause, even if the teacher makes value judgments about power-mad Popes or the essential justice of the Arabs defending Palestine. What should run afoul of the establishment clause is a teacher saying that the Crusaders were justly driven into battle by the guiding hand of Almighty God or that they were repelled through the righteous will of Allah.

These are two completely different categories of interpretation. An argument grounded in a secular reality is not an argument for atheism and against religion; it is an argument of a completely different kind than a religious argument. To the extent that such arguments butt up against empirically testable claims made by religious adherents, it is not a religious argument. It is only when the secular argument attacks the supernatural aspects of religion that it should be considered a religious argument for purposes of the establishment clause.
posted by jedicus at 9:25 PM on May 1, 2009 [1 favorite]

This is, indeed, a weird way to appropriate the Lemon test, but - and I like and agree with what Corbett was teaching - it is actually against the establishment clause.

Think of it like this: in much the same way that we must allow the Illinois Nazis to be able to march in order to protect the rights of other groups with more rational agendas to be able to protest, so must we keep out public school disparagement of religion if we wish to keep out public school teaching of religion.

It sucks, but it's the way it has to be. A ceasefire doesn't work if you get all pissed off about being called-out about firing from your own side.

note: I know this isn't a perfect analogy, and that we're coming off of years of religious groups chipping away at the separation of church and state, but it's the best analogy I could come up with here
posted by Navelgazer at 9:30 PM on May 1, 2009 [4 favorites]

And Also: my comments are based upon the quotes mentioned at the top of the thread.
posted by Navelgazer at 9:32 PM on May 1, 2009

I am fortunate enough to teach in a high school where Christians are in the minority.

Substitute "Jews" or "Muslims" in that sentence and see how it reads.
posted by cribcage at 9:33 PM on May 1, 2009 [2 favorites]

Some interesting context to the case:

Corbett has been saying inflammatory things in his classes since before I graduated from Capistrano Valley in 2001. Some of the students liked him a lot, some disagreed with him but liked to discuss it, and some plain hated him. From what I remember my friends saying (I never took his class), he didn't care much for Christianity, and would grill people who disagreed. This is at a school where (8 years ago) the biggest, most popular club was the Fellowship of Christian Athletes. The idea of "Christianity vs. Secularism is very much alive in the students there. It's also worth noting that Capistrano Valley is in one of the most affluent and conservative areas in Orange County.
posted by sleeping bear at 9:33 PM on May 1, 2009

If the guy is a history teacher, he should have known that historically these attitudes did not go over particularly well.

Look, leaving aside any of the politics of this, its a basic fact that one of the first things we do when we're socializing our youngest kids is teach them that certain behaviors are acceptable in some places but not in others: there's inside voices and outside voices. We expect that any reasonable adult has mastered these principles, and that they understand that what they say to their friends they shouldn't necessarily say to their boss or a small child.

As far as I know - and I'm not any kind of scholar - this is actually even the law of the land, and the supreme court ruled that schools can control what is and is not said on their grounds without stifling free speech; the particular case I'm thinking about concerned whether or not students could wear t-shirts with controversial slogans on them, but its principles still apply here: schools are special circumstances where speech is more regulated than it is in the general population.

After growing up atheist in the South I have learned the hard way that unless you want a fight, there are some things you shouldn't say in public. Ethics do not enter this discussion. Pragmatics do. He knew that what he was saying was going to stir something up - and it did. People who get bee-stings after spending all afternoon throwing rocks at the beehive get limited sympathy from me, regardless of how much I want those bees to get the feeling that they aren't welcome here.
posted by Kiablokirk at 9:42 PM on May 1, 2009

Would he have the rocks to criticise other religions? If he's anything like my brave Christian-bashing friends, the answer is "no."

/strawman
posted by uncanny hengeman at 9:45 PM on May 1, 2009

I had at least one teacher that obviously and admittedly disregarded the establishment clause. Mr. B., a biology teacher, introduced himself to the class as a baptist preacher. He then proceeded to explain that the only reason he would be teaching evolution THEORY was that he was being forced to by the state.

I wish I had had access to legal help to get that old piece of shit fired for sending me to the principal whenever I was openly hostile to the belief in creationism theory. He would ask for evidence either proving my point or disproving his point. I would refer to fossil records, etc. and then explain that to prove his point he had to prove that there was a god. Sure I was a smug asshole teenager, but he was a smug asshole sexagenarian preacher that loved ramming religion down peoples throats.

I am not openly hostile to religious people as long as they keep their dogma to themselves.
posted by schyler523 at 9:45 PM on May 1, 2009 [3 favorites]

Think of it like this: in much the same way that we must allow the Illinois Nazis to be able to march in order to protect the rights of other groups with more rational agendas to be able to protest, so must we keep out public school disparagement of religion if we wish to keep out public school teaching of religion.

I see what you're saying, but there has to be some flexibility when the remarks are broadly on-topic and glancingly pro- or anti-religion. I would think, for instance, a teacher would be in trouble for taking 10 minutes out of class to wax on about her savior, but not for making a side claim that, say, monotheistic religions brought greater respect for human life (or something -- I'm not saying I believe that, just that it wouldn't strike me as violating the establishment clause if it had something to do with the subject at hand). Teachers are people, and they're talking.
posted by palliser at 9:50 PM on May 1, 2009

The first amendment giveth, the first amendment taketh away...

But this does seem a bit of a scary trend. Let's say I'm teaching a class and have a student from every different religious group on Earth with over 100,000 followers. How do I teach a history or social studies course without pissing someone off, even if I am being as bland as I can?

If this ruling will influence later legal rulings, if this is a decision that we can argue would be applied to everyone equally under the law, this story makes me a little nervous.
posted by Avelwood at 9:52 PM on May 1, 2009

I am fortunate enough to teach in a high school where Christians are in the minority.

Substitute "Jews" or "Muslims" in that sentence and see how it reads.

Superb work, cribcage.

The advert at the bottom of the thread, pre login, made me smile.

http://googleads.g.doubleclick.net/pagead/imgad?id=CMvhyJi998SM3AEQrAIY7wEyCIo12IinoIJG
posted by uncanny hengeman at 9:57 PM on May 1, 2009

People won't tolerate criticism of their religious beliefs when they feel they don't have a choice in their religious beliefs. They don't even have the freedom of mind to fully realize it.
posted by Brian B. at 9:57 PM on May 1, 2009 [2 favorites]

Okay, and now to take it to the absurd extremes...

Do neo-nazi students get to complain about how WWII gets taught? Some topics need to be addressed in these courses: The Crusades, WWII, the women's rights movement, slavery... (Just off the top of my head)

I'm bound to step on someone's ideological toes if they are passionate enough about whatever beliefs they hold.
posted by Avelwood at 10:04 PM on May 1, 2009 [1 favorite]

"Would he have the rocks to criticise other religions? If he's anything like my brave Christian-bashing friends, the answer is 'no.'"

It's not so unnatural for a minority in religious belief in a society to feel threatened by the dominant religion. Here in the US, we've had a particularly nasty wave of authoritarian Christian belief flow from the previous president on down. I don't think it's necessarily productive to pick on particular mythical beliefs of religious people, although it's clear that there is a fairly large segment of society which presumes to make their mythology replace science and guide the moral framework of the law to reflect some pretty exclusionary ideas. And while I don't think it's productive to say that Christians are all deluded or some other ad hominem, it's not hard to understand why the excluded rationalists and realists might feel a bit hedged in, and they have some legitimate gripes indeed. Calling creationism nonsense might be inartful, but it's not false. I don't think it would be such a target if it weren't for the creationists trying to inject their beliefs where they don't belong, like in science classrooms, local and national legislation and constitutional SCOTUS decisions seeking to constrain the rights of classes of people they don't like and promote superstitious nonsense over cold, hard reality.
posted by krinklyfig at 10:04 PM on May 1, 2009 [7 favorites]

Would he have the rocks to criticise other religions? If he's anything like my brave Christian-bashing friends, the answer is "no."

"Everywhere in the world. From conservative Christians in this country to Muslim fundamentalists in Afghanistan. It's the same. It's stunning how vitally interested they are in controlling women."
posted by Malice at 10:05 PM on May 1, 2009 [3 favorites]

Now, if this were a college-level class one could establish these as propositions to be debated, but ideological, my-way-or-the-highway thinking has no place in a classroom.

Exactly. There is a world of difference between stimulating debate and just mouthing off. Going on about how Christians are all ignorant and sexist is both childish and counter-productive: counter to the goal of unconverting the religious, and counter to the goal of teaching. Litigation is probably overkill in this case, but I think it's reasonable to expect that high school teachers not make deliberately inflammatory and divisive blanket generalizations.

I am a thoroughly non-religious person raised in a household that was/is agnostic at most. But my oldest sister bucked the trend and became a pretty serious Christian when she was about fifteen. When she was in 11th grade, her AP Spanish Literature teacher tried to do pretty much exactly what Corbett is being accused of. After singling her out in front of the class for her beliefs, he announced, with an air of total authority, that her religion was responsible for pretty much every bad thing that's ever happened in the last two thousand years: the holocaust, the subjugation of women and blacks, Western imperialism and its related evils, the whole works.

Long story short: At the end of the day, my sister could feel proud that she stood up for her beliefs and put a bully in his place. He has to live with the fact that a sixteen year old girl made him cry.
posted by Commander Rachek at 10:07 PM on May 1, 2009 [2 favorites]

"Would he have the rocks to criticise other religions? If he's anything like my brave Christian-bashing friends, the answer is "no.""

Read the second quote of the post; the answer is yes. During the Danish cartoon controversy, there was much calling out of Muslim hyper-sensitivity called out as well.
posted by cgomez at 10:09 PM on May 1, 2009

Wow, the world has sure become a crazier place since I was in high school in the 80s. I remember World Religions class where we were encouraged to compare, debate, and yes even debunk, the belief systems of every major world religion. In my 10th grade Biology class we had two pregnant classmates and I remember a very in-depth discussion about birth control and abortion and teen motherhood, and honest assessments of the pros and cons of both sides of the debate. And this was in the middle of Kansas ferchrissakes!

How did things get so polarized and out of control to the point where teachers and students can't even discuss certain topics anymore without someone freaking out and suing?
posted by amyms at 11:04 PM on May 1, 2009

How did things get so polarized and out of control to the point where teachers and students can't even discuss certain topics anymore without someone freaking out and suing?

Because people who have a vested interest in the controversy have convinced their followers that they are fighting a war where anything goes to 'win.'
posted by Fuka at 11:12 PM on May 1, 2009

This is how freedom dies.

I am a raging liberal. This case was rightly decided. Mr. Corbett is a government employee. He does not have the right to bring his own views on the truth or falsity of religion to the classroom. Asserting the truth of the doctrine of Christianity, Satanism, Hinduism or atheism constitutes a violation of the separation of church and state.

Mr. Corbett has the right to say anything he wants while outside of the workplace. However, as a government employee he is charged with ensuring that he does not commit a violation of the Constitution on behalf of the Government.

The right wants the courts to decide against them in these cases. The want to turn this into a battle of Atheism v. Christianity. This allows them to make the argument that whoever is in power may dictate religious views in the classroom. This we cannot allow to pass. If we are to say that it is wrong to have a teacher lead the class in prayer, then it must be wrong for a teacher to speak of the falsity of a particular religious belief also.
posted by Ironmouth at 11:18 PM on May 1, 2009 [17 favorites]

> This is something that all historians, sociologists, and anthropologists do. It is distinct from proselytizing for or against a religion because it deals with facts and their interpretation within a secular framework, not the truth or falsity of supernatural beliefs. It is (or should be) every bit as fact-oriented as math or science.

It can be in general, but Corbett plainly was proselytizing against religion. He wasn't laying out verifiable historical facts, he was expressing his opinion of those facts--unless you think there's a factual basis for

How do you get the peasants to oppose something that is in their best interest? Religion. You have to have something that is irrational to counter that rational approach.

Or this

All over the world, doesn't matter where you go, the conservatives want control over women's reproductive capacity.

You can agree with those sentiments, but don't pretend these are historical facts or commonly agreed upon interpretations.

He was crapping all over religion in a classroom, far beyond his capacity as a teacher to educate, and he was rightfully slapped down for it just as if he were an evangelical crapping all over atheism.
posted by fatbird at 11:51 PM on May 1, 2009

+1 to the "LOLXTIANS but this was a fair cop" side.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 12:04 AM on May 2, 2009

I am fortunate enough to teach in a high school where Christians are in the minority.

Substitute "Jews" or "Muslims" in that sentence and see how it reads.

It reads perfectly fine to me. Teaching in a school where religion does not encroach upon teaching, learning, and school social relationships would be a big relief. There's a place for overt religion: it's called Church, or Synagogue, or Mosque, or Hall. Being overtly religious at work (school) is not a practical behaviour if one is interested in maintaining a long-term multi-religious society.

The freedom to have a personal religion comes at the cost of not having a public religion. Ugly things inevitably occur when religions clash in public life.
posted by five fresh fish at 12:06 AM on May 2, 2009 [1 favorite]

Well, fatbird, both of those statements are pretty valid historical interpretations, even if they are expressed inelegantly. Feminist theologians have been pointing out for years how much effort , to take 3 examples, Xianity, Judaism, and Islam have put into controlling women's bodies and lives as part of establishing the stability of their cultural institutions. And the notion that religion (among other things) is a tool of ideological indoctrination is one of the central ideas to come out of the Enlightenment. Could Corbett have phrased things differently? Yes. But saying that "religion has often been a tool of oppression used by the elites" is not the same thing as saying "Jesus was a fraud and Mohamed was a con-man."
posted by Saxon Kane at 12:18 AM on May 2, 2009 [2 favorites]

in much the same way that we must allow the Illinois Nazis to be able to march in order to protect the rights of other groups with more rational agendas to be able to protest, so must we keep out public school disparagement of religion if we wish to keep out public school teaching of religion.

I agree, public employees should not be overtly promoting religious views, nor overtly bashing any religion. Even Scientology. It is not the teacher's position to deal with religious subjects. Or if it is, then we need to have a World Religions class in high schools, presenting a broad and factual examination of the many differing religions.

I disagree re: Hate Speech. I don't think one should be allowed to publish, in the public media, hate speech. Or perhaps it's more accurate to say "incitement to violence." There's a point where a certain stridency of popularist message can trigger an outpouring of violence. It's bad enough when it happens on a small local scale — stumbling into the "wrong club," say — but much worse when it happens on a large scale — tea party demonstrations that turn into riots because the racists and naïve goons listened to some slick hater.

Anyhoo, suffice to say I think there are necessary limits to freedom of speech, else you end up with the likes of White Supremicists taking military power. It's happened before, we should not permit it to happen again.
posted by five fresh fish at 12:20 AM on May 2, 2009

And for that matter, there are Black Supremicist groups, and it would not surprise me to learn there are various Asian Supremicist groups. People who truly believe in their hearts that "others" deserve to die and desire to take action. That's just not gonna work if we want to have a civil society.
posted by five fresh fish at 12:22 AM on May 2, 2009

It reads perfectly fine to me. Teaching in a school where religion does not encroach upon teaching, learning, and school social relationships would be a big relief.

In every public school I attended, the majority of students were Christian, but Christianity itself did not "encroach upon teaching, learning, and school social relationships". I remember one group of kids in my junior year tried starting a pro-life group and then administrators were pretty quick to say, "Yeah, no, that's not gonna happen."

In other words, there's not necessarily a mutually exclusive thing going on here with regards to most students being Christian and religion staying out of teaching, learning and school social relationships.

Although personally, I'm not sure how I feel about the ruling.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 12:33 AM on May 2, 2009

If you look at PZ's recent post about Alberta on Scienceblogs, you'll find that Alberta is doing much the same.

This is how freedom dies.

Seeing as how I'm an Alberta resident with a kid one year away from public schooling, this bit of hyperbole sent me running to PZ's fabled post. It links to this CBC story, which explains that there is a controversial bill (which the Alberta Teachers Union vocally opposes) to oblige teachers to inform parents in advance if they're going to bring sex or religion into the classroom, thereby to give parents the option of removing their kids from those classes.

Not even a vague suggestion that those topics shouldn't be taught at all, let alone a court ruling asserting it would violate anyone's charter rights to be taught that being gay is okay or being Christian is irrational. (And if you don't know what I mean by charter rights I'd argue you don't really know enough about Canada's legal system to understand why what's happening down in California would be nigh on impossible here. But in that case you should also probably know we don't elect our judges, and that's a very big and fundamental difference as well.)

I don't approve of the proposed legislation (which, to be pedantic about it, is not yet a law and binds no one in Alberta to do anything at all as yet), but equating this with the California court ruling is some kinda clumsy. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, kldickson, and assume you were simply misled by this PZ fella's half-informed hyperbolic bloviation.

Our premier, for the record, is Ukrainian Catholic, which in my experience puts him neither in the same ballpark nor really the same game as Creationism-obsessed evangelicals. I agree with almost nothing his government stands for, but I have it on good firsthand authority he's a decent and reasonable man.

This is how freedom does its homework before making false equivalencies.

/CdnPrairieFilter derail
posted by gompa at 12:34 AM on May 2, 2009 [4 favorites]

Do neo-nazi students get to complain about how WWII gets taught? Some topics need to be addressed in these courses: The Crusades, WWII, the women's rights movement, slavery... (Just off the top of my head)

I'm bound to step on someone's ideological toes if they are passionate enough about whatever beliefs they hold.

You can step on as many ideological toes as you want. Ideologies aren't protected by the First Amendment.

But you should make a point of hopping over the religious ones, or at least avoid stomping on them the way this guy did. I don't think this reading of Lemon is way out of bounds. Calling creationism superstitious nonsense (as accurate as that might be) could very easily be argued to have no secular purpose- he said it in order to denigrate religion. And as a government agent, he cannot say or do things that have the purpose of inhibiting relgion. Now, I might counter that he didn't say Christianity is superstitious nonsense, and that his secular purpose was to disagree with a purportedly scientific theory for being unscientific, and that his comment therefore was outside of a religious context and was therefore incapable of advancing or inhibiting religion, but I think that my doing so would probably be a bit disingenuous. The guy was probably just talking shit about Christianity. And as much as I like to do that personally, we can't have our teachers doing it if we don't want their colleagues to talk shit about other religions or non-believers.

The opinion, to me, doesn't read like it was tossed off by a reactionary wingnut hack. The Court makes a reasonable analysis of each comment (and decides that the First Amendment has not been violated with regard to all but one of them). If this case gets appealed I think there are certainly arguments to be made against liability (see the counter-argument I made above) and I'll be very interested to see what a higher court would do. But after reading the opinion, this doesn't really trigger my RIGHTEOUS ATHEIST RAGE the way it seems to do for some people around here.

On preview: Attention, everyone: The only statement found to violate the Establishment Clause was that creationism is superstitious nonsense. The Court found that everything else he said was just fine. So arguing in defense of his right to say it is a little pointless (if well supported- you've got a federal judge on your side).
posted by PhatLobley at 1:03 AM on May 2, 2009

Well, the problem is that creationists have been, or at least had been trying to teach their version of history as "creation science", so to say that the scientific theory of creationism is no different then saying that the scientific theory of astrology was a bunch superstitious bullshit.

Creationists seem to want it both ways here, to call what they do science, and to be immune from criticism as if they were a religion.

By the way I remember, my astronomy teacher telling us that Astrology was a bunch of B.S. Does that mean he was denigrating 'religion'?
posted by delmoi at 1:10 AM on May 2, 2009 [4 favorites]

he was rightfully slapped down for it just as if he were an evangelical crapping all over atheism.

When exactly was the last time an evangelical was slapped down by a court or a school board for crapping all over atheism?

Has this ever happened anywhere?
posted by PeterMcDermott at 1:24 AM on May 2, 2009

delmoi, I'm with you, and that's where I think the teacher here can make some headway on appeal, though at the expense of "admitting" in some way that creation science is science. These sophists need to be held accountable for stuff like this where they admit outright that creationism is just religion. But that issue is beside the point in this case. And I think if someone with a sincere religious belief in astrology brought a claim against your teacher, he or she would have a claim very similar to the one in this case.

PeterMcDermott, I don't know of a specific case where an evangelical was rebuked specifically for bad-mouthing atheism, but I think that's just because they're much more likely to go ahead and skip over the "convince you you're wrong" step and jump straight to "let's act like I'm right," by bringing their beliefs into the classroom. There's a lot of jurisprudence rebuking that strategy. See, for but two examples, Edwards v. Aguillard and Santa Fe v. Doe.
posted by PhatLobley at 1:53 AM on May 2, 2009

Meanwhile, in Berlin:

It's an issue that has split Berlin right down the middle. Should ethics be compulsory at school and religion an optional course, or should there be a clear choice between the two? In the increasingly bitter campaign ahead of Sunday's referendum both sides claim they are defending freedom of choice.

The vote resulted in a close win for the Pro Ethik side, but with a very low turn out that was not enough to have the referendum considered valid.
posted by asok at 1:55 AM on May 2, 2009

Exactly. There is a world of difference between stimulating debate and just mouthing off. Going on about how Christians are all ignorant and sexist is both childish and counter-productive: counter to the goal of unconverting the religious, and counter to the goal of teaching.

Exactly. Good teaching is getting the students to think, not telling them what you think. A math teacher doesn't tell the class that 2+2=4, she asks the students what 2+2 equals.

I figure you are much less likely to get sued for what someone else in the classroom says, and when it comes out of a student's mouth it shows you that they are thinking, not just hearing what you already know: what your own opinion is.

e.g.

So, guys, have you noticed anything in common between women's situation in fundamentalist Muslim and conservative Christian communities? Why do you think that is? Why is this issue such a high priority for them? How does this relate to the themes of freedom and control that we were discussing earlier?

Notice the question marks.
posted by Meatbomb at 2:36 AM on May 2, 2009

Didn't the Dover case already rule that Creationism/ID is religious? If so, it's not only fact, but fact as previously determined by the American legal system.

The truly insane part of this ruling is the bit about quotation. The judge: "Moreover, it is not clear that Corbett was espousing Twain’s view rather than merely quoting it." Well shoot, that means he can say anything he likes, if he's careful about attribution.

According to this ruling, no public school teacher may say "creationism is religious, superstitious nonsense" in class, but any public school teacher can say "As James Corbett says, creationism is religious, superstitious nonsense.'”
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 3:07 AM on May 2, 2009

According to this ruling, no public school teacher may say "creationism is religious, superstitious nonsense" in class, but any public school teacher can say "As James Corbett says, creationism is religious, superstitious nonsense.'”

Well, yeah. You could quote things that a certain short Austrian said in the early 20th century, but to teach those things in public school would probably be frowned upon.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 3:10 AM on May 2, 2009

This story has me a lot more pissed off than I expected it too. I understand the position that people are putting forward in support of the ruling, but it is sick that we live in a society were a teacher teaching a supposedly college level AP class can't have an adult conversation with high school students about religion.

I also think this ruling lays a lot of mine fields for biology teachers. Are they going to have to end every discussion about evolution with "but creationism is a personal belief and you are free to choose what to think" or some other nonsense?
posted by afu at 3:22 AM on May 2, 2009

Ireland's justice minister is bringing in a revived blasphemy law because it would be too expensive to hold a referendum to change the constitution.
posted by minifigs at 3:44 AM on May 2, 2009

I also think this ruling lays a lot of mine fields for biology teachers. Are they going to have to end every discussion about evolution with "but creationism is a personal belief and you are free to choose what to think" or some other nonsense?

No - teachers don't have to tailor their subject to avoid offending people who happen to hold certain religious views. What the establishment clause prevents them from doing is denigrating religion or religious views, with no secular purpose - i.e. teaching the subject.

So the (biology) teacher can still say, in response to a student asking "What about creationism" that creationism is not science, it's wrong insofar as it makes empirical claims about the real world, and doesn't fit the evidence we have from biology and other sciences. What he can't do is say that creationism is wrong as a theological matter or that some other religious belief is right, I think. At least I hope I'm right because I'm about to be tested on this stuff.

On another note, if you actually read the opinion, Farnan's lawyers did a hell of a lot of transcript-chopping to get the quotes to look as bad as they did (starts on page 8). They literally did the ol' "I said your mother is . . . a whore" trick (where . . . is "not")! I guess they thought the judge wouldn't listen to the tapes?
posted by R_Nebblesworth at 3:59 AM on May 2, 2009 [1 favorite]

I read the opinion and now I am even more confused. This seems to be the key paragraph

"The Court turns first to Corbett’s statement regarding John Peloza
(“Peloza”). (Farnan’s Ex. I, pp. 222-25.) This statement presents the closest
question for the Court in assessing secular purpose. Peloza apparently brought suit
against Corbett because Corbett was the advisor to a student newspaper which ran
an article suggesting that Peloza was teaching religion rather than science in his
classroom. (Id.) Corbett explained to his class that Peloza, a teacher, “was not
telling the kids [Peloza’s students] the scientific truth about evolution.” (Id.)
Corbett also told his students that, in response to a request to give Peloza space in
the newspaper to present his point of view, Corbett stated, “I will not leave John
Peloza alone to propagandize kids with this religious, superstitious nonsense.”
(Id.) One could argue that Corbett meant that Peloza should not be presenting his
religious ideas to students or that Peloza was presenting faulty science to the
students. But there is more to the statement: Corbett states an unequivocal belief
that creationism is “superstitious nonsense.” The Court cannot discern a legitimate
secular purpose in this statement, even when considered in context. The statement
therefore constitutes improper disapproval of religion in violation of the
Establishment Clause."

So this was a discussion about whether a teacher should be able to air his views of creationism in a school setting and Corbett is against this because it is "superstitious nonsense".

With this standard I do not see how it would be possible for a biology or any other teacher to discuss his views on teaching creationism with his students. Saying that creationism is not scientifically valid is merely a polite way of saying that it is superstitious nonsense. The fundamental reasons why biologists do not to teach creationism are "non secular" as defined by this ruling.
posted by afu at 5:14 AM on May 2, 2009 [4 favorites]

Good decision. If you believe the First Amendment prevents teachers from promoting religion then you have to believe that it also prevents teachers from denigrating religion. This teacher is an ass and he got his just desserts. He should be fired.
posted by caddis at 7:16 AM on May 2, 2009

- The earth is more than 6000 years old

- The earth is not made of pudding

So my understanding of the decision is that one of these statements has a secular purpose, but the other one does not?

If this is all that the case came down to, then it's total crap. Pointing out that creationism is nonsense has just as much secular purpose as teaching any science. The other posters are right, this isn't about "crapping on religion", it's about creationism trying to have it both ways, as a protected religious belief and as a secular science.
posted by kiltedtaco at 7:59 AM on May 2, 2009

I can only see this as an utterly bullshit case. Corbett states an unequivocal belief that creationism is “superstitious nonsense.” That's not a belief, it's a goddamned FACT.

It is a crying shame that the court system is now actively engaged in making sure our children are kept stupid.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:23 AM on May 2, 2009

"I agree, public employees should not be overtly promoting religious views, nor overtly bashing any religion."

What does "public employees" mean? Does this include tenured professors in a state university? I don't think you can draw the line like that. I do believe if you openly discriminate against particular students due to their belonging to a protected class, that should qualify as discrimination, but I'm not clear on how the law interprets it. But attacking ideas or beliefs themselves is not the same thing, and we should be careful before applying that sort of muzzle just because someone is employed by the public. We should value the open exchange of ideas over restricting educators due to overly sensitive people. High school is different, however. I think you probably do have to restrict some of the teachers' speech, mostly because you're dealing with minors and mandatory schooling.
posted by krinklyfig at 8:29 AM on May 2, 2009

"Good decision. If you believe the First Amendment prevents teachers from promoting religion then you have to believe that it also prevents teachers from denigrating religion."

I don't agree. I think the school has a case on the grounds that primary public schools can restrict the speech of their staff and students for disciplinary reasons; there is a long established precedent in case law, IIRC, though the qualified law speaking people should correct me if I'm wrong. But the constitutional arguments for and against are shaky at best, IMO.
posted by krinklyfig at 8:33 AM on May 2, 2009

Saying that creationism is not scientifically valid is merely a polite way of saying that it is superstitious nonsense.

Huh? They're completely different.

Saying that creationism is not scientifically valid means that it either does not derive reasonable hypotheses from underlying theory and then test those hypotheses, or that those hypotheses aren't borne out by the data.

Saying that creationism is superstitious nonsense means that it is blatantly false.

These are not, remotely, the same thing. Something can be scientifically invalid but yet nonetheless true, and something can be superstitious nonsense and yet scientifically valid at some point in time.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:42 AM on May 2, 2009

"It's bad enough when it happens on a small local scale — stumbling into the 'wrong club,' say — but much worse when it happens on a large scale — tea party demonstrations that turn into riots because the racists and naïve goons listened to some slick hater."

I'm not trying to be coy here, but what exactly do you think qualifies as hate speech in the neo-tea party demonstrations? I realize there is some thinly veiled racism going on, much like the dog whistles of the modern Southern Strategy still in play, but what specifically could you point to that the organizers said which would make their language "hate speech?" I can understand the idea that Germany doesn't allow Nazi propaganda, but don't you think shutting down Sarah Palin, et al, would only serve to make the hard right Republican Party feel and act more victimized? I think it's better to let them say what they want and alienate people on their own. If they actually and directly incite criminal behavior, that's another matter, but I haven't seen hard evidence of that. That said, the current direction of the Republicans is quite scary, if only in the sense that the right (wrong) circumstances could draw a lot of people to them and could germinate a genuine fascist movement. But we're really not even close to that. Most people have rejected them, and their party is shrinking rapidly, despite the tough times we're in.
posted by krinklyfig at 8:46 AM on May 2, 2009

A few people have stated that Corbett's remarks were inappropriate for a high school course but would be fine in a college class. I personally agree 100% with his opinions, but I would never say such things in my college classrooms in a million, billion years. There's a big difference between using one's expertise in a discipline to guide students to question, think critically, become skeptical and exacting consumers of information and using that position of authority as a platform for broadcasting one's own political views.

It's perfectly valid in first-year comp for me to note that using religious scripture as evidence in an academic argument is not appropriate because it's not regarded as authoritative within that discourse community, but that's a far cry from saying, "Don't use the Bible as a source because it's a bunch of delusional malarkey."

If I've done my job right, my students emerge from my classes without much if any idea of what my views are on X controversy but better able to articulate and support their own views, respect their opponents' positions, and evaluate the relative validity of various positions.
posted by FelliniBlank at 8:48 AM on May 2, 2009

I can only see this as an utterly bullshit case. Corbett states an unequivocal belief that creationism is “superstitious nonsense.” That's not a belief, it's a goddamned FACT.

Hate to break it to you, but we don't actually know this. Evolution as the origin for all genetic diversity is only a theory. A highly, highly likely to be true theory based in tons of indirect evidence, but a theory none the less.

If we want our system of the constitution to work we have to play by the rules we support even when others do not. That is the secret to it working.

It appears this judge reviewed the dozens of mendacious claims of a bunch of right-wing nuts and basically dealt them a giant defeat, finding a single throwaway sentence to be violative of the Establishment Clause. In this FPP, we find that turned on its head and a GOP judge totally sided with the Christians.

For these rules to work, a public employee cannot, pursuant to his or her duties, opine on the ultimate truth of a religion.
posted by Ironmouth at 8:55 AM on May 2, 2009

Also, could we please stop calling them xtians. I am not a Christian, but this is an offensive phrase. Just like saying the Democrat Party.
posted by Ironmouth at 8:56 AM on May 2, 2009

I can only see this as an utterly bullshit case. Corbett states an unequivocal belief that creationism is “superstitious nonsense.” That's not a belief, it's a goddamned FACT.

It is only a "fact" in the way that "pro-lifers are baby-killers" is a "fact." If public school teachers could espouse any (anti)religious dogma they wanted provided it was "factual" in that sense, I don't think you'd like that very much either. You forget that when biology teachers teach creationism, they think that they are teaching (literally) the Gospel Truth.

Saying that young-Earth creationism is not supported by any empirical, scientifically rigorous evidence, or that the vast majority of geologists do not subscribe to the young-Earth hypothesis -- those are facts. Calling it "superstitious nonsense" is unnecessary, distracting editorializing; all it does is rile people up (on both sides), and leads to a lot of shouting. It's not an appropriate way to debate, especially when there is such a power imbalance between the two parties.
posted by Commander Rachek at 8:56 AM on May 2, 2009

"Exactly. Good teaching is getting the students to think, not telling them what you think. A math teacher doesn't tell the class that 2+2=4, she asks the students what 2+2 equals."

You can always present ideas to give students a debate. But if you're doing it as presenting your own ideas, depending on the high school and what you're saying, can cause more problems than presenting an idea open for debate, and it's hard to defend if the teacher is singling out students or particular beliefs. But this is not math we're talking about in this case. Math does get into debatable territory, but that's typically in much higher disciplines than is taught in a high school math class. However, it's very possible to write a proof that 2+2 does not equal 4. That specific refutation was taught to me by my freshman year math teacher, although a mathematical proof is not exactly the same thing as opinion about culture.
posted by krinklyfig at 8:58 AM on May 2, 2009

Whoops! That should be "pro-choicers are baby killers." Calling pro-lifers baby killers doesn't really make a lot of sense, does it?
posted by Commander Rachek at 9:00 AM on May 2, 2009

"Hate to break it to you, but we don't actually know this. Evolution as the origin for all genetic diversity is only a theory. A highly, highly likely to be true theory based in tons of indirect evidence, but a theory none the less."

You misunderstand what theory means in science. The theory of gravity is a theory, too, yet it is not controversial in public school classrooms, mostly because our dominant religion doesn't refute it.

Here's some good info directly from the horse's mouth:

Pedagogical definition

In pedagogical contexts or in official pronouncements by official organizations of scientists a definition such as the following may be promulgated.

According to the United States National Academy of Sciences,

Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena, [5]

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.[6]
posted by krinklyfig at 9:02 AM on May 2, 2009 [2 favorites]

"For these rules to work, a public employee cannot, pursuant to his or her duties, opine on the ultimate truth of a religion."

I don't believe you're correct based on whether someone is a public employee or not. How does that work in public university classrooms?
posted by krinklyfig at 9:05 AM on May 2, 2009

It is a crying shame that the court system is now actively engaged in making sure our children are kept stupid.

Please. If the subject of the course was the history of Creationism, he could have covered a century of court battles showing that Creationism has no scientific validity.

Calling it "superstitious nonsense", and saying things like "When you put on your Jesus glasses, you can't see the truth", is teaching the students that their entire faith is wrong. You're not teaching history when you're trying to deprogram your students.

But saying that "religion has often been a tool of oppression used by the elites" is not the same thing as saying "Jesus was a fraud and Mohamed was a con-man."

He didn't say "often". It was more than just inelegantly expressed. He was making categorical statements about religion. Were I his principle, I'd have wondered why the hell he was spending time inveighing against religious belief in general--that's not education, that's using a captive audience to vent your spleen.

At bottom, that's what this case is about: He crossed the line from having a perspective to making statements that had no educational value whatsoever, and were just there to denigrate religion. Separation of Church and State cuts both ways--as it should.
posted by fatbird at 9:11 AM on May 2, 2009

"There's a big difference between using one's expertise in a discipline to guide students to question, think critically, become skeptical and exacting consumers of information and using that position of authority as a platform for broadcasting one's own political views."

Yes, I might agree, although I've taken more than a few college classes where the professor is deliberately provocative in order to get the students engaged. There's nothing wrong with that, although it takes skill to guide the discussion into productive territory. Being provocative or even opinionated in the classroom is not grounds for loss of tenure in most institutions of higher education, but it depends on the school and the circumstances. In the humanities, I think you have to allow for more of it. The students are almost all adults, after all (with some unusual exceptions), and it's not mandatory education.
posted by krinklyfig at 9:11 AM on May 2, 2009

I'm not trying to be coy here, but what exactly do you think qualifies as hate speech in the neo-tea party demonstrations?

I don't think the tea parties, on the whole, were packed with hate speech. I use them as an example of a crowd of gullible and thoughtless people who are primed to do whatever an inspirational talk show host might tell them to do.

I think individuals certainly have the free right to hate blacks and jews as much as they want — but individuals must keep it to themselves. IMO, you don't have a right to spread hate.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:17 AM on May 2, 2009

Hate to break it to you, but we don't actually know this. Evolution as the origin for all genetic diversity is only a theory. A highly, highly likely to be true theory based in tons of indirect evidence, but a theory none the less.

I've no issues whatsoever with the teaching that evolution is a theory, and all that such a statement implies.

Likewise, I've big issues with teaching that creationism is anything but superstitious nonsense. It has no place whatsoever in the realm of reality and science.

Astrology, creationism, psychic spoon bending, thetans, and the dog telling you to kill your wife: they're all on the same playing field.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:21 AM on May 2, 2009

"Were I his principle, I'd have wondered why the hell he was spending time inveighing against religious belief in general--that's not education, that's using a captive audience to vent your spleen."

You probably would have to distinguish between principle and principal, however.

/sorry
posted by krinklyfig at 9:28 AM on May 2, 2009

"I've no issues whatsoever with the teaching that evolution is a theory, and all that such a statement implies."

As long as it's considered no more controversial than any other scientific theory. The only controversy over the Theory of Evolution is with creationists who do not argue on scientific grounds, and there is no controversy among scientists. The "debate," what there is of one, should be left out of the teaching of science except to dismiss it as irrelevant if necessary.
posted by krinklyfig at 9:30 AM on May 2, 2009

"I think individuals certainly have the free right to hate blacks and jews as much as they want — but individuals must keep it to themselves. IMO, you don't have a right to spread hate."

I don't know that we could go in such a direction in the US except by amending the Constitution, which is no small feat. Considering the rapidly changing tides in our politics, what is considered "hate speech" could change every ten or twenty years, depending on the prevailing political sentiment. Can you imagine the legislation passed under Bush with this in mind?
posted by krinklyfig at 9:33 AM on May 2, 2009

"At bottom, that's what this case is about: He crossed the line from having a perspective to making statements that had no educational value whatsoever, and were just there to denigrate religion. Separation of Church and State cuts both ways--as it should."

How well is this established in case law? Does expressing an opinion about religion by a public school teacher constitute discrimination against a protected class? I'm not aware of other constitutional cases like this, but IANAL. This hasn't even hit the 9th Circuit.
posted by krinklyfig at 9:36 AM on May 2, 2009

You know, this really ought to have nothing to do with him being a government employee, or the separation of church and state. He is in a position of authority, and he is teaching other people's kids. You don't mock the beliefs of children in your care.

But then again, he wasn't so much mocking as reacting to the stupidity of former teacher with an ax to grind. That is the agenda of creationists, to make martyrs for controversy. They are a cult of victimhood whose only purpose is to attain protected minority status to shield a larger agenda. So when you point out the absurdity of their pretend science, they cry about you not respecting their religion, or favoring atheism over religion. When you say religious indoctrination is inappropriate for schools, they cry about you not respecting their pretend science, or favoring atheism over religion. And they've got kids with tape recorders out there just waiting for you to hurt their precious feelings by saying mean things about their dominionist belief-complex.
posted by 0xdeadc0de at 9:42 AM on May 2, 2009

I don't think the tea parties, on the whole, were packed with hate speech. I use them as an example of a crowd of gullible and thoughtless people who are primed to do whatever an inspirational talk show host might tell them to do.

Like every kind of person who has attended any mass demonstration, ever?
posted by 0xdeadc0de at 9:53 AM on May 2, 2009 [1 favorite]

Substitute "Jews" or "Muslims" in that sentence and see how it reads.

Yeah, because Christians are completely the same as Jews and Muslims in North American society. Fighting against the dominant cultural values and expectations is different from crapping on minority ones.
posted by Hildegarde at 9:54 AM on May 2, 2009 [2 favorites]

"You know, this really ought to have nothing to do with him being a government employee, or the separation of church and state. He is in a position of authority, and he is teaching other people's kids. You don't mock the beliefs of children in your care."

I generally agree, except I do not consider high school students to be "children." Yes, because they're minors you have to be careful, moreso than in non-mandatory education, but teenagers are not really children, and they are capable of interpreting and analyzing complicated and controversial moral dilemmas. But getting into that territory as a high school teacher these days is something of a minefield.

This really wasn't so much an issue when I was in high school in the mid-late '80s. My math teacher was a retired cop who used to regale us with his hyper-authoritarian sense of humor, complete with graphic pictures from Soldier of Fortune magazine taped on the wall. We all thought he was a great teacher, but there was no misunderstanding that his beliefs were his own, though he was utterly unafraid of expressing them. He was willing to debate them with his students, to a point, because it was a math class and we had other things to do. But he would take entire classes just to talk about how cool his Mac Classic was, and bringing it up was the best way to avoid work. But nobody was threatened by him, although he came across real tough he was sort of a big teddy bear. But one with a collection of firearms and a history of practicing in the authority of the government.
posted by krinklyfig at 9:54 AM on May 2, 2009

Fighting against the dominant cultural values and expectations is different from crapping on minority ones.

Whether someone is a member of a minority group has no bearing on whether they're being discriminated against.
posted by oaf at 9:56 AM on May 2, 2009 [1 favorite]

Whether someone is a member of a minority group has no bearing on whether they're being discriminated against.

How legalistic of you. But rationally, are you kidding me? You think there's no difference between the bullshit lies that are spread about muslims and LOLXTIANS? One is a landslide and the other is tossing a pebble.
posted by Hildegarde at 10:00 AM on May 2, 2009 [1 favorite]

But rationally, are you kidding me?

No. Please explain how saying "what Baptists believe about the beginning of the universe is a load of crap" is different from saying "what the Apache believe about the beginning of the universe is a load of crap".
posted by oaf at 10:08 AM on May 2, 2009

"No. Please explain how saying 'what Baptists believe about the beginning of the universe is a load of crap' is different from saying 'what the Apache believe about the beginning of the universe is a load of crap'."

Expressing that opinion is not necessarily discrimination in a legal sense, although it's true that constitutionally, protected class means any religion in the US. But I agree with Hildegarde that the dominant religion/race/culture practicing discrimination against a minority religion or race is different in the effect it has on the group as a whole. A dominant religion being attacked by a minority view is not going to threaten the whole class, or not nearly as much as the dominant belief system attacking the minority class.
posted by krinklyfig at 10:14 AM on May 2, 2009 [1 favorite]

Sorry, don't mean to dominate the discussion. I just get a bit worked up, because I can't believe we're still trying to prove the earth isn't flat.
posted by krinklyfig at 10:26 AM on May 2, 2009

> How well is this established in case law? Does expressing an opinion about religion by a public school teacher constitute discrimination against a protected class? I'm not aware of other constitutional cases like this, but IANAL. This hasn't even hit the 9th Circuit.

The Lemon Test is what decided against Corbett in this case, and it's well established case law. Two of his many statements (the two quoted in the OP) were found to fail the first prong of the test, that they have a secular (i.e., educational) purpose in the context of his classroom. In other words, the judge found two of his statements to be editorializing about religion rather than teaching history. I'm a bit surprised--some of his other statements are pretty clearly the same, but perhaps the judge tried to narrow his verdict to protect it against appeal.

So, by that test, if a math teacher stopped in the middle of a lecture on factoring polynomials and said "There is no God", that would pretty clearly fail the test. On the other hand, if Corbett observed that the Sedavacantist branch of the Catholic Church was the result of Vatican II, he'd be well protected. If he went on to say that he agreed with the Sedavacantist position for reasons A, B, and C, I think he'd be safe as well, because he'd be articulating the reasoning behind a particular position, which has obvious educational value.

The apparent irony (or justice) of this case turns on the fact that it was the Lemon test that established that teachers may not teach religion in the classroom.
posted by fatbird at 10:33 AM on May 2, 2009 [1 favorite]

BTW, krinklyfig, this whole issue has nothing to do with protected classes, at least legally. The case wasn't decided against Corbett because someone was offended--that was just the impetus for the case.
posted by fatbird at 10:34 AM on May 2, 2009

How about this, oaf: baptists have more impact on what happens in your life. It's christian holidays we acknowledge publicly and celebrate even as a secular culture; we have whole sets of products directed at them, lots of media about them, and at my place of work at least, christian holidays call for the school to shut down (christmas, easter), but if you're Jewish, or as you say, Apache, you have to use your limited holiday time to celebrate your religious holy days. The beliefs of baptists, and christians in general, impact and drive our daily life far more than the beliefs of the Apache, thereby conscripting us all into this faith.

Why do you think people complain about the ridiculousness of christian beliefs? Just because it's fun and they disagree? No: it's because those beliefs are constantly shoved down our throats and uniquely informing public decisions and discourse so ubiquitously that it becomes invisibly. We actually NEED to speak up against that, because no faith should have that much power over a multi-cultural and increasingly secular state. This is why people rarely bash the faith of the Apache. They're keeping to themselves, their values aren't driving what the rest of us can accomplish. They're not dictating what the "day of rest" in the week will be, or when we can buy alcohol, or what books are okay in our public school libraries. When someone else's faith gets in the way of how the rest of us live our lives, we become complicit in it. We become a kind of insider. When christian creation myths are taught as science in schools, I think pretty much everyone has a stake in calling it out as publicly as possible. Because it really is bloody ridiculous.

We have a responsibility to critique our dominant discourses in this culture. That doesn't mean we are free to crap on minorities. That's just arbitrary and xenophobic.
posted by Hildegarde at 10:44 AM on May 2, 2009 [6 favorites]

"BTW, krinklyfig, this whole issue has nothing to do with protected classes, at least legally. The case wasn't decided against Corbett because someone was offended--that was just the impetus for the case."

I understand, but I don't see how this succeeds up to the SCOTUS. I do think it might work as a discrimination case as opposed to a violation of the establishment clause. The Lemon Test hasn't been applied this way before, as far as I know. Additionally, most of the legal arguments against the Lemon Test come from the conservative wing of legal thought, including Thomas and Scalia, according to that wiki link.
posted by krinklyfig at 10:52 AM on May 2, 2009

Also, could we please stop calling them xtians. I am not a Christian, but this is an offensive phrase. Just like saying the Democrat Party.

Really?
posted by ODiV at 10:56 AM on May 2, 2009

We have a responsibility to critique our dominant discourses in this culture.

We also have a responsibility to hold everyone to the same standard. Holding one religious group to a higher standard is—wait for it—arbitrary and xenophobic.
posted by oaf at 10:58 AM on May 2, 2009 [1 favorite]

I would hope the guy at the podium spouting nonsense gets more scrutiny than the guy on the street corner.
posted by ODiV at 11:02 AM on May 2, 2009

kozad: Plus, being a Western Literature teacher, I find myself in the peculiar position of explaining the doctrine of Original Sin and other crucial elements of Christian doctrine to my kids, many of whom were raised as atheists, as was my mom, which is why she sent us to Sunday School: she was at a loss in her college English Literature classes.

I've turned into a Sunday school teacher, in a public school.

Take note all you Richard Dawkins haters: if it weren't for militant atheists, the militant Christians would be fighting their idiotic "culture war" unopposed.

Isn't the establishment clause meant to prevent the promotion of religion? This is the reason why fundamentalists are so desperate to get atheism defined as just another religion in the national mind; it prevents anything being done to "establish" it, which could be used to move the state away from being a secular institution.

fatbird: Two of his many statements (the two quoted in the OP) were found to fail the first prong of the test, that they have a secular (i.e., educational) purpose in the context of his classroom. In other words, the judge found two of his statements to be editorializing about religion rather than teaching history.

The result of this test, applied in this fashion, is that teachers are damned (poor choice of words?) if they do and don't. It forces them to either "teach the controversy," saying there's a fight out there and two sides involved in it, the end, or to not teach it at all. And teaching the controversy plays into the fundamentalists' hand, it's what they've been trying to get installed into schools as a foothold for a while now.
posted by JHarris at 11:31 AM on May 2, 2009 [1 favorite]

We have a responsibility to critique our dominant discourses in this culture.

Sure, as private citizens, but that doesn't give us some wholesale right to do it when we're supposed to be doing our jobs. I mean, if a computer programmer feels compelled to stand up on her desk everyday at 10:45 am to tell everyone about what a prick Columbus was, it's not really part of the job description.

And people who are in positions of authority are especially responsible for not using their employment to stuff their critique of whatever down the throats of subordinates. Yeesh, a PR friend of mine used to get called into staff meetings so that her senior partners could lead the employees in prayers, and I don't see much difference between that and this guy Corbett holding forth during history class about all sorts of irrelevant stuff just because he had a captive audience.

If he has a (rightful) beef about an incompetent wackjob colleague teaching creationism instead of science, then he can raise that issue with the colleague, the other faculty, or the school administration. But it's inappropriate to get the students involved -- and if they were investigating it as part of the school paper, then as editor, it's his role to edit and otherwise shut the fuck up instead of grinding his own axe.
posted by FelliniBlank at 11:31 AM on May 2, 2009 [1 favorite]

The result of this test, applied in this fashion, is that teachers are damned (poor choice of words?) if they do and don't. It forces them to either "teach the controversy," saying there's a fight out there and two sides involved in it, the end, or to not teach it at all. And teaching the controversy plays into the fundamentalists' hand, it's what they've been trying to get installed into schools as a foothold for a while now.

Please describe the curriculum of a class who's aim is to teach students not to be religious.

Teaching the controversy does not play into the fundamentalists hands. They've failed continually over the last century to get some form of Creationism taught in science class by arguing that teachers should teach the controversy. I hope they continue doing so, because it's a perpetually losing strategy for them.

To a degree, teachers should be like Wikipedia: NPOV and no original content. Teach what's backed up by verifiable cites within the ambit of your field, and don't inject your own opinion into it. The mission of teachers isn't to indoctrinate students, it's to teach them to learn and to think. Teaching the controversy is good pedagogy. Lay out both sides and make the students write a paper on which one is right; then grade them on how well they argue their case.

It's interesting to compare the responses in this thread that amount to "But he's right! Religion does suck!" with the general complaint that schools don't teach critical thinking, they just teach the test and train students to regurgitate the "right" answers. Which is it? Do we only want to train critical thinkers if they conclude that religion is evil?
posted by fatbird at 11:43 AM on May 2, 2009 [1 favorite]

Teaching the controversy is good pedagogy.

It's poor pedagogy precisely because it brings non-scientific distractions into science class.
posted by oaf at 12:33 PM on May 2, 2009 [1 favorite]

Which is it? Do we only want to train critical thinkers if they conclude that religion is evil?

As far as I can tell, a fair number of posters are of the opinion that anyone who hasn't concluded that is, ipso facto, not a critical thinker.
posted by AdamCSnider at 12:34 PM on May 2, 2009

Please explain how saying "what Baptists believe about the beginning of the universe is a load of crap" is different from saying "what the Apache believe about the beginning of the universe is a load of crap".

They are both explanations that date from a time when the basic laws of reality were not understood in any useful manner. Lacking any sort of rational — logical, fact-based, testable, provable — framework, they are creation stories. As far as one can say that works of fiction are "a load of crap," they are a load of crap.

There is no advantage in using fictional stories to explain knowable things.

Religions belief is the domain of things unknowable. Religion might attempt to explain why the universe exists, but it must not be used to explain how it exists. Creationism is unadulterated crap: it is not reality and it has no useful place in religion.
posted by five fresh fish at 1:02 PM on May 2, 2009

Teaching the controversy is good pedagogy.

Unless this is applied equally for all religions, it is bullshit. "Teaching the Christian Creationism controversy is good pedagogy" is equivalent to "Teaching the Vishnu Creationism controvery is good pedagogy."

Neither has a place in any class outside a social studies unit on creation mythology.
posted by five fresh fish at 1:11 PM on May 2, 2009 [1 favorite]

> It's poor pedagogy precisely because it brings non-scientific distractions into science class.

Also:

> Unless this is applied equally for all religions, it is bullshit. "Teaching the Christian Creationism controversy is good pedagogy" is equivalent to "Teaching the Vishnu Creationism controvery is good pedagogy."

Like what? Don't say Creationism/Intelligent Design because that's been rejected as a controversy worth teaching repeatedly, no matter how many mutations and makeovers it goes through. It's a dead issue. It's been recognized as a fake controversy over and over again.

"Teach the controversy" implies that it's a valid controversy, not a make believe controversy designed to sneak something into the classroom that can't be brought in on its own merits. Does fear of Creationism mean that no controversies should ever be taught as controversies worth examining?
posted by fatbird at 1:29 PM on May 2, 2009 [1 favorite]

I am fortunate enough to teach in a high school where Christians are in the minority.

Substitute "Jews" or "Muslims" in that sentence and see how it reads.
posted by cribcage at 9:33 PM on May 1

American Jews and Muslims don't try to change secular schools to promote their religion and only their religion. Your comment was nothing more than "FTFY" with some bullshit dressing on top.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 10:03 AM on May 3, 2009

Your comment was nothing more than "FTFY" with some bullshit dressing on top.

No. His comment was simply pointing out that, whatever kozad might have meant by the remark, it reads like pernicious bigotry. In a society in which people can lose their jobs for using the word "niggardly" in accordance with its correct meaning, I don't see that this is out of line at all.

You might not like what some Christians are doing. I don't like it either; I think science and only science should be taught in science classrooms, and "creation science" (or "intelligent design") is not science. But that doesn't give you license for bigotry against Christians.
posted by Crabby Appleton at 2:16 PM on May 3, 2009

Because high schools don't typically offer classes in philosophy, I think that teaching a little philosophy of science in a science class should also be permissible.
posted by Crabby Appleton at 2:20 PM on May 3, 2009

"Teach the controversy controversies"
posted by Brian B. at 2:24 PM on May 3, 2009

Update: the Orange County Register posted a nice follow up article which includes an interview with Jim. It also has a few pictures of the classroom which helps set the tone for the type of unique atmosphere that encompass his courses.

Images: Oh, the couches. And the walls (note the 'visualize whirled peas' bumper sticker above the door).
posted by cgomez at 8:49 PM on May 10, 2009