This Judge IS a keeper!

[rushmc 23]

The teacher should get fired. NOT for her opinon but her lack of inclusivness

Obama should nominate this judge for the SC

Quote

Judge: Teacher's Creationism Attack Violated Student's Rights

Monday, May 4, 2009 7:40 PM








SANTA ANA, Calif. -- A federal judge ruled that a public high school history teacher violated the First Amendment when he called creationism "superstitious nonsense" during a classroom lecture.


U.S. District Judge James Selna ruled Friday in a lawsuit student Chad Farnan filed in 2007, alleging that teacher James Corbett violated the establishment clause of the First Amendment by making repeated comments in class that were hostile to Christian beliefs.


The lawsuit cited more than 20 statements made by Corbett during one day of class, which Farnan recorded, to support allegations of a broader teaching method that "favors irreligion over religion" and made Christian students feel uncomfortable.


During the course of the litigation, the judge found that most of the statements cited in the court papers did not violate the First Amendment because they did not refer directly to religion or were appropriate in the context of the classroom lecture.


But Selna ruled Friday that one comment, where Corbett referred to creationism as "religious, superstitious nonsense," did violate Farnan's constitutional rights.


Selna wrote in his ruling that he tried to balance Farnan's and Corbett's rights.


"The court's ruling today reflects the constitutionally permissible need for expansive discussion even if a given topic may be offensive to a particular religion," the judge wrote.


"The decision also reflects that there are boundaries. ... The ruling today protects Farnan, but also protects teachers like Corbett in carrying out their teaching duties."


Corbett, a 20-year teaching veteran, remains at Capistrano Valley High School.


Farnan is now a junior at the school, but quit Corbett's Advanced Placement European history class after his teacher made the comments.


Farnan is not interested in monetary damages, said his attorney, Jennifer Monk of the Murrieta-based Christian legal group Advocates for Faith & Freedom.


Instead, he plans to ask the court to prohibit Corbett from making similar comments in the future. Farnan's family would also like to see the school district offer teacher training and monitor Corbett's classroom for future violations, Monk said.


There are no plans to appeal the judge's rulings on the other statements listed in the litigation, she said.


"They lost, he violated the establishment clause," she told The Associated Press in a phone interview. "From our perspective, whether he violated it with one statement or with 19 statements is irrelevant."


The establishment clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from making any law establishing religion. The clause has been interpreted by U.S. courts to also prohibit government employees from displaying religious hostility.


Selna said that although Corbett was only found to have violated the establishment clause in a single instance, he could not excuse or overlook the behavior.


In a ruling last month, the judge dismissed all but two of the statements Farnan complained about, including Corbett's comment that "when you put on your Jesus glasses, you can't see the truth."


On Friday, Selna also dismissed one of the two remaining statements, saying that Corbett may have been attempting to quote Mark Twain when he said religion was "invented when the first con man met the first fool."


Corbett has declined to comment throughout the litigation. His attorney, Dan Spradlin, did not immediately return a message left Monday by The Associated Press.


Spradlin has said, however, that Corbett made the remark about creationism during a classroom discussion about a 1993 case in which a former Capistrano Valley High science teacher sued the school district because it required instruction in evolution.


Spradlin has said Corbett was simply expressing his own opinion that the former teacher shouldn't have presented his religious views to students.


Farnan's family released a statement Friday calling the judge's ruling a vindication of the teen's constitutional rights.


The Capistrano Unified School District, which paid for Corbett's attorney, was found not liable for Corbett's classroom conduct.


© 2009 Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[BikerBabe 0]

Though i don't think creationism should be taught in SCIENCE class, i agree with the ruling here. Especially since it sounds like the teacher expressed several anti-Christian views (and made disparaging remarks) during class. And it's a HISTORY class, which is actually a place where creationism might be a worthy topic, as religious beliefs have a funny little way of shaping historical events.

though i have to wonder if you would be crowing so loudly had the situation been reversed, yet the ruling remained the same.

I had the opposite experience in my sophomore year of college, in Military History class. Once the teacher found out i was agnostic, he went out of his way to emphasize his personal evangelical Christian beliefs, often to the point of harassment. Perhaps i should have sued the Air Force for assigning him there as an instructor...who knows. I was 19 and terrified of saying anything against a major in the AF, who waaaaay outranked me at the time.

My point is, would you be so happy...or even have ACKNOWLEDGED the ruling, had the beliefs been reversed?

Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Though i don't think creationism should be taught in SCIENCE class, i agree with the ruling here. Especially since it sounds like the teacher expressed several anti-Christian views (and made disparaging remarks) during class. And it's a HISTORY class, which is actually a place where creationism might be a worthy topic, as religious beliefs have a funny little way of shaping historical events.

though i have to wonder if you would be crowing so loudly had the situation been reversed, yet the ruling remained the same.

I had the opposite experience in my sophomore year of college, in Military History class. Once the teacher found out i was agnostic, he went out of his way to emphasize his personal evangelical Christian beliefs, often to the point of harassment. Perhaps i should have sued the Air Force for assigning him there as an instructor...who knows. I was 19 and terrified of saying anything against a major in the AF, who waaaaay outranked me at the time.

My point is, would you be so happy...or even have ACKNOWLEDGED the ruling, had the beliefs been reversed?

I am not sure I follow your point but, no teacher in my opinion should teach more that the subject (with in reason as discussions can stray) And I say that for any side of any topic.

Had a teacher pushed the direct oposite I would have thought the same if the judge rules acordingly.

In the end however, I think those who are teacher that push personal beleifs should not be teacher. No mater what the believe

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,070]

> i agree with the ruling here.

I would tend to agree, based on his statement that creationism was "religious, superstitious nonsense." That's a statement on religion. Barely, but it is a statement. Had he said it was simply invalid nonsense and not appropriate to discuss in a science classroom, there would have been no problem.

[lawrocket 3]

This is an example of a couple of things. First, it has been palpable the disdain for religion that has been pretty highly publicized. This is the echo effect. One rule I've found is that the opposition will always adopt successful tactics.

The second thing is, to me, an example of things being pushed too far. First, things got to the point where the teacher felt comfortable saying something like that. As I've stated here often, arguing against religion is religious. Removing any and all mention of religion from public arenas has seemed to be the goal. Now we see that it doesn't mean you can advocate against it.

Religion was too heavily centered in public education. The effort to remove religion has been overly done - a reaction as extreme as the extremism it sought to counter. Now, the other side is meeting ridiculousness with ridiculousness, bouncing back and meetign it with extremism of its own.

Constitutionally proper, but it seems nobody can find an acceptable middle ground where they just leave each other alone.

I think it hogwash that this case was filed. I find it said that it had to be. I find it sad that a teacher proselytizes against religion. I find it sad when teachers proselytize for religion.

It's just people unwilling to keep their opinions to themselves in a captive audience setting.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[jgoose71 0]

I guess I agree with the ruling. My stance has always been that if you are going to kick the church out of government, then you have to keep the government out of church. Same with school.

If you won't let the school teach creationism, then you can't let the school talk about, or in this case, bash, religion either. This really is the height of hypocrisy.

I just guess I am starting to get tired of the double standard when it comes to conservative values. It's becoming more and more OK to bash on religion, white heterosexual males, or straight marriage. It's the hip new trendy thing to do. I guess I should just learn to suck dick and enjoy it if I want to have any rights.

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[Amazon 7]

Quote

I guess I agree with the ruling. My stance has always been that if you are going to kick the church out of government, then you have to keep the government out of church. Same with school.

If you won't let the school teach creationism, then you can't let the school talk about, or in this case, bash, religion either. This really is the height of hypocrisy.

I just guess I am starting to get tired of the double standard when it comes to conservative values. It's becoming more and more OK to bash on religion, white heterosexual males, or straight marriage. It's the hip new trendy thing to do. I guess I should just learn to suck dick and enjoy it if I want to have any rights.

I think a lot of conservatives could learn something from that... just to get some self respect back.

[tonyhays 86]

Conservatives have a long way to go before they earn respect again....(i.e. start winning votes).

From where I sit (libertarian/independent), some fiscal responsibility ( perhaps a balanced budget amendment?) would go a long way towards that goal.

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”

[lawrocket 3]

Absolutely. There is very very little difference between the two parties. The Dems aee like a Russian nuke - it'll fuck you up in the name of communism. The GOP is like a French nuke - it'll fuck you up in the name of something that isn't communism.

It doesn't matter the reason, though. They'll both fuck you up the same way doing the same thing.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[futuredivot 0]

Quote

That's a statement on religion. Barely

Correct. I don't think that statement taken as a stand alone is basis for litigation. Along with the other quotes, however, it appears that the teacher created a hostile environment toward the student's beliefs.

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Absolutely. There is very very little difference between the two parties. The Dems aee like a Russian nuke - it'll fuck you up in the name of communism. The GOP is like a French nuke - it'll fuck you up in the name of something that isn't communism.

It doesn't matter the reason, though. They'll both fuck you up the same way doing the same thing.

hmmm... pithy, classy, insightful... eerie in its accuracy and simplicity

+1

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

That's a statement on religion. Barely

Correct. I don't think that statement taken as a stand alone is basis for litigation. Along with the other quotes, however, it appears that the teacher created a hostile environment toward the student's beliefs.

That. If this guy I had said, "I personally believe religion is superstitious nonsense, but many people disagree", I'd consider it unprofessional, but not an establishment of religion. In any case, he shouldn't be walking that fine of a line. Avoid the topic altogether and nobody gets their panties in a bunch.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[TomAiello 26]

I disagree with the decision.

I think this judge is trying really hard to fit a case of professional misconduct by the teacher into a first amendment issue that doesn't fit it.

I really don't think that the teacher ridiculing religion is an "establishment of religion" under the first amendment. In fact, if anything, the first amendment (that other bit, about freedom of speech) argues for letting the teacher have his say.

The only way I can make the first amendment land on the side of the student here is to invoke the argument that the teacher has created a hostile environment where the student is afraid to voice his own views, and since the teacher represents the state in this (public) school, the state has effectively "chilled" free expression.

Is the teacher a jackass? Yes, I think so. Is he guilty of professional misconduct (i.e. not behaving in a manner which creates an inclusive, welcoming learning environment for all his students)? Absolutely.

But has he violated the first amendment? I don't think so.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

The only way I can make the first amendment land on the side of the student here is to invoke the argument that the teacher has created a hostile environment where the student is afraid to voice his own views, and since the teacher represents the state in this (public) school, the state has effectively "chilled" free expression.

In a classroom environment, the teacher is in a position of authority, and that alone may make the student afraid to voice views that are not in agreement with the teacher.

But I'm not sure if it's a First Amendment issue. Seems borderline to me.

[BikerBabe 0]

Quote

The only way I can make the first amendment land on the side of the student here is to invoke the argument that the teacher has created a hostile environment where the student is afraid to voice his own views, and since the teacher represents the state in this (public) school, the state has effectively "chilled" free expression.

I believe this is EXACTLY the argument the student was making. Look at it this way: does that teacher have MORE of a right to express his views than the student? Of course not.

One thing many people don't understand is when you sign up to work for the "state" (meaning, the government or a publicly-funded entity like the public schools) you are agreeing to give up some of your rights while in that position.

For example, military members can't attend political rallies in uniform, nor can they exercise "freedom of speech" to speak out against the president. When i was in i was free to believe that W was a blithering idiot, but i was not allowed to say so. And it really only takes a few minutes of thinking about it to understand why this HAS to be so.

Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

[Beachbum 0]

I'd have to agree with Tom ... from my viewpoint, yes the teacher screwed up, but I don't believe it's a 1st amendment issue.

Quote

no teacher in my opinion should teach more that the subject

Several people mentioned things along this line of thought. I don't have kids, but I have looked at some textbooks used here (Houston - CyFair) thanks to a neighbor. I can't blame teachers for blurring lines - a 9th grade math book I was shown that is being used contained quite a variety of stuff besides just math. It seemed like every 3rd or 4th page there was something on what used to be considered social studies, civics, a little biology and even some geography. That type of book would certainly tend to lead a class away from the particular subject the class is supposed to teach! Anyone involved in education on here that knows if this type of book is common now?

As long as you are happy with yourself ... who cares what the rest of the world thinks?

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

Quote

The only way I can make the first amendment land on the side of the student here is to invoke the argument that the teacher has created a hostile environment where the student is afraid to voice his own views, and since the teacher represents the state in this (public) school, the state has effectively "chilled" free expression.

I believe this is EXACTLY the argument the student was making. Look at it this way: does that teacher have MORE of a right to express his views than the student? Of course not.

Right. And schools are special places, with regard to the First Amendment, because they have an important function that might be impeded by the exercise of some rights.

I do understand the argument. I just don't buy it.

I still think this is a professional conduct issue, not a First Amendment one. The teacher shouldn't be doing that because it's unprofessional, and poor teaching. I just don't see that his conduct offends the first amendment.

The way I see it is this: the teacher's conduct dampens the students ability to express his own views. But the school isn't the right place for either set of views to be expressed. The teacher isn't then, impairing the exercise of the student's rights, because the student's rights are already curtailed in accordance with the educational mission of the school.

I'll admit that if we were talking about a poli sci discussion, I could make a case that expression of student viewpoints might be critical to the success of the school's educational mission. And if that were the case, the teacher would be offending not only the student's first amendment rights, but also the underlying mission of the institution (which benefits from the classroom discussion fostered by open discussion of student beliefs). But without knowing that to be the case here (and in a course on European history, I don't think it's likely), that argument is pretty tough to make convincingly.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[millertime24 8]

I like this Judge better...

http://www.ercruisers.com/Beta_Website/car_pics/1969_Pontiac_GTO_Judge.jpg

Muff #5048

[rushmc 23]

Quote

I disagree with the decision.

I think this judge is trying really hard to fit a case of professional misconduct by the teacher into a first amendment issue that doesn't fit it.

I really don't think that the teacher ridiculing religion is an "establishment of religion" under the first amendment. In fact, if anything, the first amendment (that other bit, about freedom of speech) argues for letting the teacher have his say.

The only way I can make the first amendment land on the side of the student here is to invoke the argument that the teacher has created a hostile environment where the student is afraid to voice his own views, and since the teacher represents the state in this (public) school, the state has effectively "chilled" free expression.

Is the teacher a jackass? Yes, I think so. Is he guilty of professional misconduct (i.e. not behaving in a manner which creates an inclusive, welcoming learning environment for all his students)? Absolutely.

But has he violated the first amendment? I don't think so.

If on the street? I would tend to agree with you. In the class room? Well we will disagree. That person should not be a teacher IMO

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

In the class room? Well we will disagree. That person should not be a teacher IMO

I don't think he should be a teacher. I think we've got professional misconduct there on a scale to easily justify removing him from the profession of teaching permanently.

I just don't think the first amendment reasoning is the way to find a resolution here.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[billvon 3,070]

>But I'm not sure if it's a First Amendment issue. Seems borderline to me.

Agreed. It's _barely_ an issue, and probably should have been resolved well before it got to court.

I can almost see this judge hearing the case saying "you have GOT to be kidding me. You couldn't resolve this on your own?"

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

In the class room? Well we will disagree. That person should not be a teacher IMO

I don't think he should be a teacher. I think we've got professional misconduct there on a scale to easily justify removing him from the profession of teaching permanently.

I just don't think the first amendment reasoning is the way to find a resolution here.

What if he'd instead put the ten commandments on his wall?

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[piper17 1]

The First Amendment states "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peacefully to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

While I think the teacher was out of line and I enjoy seeing him taken to task for it, I don't see how the First Amendment even applies; Congress did nothing in this instance. It was a teacher.

In my opinion (for whatever that is worth) the First Amendment has been so badly misinterpretted over the years...including by the Supreme Court and the so-called "separation of church and state" which exists no where in the First Amendment.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition"...Rudyard Kipling

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

In the class room? Well we will disagree. That person should not be a teacher IMO

I don't think he should be a teacher. I think we've got professional misconduct there on a scale to easily justify removing him from the profession of teaching permanently.

I just don't think the first amendment reasoning is the way to find a resolution here.

Fair enough....

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

The First Amendment states "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peacefully to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

While I think the teacher was out of line and I enjoy seeing him taken to task for it, I don't see how the First Amendment even applies; Congress did nothing in this instance. It was a teacher.

In my opinion (for whatever that is worth) the First Amendment has been so badly misinterpretted over the years...including by the Supreme Court and the so-called "separation of church and state" which exists no where in the First Amendment.

they have already gone past that when the courts force counties and states to remove article from the buildings. In doing this they HAVE made law concerning...........

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln