Teacher being sued for anti-religious remarks

[Zadius]

MSNBC

MISSION VIEJO - History teacher James Corbett is a lightning rod in his high school classroom, questioning the merits of religion on a regular basis and forcing students to think long and hard about their convictions and faith.

Now a lawsuit filed by one of Corbett's Capistrano Valley High School students alleging a classroom anti-religion bias has ignited a flurry of debate about the role a teacher's convictions and faith should play in the classroom.

Mission Viejo sophomore Chad Farnan and his parents filed a lawsuit Wednesday against Corbett alleging the Advanced Placement European history teacher made anti-Christian remarks during class in violation of the First Amendment's establishment clause, which prohibits the government from promoting religious intolerance.

Many of Corbett's current and former students have rushed to his defense, saying he not only had the right to criticize traditional Christian viewpoints on topics such as birth control, teenage sex and homosexuality, but that his talks forced students to think critically about their own views. Corbett, who has taught at Capistrano Valley High for 19 years, did not return phone calls for comment.

"I don't agree with everything he says, but that's not the point," said Capistrano Valley High graduate Erica Bashaw, 18, now a freshman at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo. "Can you tolerate someone saying something that you don't agree with? Can you have a fiery debate about ideas? It scares me that that's not acceptable."

The lawsuit set off passionate reactions from both sides. About 340 comments were posted on an internal message board for Capistrano Valley High students, students said, and more than 260 comments were posted on OCRegister.com in response to the story.

Some student supporters wore handmade T-shirts to school Friday with messages such as "Keep Corbett." And dozens of Corbett's current and former students are planning a rally at 7 a.m. Wednesday at the high school to show their support for him.

"Corbett has been a powerful reminder to me that we 'Christians' do not have the monopoly on truth," Capistrano Valley High geography and history teacher Tom Airey wrote in the Orange County Register's opinion section. "… In an age where there is probably too much emphasis on teaching to the standards and getting 'the facts' right, Corbett is training young students to think critically."

At issue in the lawsuit is whether Corbett violated the separation of church and state as outlined in the First Amendment's establishment clause. Court papers cite statements tape-recorded by Farnan such as "From conservative Christians in this country to Muslim fundamentalists in Afghanistan …it's stunning how vitally interested they are in controlling women" and "When you put on your Jesus glasses, you can't see the truth."

"The quotes are taken out of context," said Capistrano Valley High junior Doug Kalagian, 17, of Mission Viejo, who took AP European History with Corbett last year. "He's sarcastic in a rhetorical way to help prove a point. He tries to inspire free thinking."

Students say Corbett devotes considerable class time to discussing current events, often bringing in newspaper articles to spark discussion. But his critics say he monopolizes much of his class time promoting his own liberal viewpoints and leaves little room for students to interject.

"He's only giving one side - that's not thinking critically at all," said Farnan, 16, who does not plan to attend his AP European History class again until Corbett is removed. "This might be a college-level class, but it's in high school, so he doesn't have the same rights."

Federal and district guidelines don't ban teachers from discussing religion, especially in a history class where discussion of religious historical events is common. But teachers are expected to be fair and neither promote nor denigrate religions in their treatment of the topics.

"All of his opinions would have been fine with us if he had invited opposing points of view and the class was actually debating," said parent Birgit O'Hearn, 46, of Mission Viejo, who pulled her daughter out of Corbett's class this year. "But the opinions he was putting forth are not opinions that are worthy of an instructor."

School officials were more reserved in passing judgment on Corbett.

"He's a respected member of our staff, and he deserves the right to provide his defense and have legal counsel," said Capistrano Unified school board President Mike Darnold. "Obviously, the district will be looking into everyone's rights and responsibilities, and the safety and welfare of the kids."

Added Capistrano Unified district spokeswoman Beverly de Nicola: "It is important to know the context of the situation. We don't want to prejudge any of the facts."

The lawsuit has attracted national media attention. TV news commentators Bill O'Reilly and Neil Cavuto have invited Farnan to appear on their Fox News Channel cable shows, said Farnan's attorney, Robert Tyler.

The case also has sparked disagreement among legal scholars about its merits and chance of success.

UC Irvine's new law dean, Erwin Chemerinsky, who has litigated several high-profile church vs. state lawsuits on the secular side, thinks the lawsuit is "very unlikely to succeed," he said.

"Court will be very reluctant to open the door to students suing when they find the teachers' speech objectionable," Chemerinsky said.

But American Civil Liberties Union attorney Peter Eliasberg pointed out that statements such as the one about the "Jesus glasses" could bolster the case.

"I think the lawsuit does have a chance," Eliasberg said. "It is not the job of a public school teacher either to be promoting religion or disparaging religion."

However, Eliasberg said, comments about issues such as sexual abstinence would not be a violation of a student's constitutional religious rights, even if they were offended by them. The appropriateness of such comments would be an issue to be taken up by the local school board, rather than the courts, Eliasberg said.

"There have been quite a few cases saying that you can teach a subject even if it's inconsistent with people's religious beliefs," Eliasberg said. "Teaching evolution, for example, does not violate the rights of evangelical Christians. But saying that Christians are stupid because they don't believe in evolution might."

Here's the Bill O'Reilly segment on the subject. So what do you think guys? Was the "Jesus glasses" comment an unconstitutional attack on religion by a public school teacher, or is this much ado about nothing?

[Darth Wong]

He's not singling out Christians for personal abuse, the way atheists have been abused in classrooms many times before. He's speaking in general terms. If I were his defender, I would argue that this would set a precedent for anyone who ever says anything that could be construed as negative about any religion in history class. How could one discuss the Crusades, for example, without mentioning the role religion has to play? White-washing the past? Unabashed lying?

These fuckers want to have it both ways. They claim that Christianity and religion in general are enormously important in history and society, yet they want to avoid any frank discussion of it. It is as I've said before, regarding proposals to make Bible-based classes in school; the only religious education the fundies would accept is the kind which uses the Bible as a textbook.

[Terralthra]

"He's only giving one side - that's not thinking critically at all," said Farnan, 16, who does not plan to attend his AP European History class again until Corbett is removed. "This might be a college-level class, but it's in high school, so he doesn't have the same rights."

I don't see how "thinking critically" demands considering the Christian point of view. Pretty much the opposite: Thinking critically demands one ignore irrational points of view.

[B5B7]

Congress shall make no law respecting an 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 peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I see nothing there about tolerating religion. Also, the clauses after the establishment clause specifically give a right of free speech.
Now, a teacher should be restricted in aspects of what they can say/teach, but the religious schools allow their teachers to say all sorts of pro-religious (& possibly anti-other religions) things, so therefore a public school teacher should have a right to put a different viewpoint.

He is a history teacher and a good history teacher doesn't just teach facts but must put a perspective on what it taught.
I like this bit:

"All of his opinions would have been fine with us if he had invited opposing points of view and the class was actually debating," said parent Birgit O'Hearn, 46, of Mission Viejo, who pulled her daughter out of Corbett's class this year. "But the opinions he was putting forth are not opinions that are worthy of an instructor."

I love how pro-religious types claim they welcome other views but do not really in practice.

[Darth Wong]

In my experience, when a creationist says you are "unwilling to discuss opposing points of view", what he really means is that you are perfectly willing to discuss them, but you refuse to agree with them.

It's Jack Chick psychology: the moment someone is told the Word of God, he's supposed to fall to his knees and praise Jesus. If he does not do so, then he is obviously not listening.

[Anguirus]

At issue in the lawsuit is whether Corbett violated the separation of church and state as outlined in the First Amendment's establishment clause.

This is a question that a small child could answer in the negative. He did not advocate an establishment of religion. Case closed. Moving on.

Of course, it's not actually about the legal case. It's about a big opinionated godless meanie.

[SpacedTeddyBear]

"He's only giving one side - that's not thinking critically at all," said Farnan, 16, who does not plan to attend his AP European History class again until Corbett is removed. "This might be a college-level class, but it's in high school, so he doesn't have the same rights."

Hmmmm, a 16 year old giving an opinion on what isn't critical thinking, while at the same time, is refusing to attend an 'advanced' level class which teaches and promotes said critical thinking skills.


I guess you're only entitled to have the same rights so long as your opinion agrees with theirs. Though I've always thought that it was the students who don't have the same rights in the classroom.

[Darth Wong]

I'm willing to bet that this guy has actually been pretty even-handed. Notice how there's obviously a lot of people gunning for him, and the worst quote they could come up with was "Jesus glasses". They're trying to make it seem as if he has some kind of special beef against Christianity based on that.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Here's the Bill O'Reilly segment on the subject. So what do you think guys? Was the "Jesus glasses" comment an unconstitutional attack on religion by a public school teacher, or is this much ado about nothing?

Absolutely not. Freedom of Speech protects the expression of ideas regardless of its message. Sucks sometimes though because bullshit ideas like the KKK are allowed just as long as there's no violence.

[Darth Wong]

Here's the Bill O'Reilly segment on the subject. So what do you think guys? Was the "Jesus glasses" comment an unconstitutional attack on religion by a public school teacher, or is this much ado about nothing?

Absolutely not. Freedom of Speech protects the expression of ideas regardless of its message. Sucks sometimes though because bullshit ideas like the KKK are allowed just as long as there's no violence.

I don't see how that applies to the classroom. The Constitution may protect expression, but the government can still regulate the time and place. The problem is that they can't really point to anything that this guy has done that violates any rules, unless "not humouring religious fallacies" is against the rules now.

The fact is that the Bible is shitty history, shitty science, and shitty philosophy. Not allowing teachers to teach this fact is not just censorship of opinions, it's outright propaganda. Given the number of people who believe it is good history, science, and philosophy, I would go so far as to argue that it is every teacher's duty to make the falsehood of this claim clear. Even if someone wants to worship the Bible despite all the logical reasons not to, that is a personal choice and it does not change the rules of what constitutes valid history or science or logic.

[Kamakazie Sith]

I don't see how that applies to the classroom. The Constitution may protect expression, but the government can still regulate the time and place.

That's true. The bill of rights do still apply in the classroom, but there can be more restrictions because it's considered private property. In other words the teacher is still not in the wrong here.

[Molyneux]

The problem is, I think, that a lot of people are going to hold that antireligious speech is equivalent to religious speech, and therefore equally inadmissible in the classroom.

I'm not sure either way...my knee-jerk reaction is to support the teacher, but I can't be sure whether he's actually in the right, or whether I just want to support him because I agree with his stance.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Depending on context, he may well be constitutionally in the wrong. Also depending on the context he may well have nothing to worry about, with what we have at hand, it is impossible to say

[Tasoth]

My question is this: Does Farnan have proof that he could record the teacher's voice? It's been a while since my JH Civics class, but I thought that recording someone talking without their permission is illegal. If so, the kid can't bring his recordings to hearing if he can't prove the teacher gave him permission.

Also, good for the teacher. Seriously, if he was trying to strike up debate in class, the whole 'not allowing other viewpoints' is bullshit. If he cut the debate short, it's probably because those with an opposing viewpoint hunkered down into circular thinking or some other fallacy and wouldn't shut up after they've proven themselves wrong.

[CmdrWilkens]

The context is always does the content intend to promote a religious (or demote a religious) viewpoint OR does it have the effect ofpromoting or demoting a religious viewpoint. The problem here is that the speech is NOT requisite and so at WORST it should be a case of the teacher being cautioned but more likely any reasonable finding would show that the teacher speaks about things such as fundamentalism which are not about religion and all about control. If teachers cannot impart the truthful history of what has been done in the name of religion then it is just whitewashing history. In this case even the jesus glasses comment seems like nothing more than an offhand remark. This is a really desperate attempt to generate some sort of bullshit controversey.

[Shroom Man 777]

I should sell Jesus Glasses. Like those Catholic pictures of Jesus, framed in glasses. If you wear them, all you see is Jesus.

Damn! By all forms of logic, Christians (at least Cat-lick idolaters) ought to wear Jesus Glasses while praying!

(that is a stupid concept!)

[Alyrium Denryle]

Oh come on, you dont need to make glasses. All you need to do is sell pieces of toast outside of a church

[K. A. Pital]

So you say bad shit about God and you're being sued? Gosh... our poor physics and astonomy teacher routinely ridiculed religion... I guess she'd be fucked ten times over in America despite having a PhD.

How is that it's not allowed to mock god beliefs? They're irrational and have nothing to do with historical science.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Depends on the classroom, the quality of student, and the location in the U.S. Deep South, history class, non-magnet/advanced program? Forget it. Pacific Northwest, physics class, advanced program? Easily.

[Darth Wong]

does it have the effect of promoting or demoting a religious viewpoint ...

That is an unreasonable test. Schools exist to teach that which is known to be true regardless of faith, and sometimes that will inevitably lead to the side-effect of denigrating certain specific religious beliefs.

For example, if a student brings up the Bible in history class as the only inerrant text source about the ancient past, any history teacher worth his salt is obligated to respond that it is no more reliable than Homer's Iliad. And yet this could be considered denigration of that student's religious beliefs. Should the teacher therefore be censored, even though there is absolutely no question that his statement is correct?

[CmdrWilkens]

does it have the effect of promoting or demoting a religious viewpoint ...

That is an unreasonable test. Schools exist to teach that which is known to be true regardless of faith, and sometimes that will inevitably lead to the side-effect of denigrating certain specific religious beliefs.

For example, if a student brings up the Bible in history class as the only inerrant text source about the ancient past, any history teacher worth his salt is obligated to respond that it is no more reliable than Homer's Iliad. And yet this could be considered denigration of that student's religious beliefs. Should the teacher therefore be censored, even though there is absolutely no question that his statement is correct?

That's the wording of the test but the point of the test is whether an opinion is being rendered on something outside of a factual basis. Thus saying that the Christian Crusaders went slaughtering the whole populaiton of Jerusalem when it was conquered (and that it was an immoral thing to do) wouldn't be promoting or demoting a religion. Saying that christianity is an incorrect belief system because of the crusades would be a violation though.

The point is not whether the factual/opinion content of a lesson supports any paticular viewpoint so much as whether the presentaiion has the intention or effect of saying that Religion X is correct or incorrect.

[Darth Wong]

The point is not whether the factual/opinion content of a lesson supports any paticular viewpoint so much as whether the presentaiion has the intention or effect of saying that Religion X is correct or incorrect.

But a valid presentation of history would certainly lead to the conclusion that religious literalism is incorrect, and that religious belief is shared by a large segment of the population. So in effect, by teaching a proper approach to history and science, they are saying that those peoples' religious beliefs are incorrect. You mentioned earlier that there was an "outside of a factual basis" clause; I take it this means that an "anti-religious" statement is perfectly acceptable if you can provide academic support for it?

[Alyrium Denryle]

does it have the effect of promoting or demoting a religious viewpoint ...

That is an unreasonable test. Schools exist to teach that which is known to be true regardless of faith, and sometimes that will inevitably lead to the side-effect of denigrating certain specific religious beliefs.

For example, if a student brings up the Bible in history class as the only inerrant text source about the ancient past, any history teacher worth his salt is obligated to respond that it is no more reliable than Homer's Iliad. And yet this could be considered denigration of that student's religious beliefs. Should the teacher therefore be censored, even though there is absolutely no question that his statement is correct?

The Lemon test which will probably be applied has three tenants.

1) Does the primary effect of the action endorse or hinder religion?

2) Does the action have a primary secular purpose?

3) Does the action avoid unnecessary entanglements between government and religion

What this teacher did, from what I can tell actually passes the test. The primary effect of his lessons is to teach critical thinking in a historical context. Religion is the natural choice for these lessons. Provides he is not saying that "you should be atheists" or "you should be faith X" implicitly or explicitly, he is legally in the clear. Saying that people do not think critically about their faith and this gives Y results which may be undesirable, is hardly illegal for a teacher to do.

[Kanastrous]

Damn! By all forms of logic, Christians (at least Cat-lick idolaters) ought to wear Jesus Glasses while praying!

Just so long as they don't wear them while driving. I have to use the roads, too.

This is a really desperate attempt to generate some sort of bullshit controversey.

Yeah. This smells like somebody hearkening unto their tv or Sunday preacher man, telling them to go out and take on their local school etc if anything can be spun the least way un-Christian etc etc...

[Surlethe]

Provides he is not saying that "you should be atheists" or "you should be faith X" implicitly or explicitly, he is legally in the clear.

The problem is that for far too many people, "religious literalism is false" translates directly to "you should not be a religious literalist", so teaching or saying that religious literalism is false is tantamount to attacking the religion. This is arguably the entire reason creationists want to peddle their idiocy in the classroom.