Did this teacher cross the line?

[Pangloss]

Dr. James Corbett, a history teacher at Capistrano Valley High School in California, has been sued by Chad Farnan, one of his students, over what he claims is an ongoing, daily assault on religion that takes place for 20-30 minutes at the beginning of every AP History class.

 

The student recorded Corbett, who has been known amongst students for many years for this behavior, saying the following things:

 

Conservatives don't want women to avoid pregnancies. That's interfering with God's work.

 

All over the world, doesn't matter where you go, the conservatives want control over women's reproductive capacity . . . from conservative Christians in this country to Muslim fundamentalists in Afghanistan.

 

When you put on your Jesus glasses, you can't see the truth.

 

One thing I have to say, having heard the tape on BOR last night, is that the quotes don't really do the tirade justice. The guy was frothing at the mouth, big time. I mean seriously *angry* about religion. Totally platforming his case. After hearing it I had no problem believing the student's claim that he does this for 20-30 minutes before every class -- it had a sense of routine to it that's hard to describe, but seemed very familiar to me as a teacher. But it was still a serious tirade -- a very angry rant.

 

LA Times columnist Dana Parsons is sympathetic to both sides and produces some interesting insight (as well as the above quotes) here. Bill O'Reilly had the student and his lawyer on last night, and of course was much less sympathetic to the teacher's point of view, demanding that he be fired immediately.

 

One thing I thought was interesting about this case is that it's actually being brought under the ESTABLISHMENT clause. Yes, the clause in the Constitution that SEPARATES church and state. The charge is that the clause protects religious people from institutions of government (in this case the teacher) from attacking someone on religious grounds. It's an interesting twist, but wouldn't they have to prove harm? And isn't that kinda dubious? But perhaps not, I don't know -- these are kids, after all, and kids can be pretty impressionable.

 

I think the teacher is wrong to do this, but I don't think he should be fired. I think it's ridiculous if it's been going on for 19 years as charged, but even so I still don't think he should be fired. He SHOULD be made to stop the behavior, though, and if he refuses to comply, THEN he should be fired.

 

What do you all think?

[Mr Skeptic]

Is his job to teach, or to rant? That's what I thought. He should be fired for not doing his job. If they want to sue him too, that's up to them, and will be very interesting.

[iNow]

I think the teacher is wrong to do this, but I don't think he should be fired. I think it's ridiculous if it's been going on for 19 years as charged, but even so I still don't think he should be fired. He SHOULD be made to stop the behavior, though, and if he refuses to comply, THEN he should be fired.

Your reaction exactly parallels my own. Quit being a dumbass and return to teaching. This is your warning. If you can't do it, you're done here. Simple enough.

[mooeypoo]

Replace his rant with an anti-science subject rant.

 

I don't have a problem with the subject, I have a problem with the methodology. A teacher is a figure of authority, and he should behave as one. Regardless of the subject of his rant, and whether we personally find it true or not, the bottom line is that by doing this he is abusing his influence over his students.

 

I would be the first to scream for an action to be taken if this professor was "ranting" against science or inserting creationism into scientific matter (which was done before). I think that moving the goal-post when it happens to be a view I am more inclined to would make me a hypocrite, and thought I'm far from perfect, I do try to avoid that quality.

 

As for the gravity of the punishment, I am not sure. It depends in the gravity of his methodology, I guess. If the student is not exaggerating, if the quotes are true, etc. If he really did abuse his position (knowingly or 'unknowingly'.. though as a teacher, he should have known better) he should be reprimanded severely.

 

The point of education is to teach *how* to think,more than *what* to think. Opinions should not be "inserted" like that, though i do believe they can be used, but they should be used by the teacher *knowing* that he is influencial. And he should know that the "What" is much less the matter he hsould deal with than the "HOW". That's his responsibility as a teacher.

 

The goal of education is to show effective thought-methods and rational thinking. Rants on any side, specifically by a figure of authority (by being a teacher-leader or by being the grade-giver, whichever), should be considered an offense on rationality.

 

That's my take, at least.

 

~moo

 

Addition:

 

Also, I believe that regardless of *my personal agreement* with those quotes, they are utterly irrelevant to the subject matter, and therefore the teacher should not include them in a class - let alone in *every* class (if that is indeed true).

[PhDP]

If he's doing this for 20-30 minutes, it's downright incompetence

[Severian]

One thing I thought was interesting about this case is that it's actually being brought under the ESTABLISHMENT clause. Yes, the clause in the Constitution that SEPARATES church and state. The charge is that the clause protects religious people from institutions of government (in this case the teacher) from attacking someone on religious grounds. It's an interesting twist, but wouldn't they have to prove harm? And isn't that kinda dubious? But perhaps not, I don't know -- these are kids, after all, and kids can be pretty impressionable.

 

Wasn't that the original intention? The separation of church and state was intended to protect freedom of religion by preventing persecution from the state. After all, the puritans originally came because they were being religiously persecuted.

[swansont]

Establishment or free exercise? I would think it's the latter. But yes, if this is the first objection, you've got to give the teacher the opportunity to modify his behavior.

[mooeypoo]

Wasn't that the original intention? The separation of church and state was intended to protect freedom of religion by preventing persecution from the state. After all, the puritans originally came because they were being religiously persecuted.

 

Well, I am not sure a teacher is "The State".. but he should have known better, regardless.

 

Also, I think that this rant poses a doubt on his competence as an educator regardless of whats "in it"..

 

Okay, I will try to make my point by giving an example.

 

A Doctor begins his every check-up by telling his patients about medieval demonology and the effect of demons on the body.

 

Wouldn't you say that approach casts a doubt on his credibility as a physician? Even if he treats people, eventually, by orthodox medicine and "inserts" his whacky theory without *physically* hurting anyone, I am not sure who would think that Doctor to be a decent one, a professional one, or a credible one.

 

Even if the doctor uses orthodox medicine in his methods, I wouldn't really trust on his competence. And honestly - I would have serious doubts that he does uses orthodox medicine with such an approach.

 

Same as I have doubts that this professor teaches historian-methodologies well. Hence, I would doubt (though not comopetetly dismiss the option) that students leave with a firm grasp on the *approach* to historical data and how to analyze it, with such approach as he's showing.

 

That means he fails as an educator.

 

The responsibility of a teacher is to *educate* methodologies in his field. A Historian should teach how to analyze history and reach conclusions, not what he believes is the conclusions. That's not a good teacher.

 

This behavior casts serious doubt about this teacher's *credibility*, and the question now is - if we find education to be important (I personally find it one of the most important things) - how can we *not* consider his expulsion from the establishment?

 

~moo

[swansont]

Well, I am not sure a teacher is "The State".. but he should have known better, regardless.

 

If it's a public school he is an agent of the state.

[mooeypoo]

If it's a public school he is an agent of the state.

 

True.

 

Is it?

 

 

btw.. he is an agent of the state but he is not 'the state'.. that is - the rule against being oppressed by the state - the way i see it - refers to laws, not this. I do think that this has no place, specifically BECAUSE the teacher has authority *and* if this is a public school - because he's "an agent" of the state. But if we start with that, we can also get into freedom of speech.... the problem is not what the guy says or even how he says it - it's the medium he's using. The methodology he's teaching his students is a direct violation of the responsibility we - as the citizens - put on him. Effectively, he betrayed that trust by using this medium for his own rant.

 

~moo

[doG]

This teacher crossed the line and should be appropriately dealt with by the local school board.

 

OTOH, I tend to agree with Dan Dennett that religion should be the 4th 'R' in school with reading, 'riting and 'rithmetic. He advocates that we teach kids learn the facts about all religions in school. This would undermine the spin put on it by kids parents and even some churches. I tend to think that in many cases the detrimental aspects of religion arise from false teachings of what a religion means or represents.

[ecoli]

Establishment or free exercise? I

People should feel allowed to have free exercise to express their religion (or lack thereof) in pubic places ... But not when that violates somebody else's civil liberties or ability to exercise.

 

So, when this teacher starts preaching, he is no longer under the domain of free exercise. This is a form of indoctrination, and hinders the rights of the students to not be bullied, or put down, based on their own religious beliefs... that undermines the principles of free exercise.

 

fire the teacher based on incompetence (though I'm sure the teacher's union will make that impossible).

[Pangloss]

Ironically I think in many cases he probably drove students away from his point of view through his zealous behavior. Amongst parents of former students there are claims of indoctrination, including one mother who claims she "lost her daughter" to this man's obsession. That strikes me as a bit absurd, and I think children are generally smarter than that.

 

I wonder if maybe parents are concerned for the wrong reasons here. I would have the same objection if he spent the first 20 minutes of class ranting (to the same degree) about liberals and Michael Moore. I wonder if the parents would.

 

But of course had that been the case then the man's fellow teachers and principle would've had him out of there in a heartbeat.

[YT2095]

as a teacher he`s being PAID to teach and probably by the Hour, if nothing Else that 20 mins per lesson should be taken from his wage!

 

I know it`s not the entire answer here, but it would certainly be step ONE in my actions.

[john5746]

Yes, this teacher went way over the line. I agree with Pangloss that he should be warned, then fired if he continues. I find it hard to believe no one has complained in the past.

 

An AP course might be considered college material, but the tone of the teacher must remain as a high school teaching children.

 

On a side note, I found this interesting:

 

Teresa Farnan said her suspicions were aroused on the first day of school when her son — a sophomore honors student required to take Corbett’s class for college admission — asked her whether America was founded on Christian values, which he said his teacher had denied.

 

“He had learned in the eighth grade that our country was founded by persecuted Christians,” said the mother, who describes her family as nondenominational Christian, “so I sent him to school with a tape recorder.”

 

Being founded by persecuted Christians, does not equate to founded on Christian values. Not to mention all the happenings after the first settlements and the Declaration of Independence. Of course the teacher is correct on this point, but as we all know, truth takes a back seat to feelings, at least until people go to college.

[Pangloss]

I can't help but wonder if this guy would've had to face the music (if he does have to face it!) if not for the student recording his behavior. As a teacher this makes me nervous -- I don't like students recording my lectures but I do permit it when asked, and I've never really formed a complete opinion on the subject. What do you all think?

[Reaper]

I would have to agree that this teacher did go way over the line. However, I really don't know any more details other than what was stated in the recording.

 

Regardless, many of the statements made by the teacher was libelous, to say the least, as well as stereotyped.

[Severian]

Being founded by persecuted Christians, does not equate to founded on Christian values.

 

Of course it does, by definition. In order to found a country value judgments must be applied, and since they were applied by people who were Christians they were Christian values by definition. If the US had been founded by Hindus then it would have been founded on Hindu values.

[Glider]

He did cross the line. Schools and schooling are supposed to be apolitical and secular, promoting no particular political or religious agenda (unless it's a religious school). The personal beliefs of a teacher have no place in a classroom.

[swansont]

Of course it does, by definition. In order to found a country value judgments must be applied, and since they were applied by people who were Christians they were Christian values by definition. If the US had been founded by Hindus then it would have been founded on Hindu values.

 

Christian values or values shared by many Christians? It's not like they have a monopoly on the values.

[mooeypoo]

Of course it does, by definition. In order to found a country value judgments must be applied, and since they were applied by people who were Christians they were Christian values by definition. If the US had been founded by Hindus then it would have been founded on Hindu values.

 

The USA was founded by nonpracticing Christians and mostly Deists, not "Prosecuted Christians" per say, as can be *clearly* seen from both the Constitution *and* their personal (and public) writings.

 

So.. is this a Deist nation?

[doG]

...and since they were applied by people who were Christians they were Christian values by definition.

 

I disagree. As a humanist I believe in the value of treating others as I would have them treat me. If a Christian applies this it does not make it a "Christian" value by "definition". As a Libertarian I believe in liberty. If that concept is applied to government by people who are Christians it does not make it a "Christian" value by "definition".

 

This country was founded on moral values held by those of many different belief systems. That Christians which hold some of these beliefs were part of the founding fathers does not make this a nation founded on Christian values.

[mooeypoo]

Yes, one more thing:

 

What the heck is it with "Christian Values" anyways? Relgious folk are picky, they pick the "values" they like and call them in the name of their religion.. "Muslim Values" / "Jewish Values" / "Christian Values".

 

I would recommend that religious folk that think "Christian Values" are depicting justice and goodness to read the bible *AGAIN* before they suggest that as religious folk, their "values" are better than atheist/deist morality.

 

The fact *some things* were written right in the bible, qoran, or the new testament, doesn't mean that religion is the source for morality.

 

"Christian Values" - as originally written in the bible - are not something I would be proud of at all.

 

HUMAN VALUES is something I would find much better to define my life by.

 

 

That goes for *all* religions, by the way, not only Christian religion. Just the entire concept of "good Christian values" always has pissed me off. The bible says to beat the crap out of your child if he disobeys you.. is that "good Christian morals" this country is based on? I sure hope not.

 

 

~moo

[Severian]

The USA was founded by nonpracticing Christians and mostly Deists, not "Prosecuted Christians" per say, as can be *clearly* seen from both the Constitution *and* their personal (and public) writings.

 

So what? I was not arguing about the religious beliefs of the 'founding fathers' (what a crap and cliched description). I was arguing against the illogicality of the expression "Being founded by persecuted Christians, does not equate to founded on Christian values". And in that regard, the point I made (that the values of 'persecuted Christian' are by definition ' Christian values') is entirely valid, and no argument has so far been made against it.

 

I disagree. As a humanist I believe in the value of treating others as I would have them treat me. If a Christian applies this it does not make it a "Christian" value by "definition". As a Libertarian I believe in liberty. If that concept is applied to government by people who are Christians it does not make it a "Christian" value by "definition".

 

Any value which Christians hold is a Christian value. Any value which libertarians hold is a libertarian value. They may even have some in common, and being a libertarian value does not in principle stop a value from being Christian too.

[mooeypoo]

Any value which Christians hold is a Christian value. Any value which libertarians hold is a libertarian value. They may even have some in common, and being a libertarian value does not in principle stop a value from being Christian too.

 

 

Okay I disagree.

 

Any value a Christian hold is a value held by a Christian. Any value a Libertarian holds is a value held by Libertarian. There are universal values and personal values, as we can see around us. Values that are held by individuals do not necessarily fit other individuals on the same "group" - political or religious.

 

For that matter, your point might have a problem if a group of "mixed" religious/cultural people share the same values.

 

 

~moo