Teacher fired for saying Bible shouldn't be interpreted literally

[bascule]

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007709220333

 

Specifically, he told his classroom that the Adam and Eve story, which directly contracts the evolutionary concept of all life on earth originating from a common ancestor, should not be interpreted literally.

 

Now granted, this was in a western civilization class and not in a biology classroom, but the result was several students filing a class action lawsuit, resulting in the university's decision to fire the teacher.

 

Should science end in the science classroom? Should teachers be afraid of teaching science when it conflicts with religion? I certainly don't think so. I would certainly argue that the university was in the wrong firing this teacher.

[Blade]

it's the united states. i can't honistly say that i am surprised with this act of dictatorship.

[iNow]

Sad too that students decided to threaten a class action suit due to his comments in an academic setting.

 

 

 

From your link:

Bitterman, who taught part time at Southwestern and Omaha's Metropolitan Community College, said he uses the Old Testament in his western civilization course and always teaches it from an academic standpoint.

 

Bitterman's Tuesday course was telecast to students in Osceola over the Iowa Communications Network. A few students in the Osceola classroom, he said, thought the lesson was "denigrating their religion."

 

"I put the Hebrew religion on the same plane as any other religion. Their god wasn't given any more credibility than any other god," Bitterman said. "I told them it was an extremely meaningful story, but you had to see it in a poetic, metaphoric or symbolic sense, that if you took it literally, that you were going to miss a whole lot of meaning there."

 

Bitterman said he called the story of Adam and Eve a "fairy tale" in a conversation with a student after the class and was told the students had threatened to see an attorney.

[swansont]

Community college, not university. Probably has a different approach to the concept of tenure. Still pretty apalling.

[Dak]

several students filing a class action lawsuit

 

he he.

 

what's a 'western civilisation' class? if it includes the history of western civilisation, then i suppose it comes down to wether you want to teach history according to one religion, or history according to whatever our best way of guaging it is: which would be science if you go far enough back, or normal history elsewize.

 

otoh, was he threatened with legal action for saying it's untrue, or for the way in which he said it's untrue?

[Phi for All]

it's the united states. i can't honistly say that i am surprised with this act of dictatorship.

Dictatorship?! What *are* you talking about? Are you attempting to build a reputation without all that tedious credibility?

 

This is business and politics. A university (even a US university) would never have allowed this to happen, and would have realized a golden opportunity to market and improve their academic credibility. But this community college is in a Bible Belt community. If they piss off the Red Oak citizenry they would have to shut down the campus and they're not going to do that over a guy who's five years from retirement and teaches one class.

 

That said, it's deplorable that a few extremist students have that much more clout than a member of the faculty, even a part-timer. Those smug creationists got a teacher fired two days after their threat. Imagine how they are crowing about how God got that awful man fired! It makes me sick to hear people ranting about fundamentalist Islamics while they are foisting their fundamentalist Christian perspective on us wherever they can. So sad that religion must be used in this counterproductive, hypocritical manner.

[bascule]

what's a 'western civilisation' class? if it includes the history of western civilisation...

 

History of western civilization describes it pretty aptly

 

then i suppose it comes down to wether you want to teach history according to one religion, or history according to whatever our best way of guaging it is: which would be science if you go far enough back, or normal history elsewize

 

Science is an enormous part of western civilization, and its discoveries radically altered the way people went about their daily lives.

 

If you're going to teach it from a religious instead of scientific perspective, you should leave out heliocentrism as well, and Galileo's confrontation with the church. Of course these are important parts of history that teach us valuable lessons like the Earth goes round the Sun despite what the Bible says.

 

otoh, was he threatened with legal action for saying it's untrue, or for the way in which he said it's untrue?

 

Sounds like a little of both.

[Pangloss]

Teachers have a professional responsibility to be respectful of their students beliefs. But firing over that is just lame.

[Dak]

History of western civilization describes it pretty aptly

 

then yeah, it comes down to wether you want to teach scientifically correct, historically correct, and/or biblically correct history.

 

one thing: christianity was, and still is, very important in western civilisation. it may be worth teaching genesis along with the fact that it was the accepted explination, and many people still believe in it.

 

by all means point out that it's declining in popularity and has no scientific basis. to do otherwize would be to turn it into a religious education lesson.

 

 

Sounds like a little of both.

 

well, pretty much as pangloss said, there's no excuse for being mean to your students. 'it's scientifically unsuported' doensn't have to be stated as 'its BS and you're dumb for believing it' (not saying that's what he did)

[swansont]

Teachers have a professional responsibility to be respectful of their students beliefs. But firing over that is just lame.

 

Respectful is one thing, but requiring that a teacher kowtow to the students' willful ignorance is another. He called the story of Adam & Eve a myth, and that's valid. The students did the legal equivalent of sticking their fingers in their ears and having a tantrum.

[John Cuthber]

"Teachers have a professional responsibility to be respectful of their students beliefs. But firing over that is just lame."

Imagine this scenario.

OK Johnny, I think that 2+2 is 4 but if you want to believe that it's 5 that's just fine.

 

I may have missed something but I thought the whole point of having a teacher was that the teacher knows stuff which is factually correct and teaches it to the kids.

[iNow]

"OK Johnny, I think that 2+2 is 4 but if you want to believe that it's 5 that's just fine.

 

I may have missed something but I thought the whole point of having a teacher was that the teacher knows stuff which is factually correct and teaches it to the kids.

 

Indeed. I'm now suddenly reminded of the push to teach creationism as alternative theory alongside evolution. Let's just set our kids up for failure why don't we...

[ParanoiA]

Yet another example of how flexibility and diversity in the education market is needed. Private school could be responsive to this kind of issue. Scientifically supported schooling for us, devout religious education for them. And all the flavors in between. No need to fire anyone, just let me have my money that's being spent on worthless one-size-fits-all state education, so I can get my kids in the environment I choose.

 

It's a freedom thing...

[john5746]

http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070925/NEWS02/709250379/1001/SPORTS13

 

A little more on the story. I don't know, but it seems like this guy could find a way to teach without the drama. If he was fired only from this, I would think he could sue.

 

Those kids need to take a real course.

[swansont]

http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070925/NEWS02/709250379/1001/SPORTS13

 

A little more on the story. I don't know, but it seems like this guy could find a way to teach without the drama. If he was fired only from this, I would think he could sue.

 

Those kids need to take a real course.

 

The kids are in community college, so yeah.

 

If he challenged their preconceived notions, well, he's supposed to do that! Make the students THINK. But "made us feel like crap?" OMG, the don't-harm-the-self-esteem experiment from that generation has come home to roost.

[Sisyphus]

Yet another example of how flexibility and diversity in the education market is needed. Private school could be responsive to this kind of issue. Scientifically supported schooling for us, devout religious education for them. And all the flavors in between. No need to fire anyone, just let me have my money that's being spent on worthless one-size-fits-all state education, so I can get my kids in the environment I choose.

 

It's a freedom thing...

 

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. They could have gone to Bob Jones University or something. Instead, they chose to go to this community college.

[swansont]

Yet another example of how flexibility and diversity in the education market is needed. Private school could be responsive to this kind of issue. Scientifically supported schooling for us, devout religious education for them. And all the flavors in between. No need to fire anyone, just let me have my money that's being spent on worthless one-size-fits-all state education, so I can get my kids in the environment I choose.

 

It's a freedom thing...

 

 

Except that people aren't entitled to their own set of facts. If someone wants a dogma-filled-but-fact-free education, by all means go for it, but don't ask me to subsidize it, and don't lend it legitimacy by accrediting the school.

[iNow]

From this index of employment policies at Southwestern Community College...

 

http://www.southwest.cc.nc.us/policies/index.htm

 

 

... I found the following:

 

http://www.southwest.cc.nc.us/policies/5.8.htm

§5.8.4 - A faculty member's professional and moral right to teach rests upon mastery of the subject and competent scholarship. Faculty have an obligation to keep abreast of the main currents in their field and to incorporate these into their teaching.

 

<...>

 

§5.8.5 - The principles of academic freedom are accepted by this college. These principles entitle faculty the privilege of organizing their subject matter in such ways and presenting it by such methods as, in their considered judgment, will have optimum value for their students, subject to such guidelines as are reflected in departmental, college and other faculty policies. Faculty are also subject to the obligation to require an amount and quality of work from their students which, under the college standards, justify the course.

 

 

Curious the schools reaction considering their Policies and Procedures for Employees. Here's the Disciplinary Action, Suspension and Dismissal section:

 

 

http://www.southwest.cc.nc.us/policies/4.20.htm

§4.20.1 -

 

An employee, regardless of occupation, position, profession, or work performed, may be warned, reprimanded, suspended, or dismissed by the college President or his/her designee. Every written admonishment, warning, or reprimand to any employee under the provisions of this policy will be submitted to the Vice President of Administrative Services for review prior to delivery to the employee. Copies of all admonishments and reprimands will be submitted to the Vice President of Administrative Services for inclusion in the employee's personnel file immediately following delivery. Any employee who receives an admonishment, warning, or reprimand has the right to respond, in writing, and for the response to be made a part of his/her personnel file. Admonish is to caution against specific faults; to warn, to reprove mildly. For the purposes of this policy, reprimand is defined as a severe or formal rebuke. The causes for suspension and/or dismissal fall into two categories: (a) causes relating to performance of duties, and (b) causes relating to personal conduct detrimental to the college and the state of North Carolina. Causes for suspension and/or dismissal shall include, but not necessarily be limited to:

 

a. Performance of Duties

1. Inefficiency or incompetency in the performance of duties.

2. Negligence in the performance of duties.

3. Physical or mental incapability for performing duties.

4. Careless, negligent, or improper use of college property or equipment.

5. Failure to maintain satisfactory and harmonious working relationship with the public and/or employees.

6. Habitual improper use of sick leave privileges.

7. Habitual pattern of failure to report for duty at the assigned time and place.

8. Failure to obtain or maintain a current license or certificate required by law as a condition for performing the job.

9. Refusal to accept a reasonable and proper assignment from an authorized supervisor (insubordination).

b. Personal Conduct

1. Guilty of gross, infamous or notoriously disgraceful conduct or other conduct prejudicial to the college.

2. Conviction of a felony.

3. Convicted of immoral or dishonest conduct or a criminal act.

4. Misuse of college funds.

5. Falsified job information to secure position with the college.

6. Participation in any action that would in any way seriously disrupt or disturb the normal operation of the institution.

7. Trespassing on the home of any trustee or employee for or the purpose of harassing or forcing dialogue or discussion from the occupants.

8. Willful damage or destruction of property.

9. Willful acts that world endanger the lives and property of others.

10. Possession of unauthorized firearms or lethal weapons on the job.

11. Brutality in the performance of duties.

12. Refusal to accept a reasonable and proper assignment from an authorized supervisor (insubordination).

13. Reporting to work under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or partaking of such substances on the job.

14. Acceptance of gifts in exchange for "favors" or "influences."

15. Betrayal of confidential information from official records.

16. Engaging in incompatible employment or serving a conflicting interest.

17. Taking part in political management or political campaigns prohibited by law.

18. Sexual harassment.

19. Making false, misleading or ambiguous statements, deliberately or willfully, whether verbal or written, in connection with any official college business or records.

 

 

 

And...another section on Disciplinary Action, Suspension and Dismissal:

 

http://www.southwest.cc.nc.us/policies/4.21.1.htm

§4.21.1 -

 

Except for emergency situations, employees who are dismissed for unsatisfactory performance of duties and personal conduct, should receive at least two warnings: First, an oral warning with a follow-up letter from the supervisor to the employee documenting the deficiencies in performance which were discussed and the improvement required. Second, a formal written warning which will serve notice upon the employee that a continuation of the deficiencies in performance may result in disciplinary action and loss of pay or dismissal.

 

<...>

 

c. Dismissal 1. Before an employee is dismissed because of unsatisfactory performance of duties, the following should occur:

 

a. A written summary of the case will be prepared by the supervisor and reviewed with the President.

b. The Chairman of the Board of Trustees will be notified of each proposed dismissal.

c. If an employee is dismissed, the employee will receive written notice, a copy of the notice will be placed in the employee’s file.

 

Exception: An employee may be dismissed without warning for cause(s) relating to personal conduct detrimental to college or state service in order to avoid undue disruption of work or to protect the safety of persons or property or for other serious reasons.

 

 

 

If you look at this final link I shared above, you will see that there were several other courses of action available to them that seem more appropriate per their own policies and procedures... Like perhaps a verbal warning. It would be in the school's best interest if they had other warnings on record to support the decision they made.

[pioneer]

This is a can of worms that political correctness opened up. The premise is we are all babies, unable to cope with anything that hurts our feelings. If your feelings are hurt, seek a lawyer, and we will punish the bully.

 

Although I think the students were out of line, the religious right are learning to play by the same game, the liberals have been using for decades. It is easier to see how silly it is when someone else is doing it, who is normally the type of person that sits and takes it. If the teacher put an x-mass tree on their desk, all heck would break loose.

 

Technically, the separation of church and state cuts two ways. It not only prevents the state from forcing religion, but it also protect religion from the state. The teacher represented the state and was an example of the state taking away rights of a religion, by negating it, with public funding. That is why those who preach anti-religion, on the public tab, are just as vulnerable, as a religious person pushing their view, on the public tab. The religous right never used this angle to fight back, until now. The liberals have successfully turned mature adults into emotional babies. This new generation of conservo-babies, have just cut their first tooth.

[Sisyphus]

Technically, the separation of church and state cuts two ways. It not only prevents the state from forcing religion, but it also protect religion from the state. The teacher represented the state and was an example of the state taking away rights of a religion, by negating it, with public funding. That is why those who preach anti-religion, on the public tab, are just as vulnerable, as a religious person pushing their view, on the public tab. The religous right never used this angle to fight back, until now. The liberals have successfully turned mature adults into emotional babies. This new generation of conservo-babies, have just cut their first tooth.

 

I disagree completely. The constitution protects the rights of private individuals to practice whatever religion they want. That the government cannot endorse any one religion is not the same as saying it has to endorse every religion at all times. By your premise, no public servant would be able to say almost anything at all, since anything contradicts somebody's religion.

 

Also, the religious right has been complaining about oppression since the founding of this country, and fighting it with legal means almost as long. Usually it's under the same flawed premise that you have used, like in arguing that not allowing the Ten Commandments on a courthouse lawn amounts to persecution of Christians.

[Pangloss]

Swansont, you have a point, and as I said before I wouldn't have fired him. But I don't agree that he did the right thing. Telling a student to "pop a Prozac" is ridiculous. Sure he might have done that in response to a student upset with him, but he shouldn't have let the situation get to that point in the first place. She was obviously screeching at him because he took a hard line on a matter of faith, which is not his job to do.

 

He needs to focus on control of the classroom environment and presenting material and not worry about whether he has a perfect record converting Christians into scientists.

[Dak]

"Teachers have a professional responsibility to be respectful of their students beliefs. But firing over that is just lame."

Imagine this scenario.

OK Johnny, I think that 2+2 is 4 but if you want to believe that it's 5 that's just fine.

 

I may have missed something but I thought the whole point of having a teacher was that the teacher knows stuff which is factually correct and teaches it to the kids.

 

yeah, but even so something along the lines of '2+2=4, not 5 you ****ing retard; you and you're ilk are prats for thinking otherwize' isn't really acceptable. without knowing how he worded his critisisim...

 

pangloss, where did the 'pop a prozac' comment come from? I googled, but couldn't find any more info than in the original link

[Pangloss]

It was in the article linked by john5746 in post #14, a kind of follow-up story from the Des Moines Register. Here's another link to save people from having to drop back a page.

 

http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070925/NEWS02/709250379/1001/SPORTS13

[Dak]

ah, cheers i missed that.

 

hmm... seem's like it could be half over-reacting to critisisms of one's religion, and half thinking that being historically/scientifically correct gives one the right to be rude.

 

reminds me of the P&R forum

[bascule]

Technically, the separation of church and state cuts two ways. It not only prevents the state from forcing religion, but it also protect religion from the state.

 

That's how Thomas Jefferson interpreted the idea. However, the phrase came from his personal writing, which didn't pertain to the First Amendment which James Madison authored anyway.

 

The phrase "separation of church and state" was purloined by Thomas Jefferson's writing by SCOTUS in their verdict on Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing. This is the first amendment case which brought "separation of church and state" into the political dialog. The relevant part of the verdict is as follows:

 

"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'"

 

That's what separation of church and state means.

 

The teacher represented the state and was an example of the state taking away rights of a religion, by negating it, with public funding.

 

Now which of the above examples from Everson v. Board of Education does that violate?

 

That is why those who preach anti-religion, on the public tab, are just as vulnerable, as a religious person pushing their view, on the public tab. The religous right never used this angle to fight back, until now. The liberals have successfully turned mature adults into emotional babies. This new generation of conservo-babies, have just cut their first tooth.

 

Science contradicts religion in many areas. How are these conflicts to be resolved? In the classroom, should science take precedence, or religion? I'm certainly on the side of science.