Student Wins Suit After Teacher Says Creationism 'Superstitious Nonsense'

Source: Fox News

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

U.S. District Judge James Selna issued the ruling Friday after a 16-month legal battle between student Chad Farnan and his former teacher, James Corbett.

Farnan sued in U.S. District Court in Santa Ana in 2007, alleging that Corbett made more than 20 statements that were disparaging to Christians and their beliefs.

The judge found in the student's favor on just one statement.

In that instance, Corbett referred to creationism as "religious, superstitious nonsense" during a classroom lecture.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,518864,00.html

I agree with the quote "creationism as "religious, superstitious nonsense" " but stating opinion about religion in a class room is just ASKING for trouble. if you have to talk about religion in class (as you might do in history) stick to the facts.

Chad Farnan better go into a field other than science.

discriminated against.

You don't get points for making cracks like "superstitious nonsense" in a public high school classroom when discussing creationism. If you don't know that it's part of a religious belief system, you have no business commenting on it - or teaching, for that matter.

Damn it, but I hate it when I'm forced to side with those superstitious, nonsensical idiots, the creationists, but see what they make me do?

dancing under a giant rainbow mushroom? There is no obligation of schools to coddle beliefs not grounded in science.

Jeez, you just leapt right across the Grand Canyon of rational thought, and I am too scared to go wherever it is your thinking dwells................

"What you're talking about is a religious belief, of which there are many, and I am not qualified to teach a class on any religious belief. I am qualified to teach science, and since this is a science classroom, you are required to learn the scientific explanation and the evidence for it. If you have questions about how anything I teach here applies to your religion, please speak with your parents or religious adviser."

As a teacher, I refuse to get into a discussion about religion with any of my students. For one thing, there are too many different religions. For another, its dangerous ground.

You're smart, probably an excellent teacher, and your stance is very, very wise. Thank you.

That's exactly what the teacher should have said. He opened the door to his own trampling. How foolish ..................

:hi:

IS qualified to speak about religion and belief within the course.

Look at the sample syllabus for this course:

http://apeuro.nathanbarber.com/Syllabus/syllabus.html

Here's just to the first couple of dozen days

:ADVANCED PLACEMENT EUROPEAN HISTORY SYLLABUS

COURSE OVERVIEW

The objective of the course is to increase students’ understanding and appreciation of European history while helping each student succeed on the AP® European History Exam.

This course will examine the period of European history from 1350-2007 AD. The course will focus on the social, political,religious, intellectual, technological and economic developments throughout this period of history. Students will be required to have a mastery of basic chronology and major events and trends from the Renaissance through modern day. Students will use the textbook, as well as a plethora of primary sources, to become more familiar with these themes. The course will be broken down into units and those units are outlined in the Academic Schedule below.

The AP curriculum demands higher-order thinking skills within a rigorous academic context. Thus, students are frequently required to analyze, synthesize, and evaluate primary and secondary historical sources, in addition to comprehending, memorizing, and applying facts. These skills will be assessed through a number of tests, quizzes and assignments. Tests will be composed of multiple choice questions and thematic essays designed to mirror the AP European History Exam. One of the frequently recurring assignments is the Primary Source Analysis Worksheet (PSAW). The PSAW directs students in the analysis of primary source documents. The PSAW can be found at the end of the syllabus. Students will also learn the Document Based Question (DBQ) process and will practice the DBQ numerous times throughout the course.

AP EUROPEAN HISTORY REQUIRED TEXTS:

· McKay, John P., Bennett D. Hill, and John Buckler. A History of Western Society: Since 1300. 7th ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2002.

· Perry, Marvin, Joseph R. Peden, and Theodore H. Von Laue, eds. Sources of the Western Tradition volume 2. 4th ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1999.

· Barber, Nathan. AP Success European History. Lawrenceville: Thomson/Peterson’s, 2003.

· The Prince, Niccolo Macchiavelli (available from a number of publishers)

· Utopia, Thomas More (available from a number of publishers)

· Candide, Voltaire (available online and from a number of publishers)

· Communist Manifesto, Marx, Engels (available online and from a number of publishers)

AP EUROPEAN HISTORY RECOMMENDED TEXTS:

Barber, Nathan. Complete Idiot’s Guide to European History. Penguin/Alpha, NY, 2006.
AP EUROPEAN HISTORY ACADEMIC SCHEDULE

Day 1 - Summer assignment due. Orientation. Homework - Read Review of Middle Ages (handout).

Day 2 - Review of Middle Ages. Homework - Review summer assignment and prepare for class discussion on Day 3.

Day 3 - The Prince and Utopia. In class - Read article "Bill meet Niccolo." Homework - McKay 379-387.

UNIT 1: LATE MIDDLE AGES

Day 4 - Black Death. In class - Read "Fourteenth Century Pestilence" (handout) and complete PSAW. Homework - McKay 387-393.

Day 5 - Hundred Years War. Homework - McKay 393-396.

Day 6 - Decline of the Church's Prestige. St. Catherine of Siena "A Treatise of Discretion," "A Treatise of Divine Providence," "A Treatise of Prayer." Homework - McKay 396-409.
Day 7 - Life of the People and Vernacular Literature. Homework - Final Preparations for Test #1.

Day 8 - Test #1. Homework - McKay 415-421.

UNIT 2: THE RENAISSANCE

Day 9 - Evolution of Italian Renaissance. In class - "The Greatness of Lorenzo de Medici" and "Florence, 1472" (handout). Homework - McKay 421-423.

Day 10 - Individualism, Humanism and Secular Spirit. In class - Perry 6-12 (Petrarch, The Father of Humanism; Bruni, Study of Greek Literature and a Humanist Educational Program; and Mirandola, Oration on the Dignity of Man) and complete PSAW. Homework - McKay 424- 429.
Day 11 - Renaissance Art and Artists. Homework - "On Painting" (handout) and "Art and Science" (handout).

Day 12 - Renaissance Art and Artists. Homework - McKay 428-440.

Day 13 - Social Change. In class - Misc. readings on women in the Renaissance." Homework - McKay 440-443.

Day 14 - Renaissance in the North. Homework - McKay 443-449.

Day 15 - Politics and the State in the Renaissance. Homework - Final Preparations for Test #2.

Day 16 - Test #2. Homework - McKay 453-459.

3: THE REFORMATION AND WARS OF RELIGION

Day 17 - The Condition of the Church, Martin Luther and the Birth of Protestantism. In class - Perry 16-20. Homework - McKay 459-466.

Day 18 - 95 Theses, Protestant Thought, Social Impact of Luther's Beliefs. In class - "95 Theses" (handout) and "On the Jews and their Lies" (handout) and complete PSAW for each. Homework - McKay 466-470.

Day 19 - Germany and the Protestant Reformation. Homework - McKay 470-477.

Day 20 - The English Reformation. Homework - McKay 486-487. "The Calvinist Reformation" and "TULIP" (handouts).

Day 21 - Guest Speaker - John Calvin and the Anabaptists. Homework - McKay 477-483.

Day 22 - The Catholic Reformation and the Counter-Reformation. In class - "Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent" (handout). Homework - Final preparations for Test #3.

Yeah "Creationism is superstitious nonsense" is a seriously rigorous statement using higher order thinking skills.

I don't count myself among the "faithful" of any belief/non-belief system. But as a teacher, I wince at this teacher walking right into this student's trap.

Myth is ancient, primitive and often surprisingly accurate attempt to explain and order the universe. It's goals not far from those of science. Creationism also has a long history of philosophical discourse. To be dismissive over such a long history is dangerously arrogant.

"Creationism is superstitious nonsense"

The article doesn't say that he did. It says he described what the article refers to as creationism as "religious, superstitious nonsense." What exactly is the context of the quote? The way it's framed in the news article and in your formulation of it, the teacher cavalierly trampled on the student's beliefs like a caricature in a Jack Chick cartoon. What was the actual context, though? Was he speaking directly to the student? Did he know the student's beliefs? Was he speaking from teh mindset of a European intellectual in the age he was trying to teach about? T

here simply isn't enough information here for anybody to judge him intelligently. There's only enough info here to give plenty of fodder for opinionaters to opinionate.

Creationism was invented in the 50s, as a counter to Darwin. It was created by cherry-picking a few arguments made by theologians of previous times and tying them to modern fundamentalist thought and literalist interpretations of the bible.

What it is NOT, is science. It is theology. And pretty sloppy theology, at that.

You can do that without being insulting like this guy was. It is never acceptable for someone in authority to try and manipulate his classroom's opinions like this guy did.

If the student was being a jerk, he should have calmly explained the science and used logical argument to have the student see that his view is a faith-based view and that he has a Constitutional right to hold such beliefs. If the student persists, he can choose to talk to the teacher outside of class. If the student still persists, he should take it up with his administrator.

In this case, the teacher did more harm to his argument.

If we want to avoid being dragged into the mud, keep the value of science as SCIENCE itself. The rational testable, repeatable results of repeated hypothesis, test, conclusion.

There is no evidence to support the belief that an invisible dude in the sky or sprites and gnomes created anything.

We have ample evidence that evolution is real and is still happening today.

Some science teachers say something to the effect of; "You don't have to believe anything I say, but you do have to understand it."

If we claim that religious conflict is not relevant to European history, then we just left out most of it.

And yes, I am certified to teach European history, although I haven't done so in a decade. I teach economics, and I always assure my students that any extreme position can be sold for money to a group of true believers for very high prices, because they get so little affirmation anywhere else.

Don't have friends? Buy some. If only Chad had taken my advice, he might actually have a shot at a school a little higher up the scale than Liberty U.

I really did read very carefully what you wrote, and I still don't understand it.

What is that about friends? And where did Liberty come into it?

Well, it's nice you posted. I'm sure you had a good time.

religious conflict are an integral part of European history, which is what this teacher teaches. So all religious concepts are valid and on the table in this course.

Second, I tried (and obviously failed) to point out that strong comments by the instructor are intended to elicit thought and response from the students in the class, involving them. To that end, I pointed out some of my own classroom technique, which involves the commercialization of thought. This leads to an example of the commercialization of everything else, including friendship; ergo, my advice to students to buy friends if they have none.

Third, I then tried to use those two points to suggest that if Chad would make friends in class rather than illegally wiretapping the teacher, he might enjoy some academic success and actually get admission to USC or UCLA, rather than settling for the commercially friendly (to him) Liberty U diploma mill.

Sadly, I failed, and for that, plead mea culpa.

but in my time in the classroom, I would never use a student's religious beliefs in a mocking, disrespectful way to make my own academic point, whatever point I was striving to make. There are better ways of doing it, and, as a responsible teacher, it's my job to find it.

Would it have been acceptable if the guy had mocked Judaism, saying something like "not eating pork or shellfish is superstitious nonsense"?

The man handled it very badly. The kid clearly had his own agenda, and, in this case, outsmarted the teacher. Everyone comes out looking bad, but I rather think adults should be held to a higher standard, and a teacher, the highest of all.

Again, thanks for the explanation .....................

If he gets there. Maybe he should just stick to Liberty U.

It's an explanation for the origin of life on Earth, which is a scientific topic. It's entirely within the purview of a science teacher to say that it's a poor explanation. His precise words may be a little over the top, but sometimes teachers have good reasons to say something that's over the top.

and it is a poor pretender to the "scientific" status. It's not science, it's religion. Any scientist who backs it is seriously flawed in his or her thinking, and not a very good scientist.

In the Catholic Church, the explanation for the origin of life on Earth is a story involving Adam, Eve, a serpent, an apple, and it is all religion. It is not science.

It's not a "poor explanation." It's a religious belief that has its place within one's religious beliefs, but not in a scientific setting.

This teacher blew it big time ......................................

or in some cases it could be only just a hypothesis

or a psychotic delusion. It can be an honest expression of faith, or it can be a money-making scheme that preys on the most vulnerable and gullible among us.

But, it is protected by our Constitution, and that teacher crossed the line ...............................

There is a difference between Myth and Story and Religion. Religion involves worship, agreement upon particular beliefs,and ritualistic activity.

Creationism is merely a belief. The act of creation to which Judeo-Christianity refers is merely an account or explanation story of the origins of the universe. A metaphorical account based on an older Egyptian story. This predated scientific methods and tools and were an integral part of the history of scientific curiosity and philosophical dialectic.

This teacher's subject area is History and he should have some respect for the place of creationism in history without descending into ridicule.

History or Religion. I trust this was not a History of Religion course he was teaching, and so his wise course of action, when the student brought up creationism, would have been to telll the kid to discuss it with his parents and/or his religious advisors.

The story of the creation of the earth is a myth, as far as I'm concerned, part of a larger tableau which has become adorned and embellished with rituals, dogma, and bureaucracies. No, I'm not conflating - they are simply smaller parts of the larger whole.

There is no place for a religious belief - creationism - in a history course. It belongs in a Theology course, or a History of Religion course......................

I always thought that science was based on empirical evidence - facts, etc. Creationism does not have that attribute of science. a theory - perhaps, but scientific theories have some fact or evidence to support it. I just can't see anything "scientific" about creation.

that it has been proposed as a hypothesis for the origin of life, which is a topic that can be investigated with science.

The complete lack of evidence makes it a bad scientific claim that should be abandoned in favor of a better one. I think a teacher should be free to point this out.

If they want to do that, fine. But then they should not be shocked when the theory gets called nonsense just like the theory that a sperm contained a whole human is called nonsense.

There is NO scientific basis for the explanation, and precious little science stitched onto it to make it look like science. It does not hold to any of the precepts of scientific discovery, of the scientific method - it is not provable or predictive.

It is NOT science.

That Creationism is believed by a number of people only underscores the need for teachers to be honest with their students: people who believe in anything absolutely contrary to all observed reality are deluded and deserve no coddling or respect.

He told the class the world was round, and the idiot flat-Earther felt insulted. That's all.

but the teacher, in a public school, is absolutely prohibited, via the Establishment Clause, from either advocating or denigrating religious beliefs. As a teacher, he should have known better.

It was badly handled, it was badly done, and, yes, it violated the law ...................

Because the teacher was apparently talking about an instance where someone sued over the teaching of evolution. If Creationism is science, like those who argue that it should be taught in school, than it is subject to be called nonsense just as any other ridiculous discredited scientific notion is. If it is NOT science, but religion, then the Creationists need to stop trying to argue that it is some kind of relevant theory.


This is what pisses me off so much. These people argue that they are offering up a scientific alternative that should be taught in science classes and when you say that this *isn't* a theory and *isn't* science, they hide behind religious persecution.

Now, as for the teacher, I find this statement more objectionable:

"When you pray for divine intervention, you're hoping that the spaghetti monster will help you get what you want."

but you're right that they're muddying the waters and pretty much begging for this kind of crap.

than calling Velikovsky's "Worlds In Collision" theories nonsense.

If calling it nonsense is disparaging religion, they cannot call it science.

One way or the other - they need to make up their fucking minds.

is not something many fundies appreciate.

The first amendment does not forbid criticism of any religion, or all religions, if forbids establishment of any religion. It is fatuous to forbid teachers from saying anything that might annoy someone.

The teacher had a right to say what he thought, which happens to be the truth. I hope he appeals. This is what happens when right wing asshats get elected to the bench.

I don't think what he said calls for any more than a conversation with his superior and maybe not even that, but no, he can't voice any opinion that pops into his head to students.

The obvious seems to be elusive here to a large number of posters who - frighteningly - don't understand what happened.

Your post was a beam of clarity, and for that, I thank you ....................

planted here on the third rock by some unknown alien species for some undefined purpose which only they know. That's intelligent?

"I am not an expert on leprechauns, fairies. etc. so go ask someone else who is - like your parents or religious leaders". :evilgrin:

But of course Selna is not an activist judge.

It's incumbent on the the student to prove the teacher's statement false.

:hi:

:toast:

... up a very dark place.

Seems to be common in my beloved Cali these days.

Should not the teacher be protected by the same amendment? Is it not his DUTY as a teacher to call shit shit - to make clear what is SCIENCE and what is SUPERSTITIOUS NONSENSE?

Furious :mad:

he is in no way allowed to mock a student's religious beliefs, or anyone's religious beliefs. You may be furious, but consider the implications of a teacher mocking Judaism. That wouldn't work, would it? Of course not.

It's a matter of equal protection, and, while the teacher had a duty to explain to the student that he views creationism as part of a religious belief system that the student should discuss with his parents and his religious teachers, he did not have the right to mock it.

It's his job to teach science; it's not his job to call anyone's religion "superstitious nonsense."

My post certainly had too much of my anger in its lines. I meant to say that teachers need to clarify the difference between belief and science. They should not use derogatory language.

We get it.

:toast:

http://articles.latimes.com/2007/dec/13/local/me-student13

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."

And here are copies of all court papers courtesy of the "Advocates for Faith and Freedom" who actually provided the lawyers for the suit.
http://www.faith-freedom.com/in-the-courts/farnan-v-capistrano-valley-school-district

Read them all. It won't take long. Comments were made comparing Sweden and US historical trends of crime, including rape and murder, with the history of religiosity in both countries. I didn't see a thing in there that taken in context was not appropriate in that class, including some questions that were apparently asked to get the teacher off track. He redirected within the scope of the class and the questions to get back to topic.

And ***PIMP ALERT***, my old college adviser in economics at Texas A&M in the early 70s has just finished his 27th book. Check it out:
http://www.amazon.com/Marketplace-Christianity-Robert-Ekelund-Jr/dp/0262550717/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241485404&sr=1-3
The Marketplace of Christianity
Taking a page from 18th-century economic theorist Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations, the authors (all economists) provocatively develop an economic theory of religion, especially Christianity. In the Middle Ages, the Catholic Church had established a monopoly and controlled the market of belief, not allowing for competition to fulfill the demand of disparate believers. The Protestant Reformation introduced competition to the religion market, so Christians for the first time could determine which "product" (Catholicism or Protestantism) was most beneficial to them. The Catholic Counter-Reformation, in turn, introduced "product differentiation" as manifested in the development of doctrinal differences. For example, from the rituals of the Eucharist sacrament, Christians could choose either the real blood and body of Christ (Catholic) or the symbolic blood and body of Christ (Lutheran). The advent of denominationalism in the 19th century simply opened the free market of religion even more.

I guess if little Chad had been sitting in Dr. Ekelund's class at A&M in the early 70s, his mind would REALLY have been blown to find that his so-called religion is really just a marketing ploy to gain market share at the expense of the industry leader of the time.

Oh well, I always say that you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. You can, however, hold his head under until he drowns. To paraphrase the bumper sticker, the only trouble with Baptists is that they don't hold them under long enough.

:)

Between relgion and science, the problem is a lot people can't or refuse to separate the two at least at times.

hope it was worth it...in a perfect world, someone would follow his goddamned parents around their jobs with a tape recorder and see what comes out...

:wtf:

...he should be dismissed from the case & the case thrown out.


Fundy Xtianism=Christianity gone Satan

Bing.

No employee of the government, in any capacity, may make any comments either supporting or disparaging any religious belief while on the clock.

"The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits the establishment of a national religion by the Congress or the preference of one religion over another, non-religion over religion, or religion over non-religion." - wiki

From a legal standpoint, what the teacher did is no different than if he'd stood there and said "Atheists are uneducated in the 'word' and are going to hell".

You understand the Establishment Clause!!! How refreshing!!!

I think I love you.

Imagine if the teacher had said "Jews won't eat pork or shellfish, which is nothing but superstitious nonsense". Wouldn't that have made the front pages? And rightfully so.

The law worked, the teacher blew it, the kid outsmarted him, and, ultimately, none of it had to happen ............................

Is nothing but pure opinion.

And you are correct about the establishment clause.

Sadly many of these cases where the teachers cross the line would have been resolved with a simple apology. Many plaintiffs have clearly stated so throughout the litigation process.

Sadly such bigotry is accepted and frankly abundant in society today and even on this board.

there are plenty of fundie high schools he could have attended...

i'll be surprised if he doesn't go after the biology teacher next...

If this young man is clamming that the state rep (i.e. public school teacher) can't say nasty things about his religious beliefs, then I should be able to keep any form of his religion's teaching & symbols out of all public spaces.

If I, or anyone finds his beliefs "Offensive" It should be possible to cite Judge Selna ruling as president.

So much for those wonderful stone table replicas they're so fond of.

I will love to use this on the next "Pray in School" discussion I have.

The purpose of the first amendment is to secure the rights of the people against abuse by the government. Like it or not, when you take a government job, you're signing up for the reality that the Constitution is designed to protect the rights of the "people" by squelching your own. Teachers have free speech rights only so long as their speech or actions do not infringe on the rights of others.

Teacher, cop, soldier, postman. Legally, they're all measured by the same yardstick.

the child is in effect a captive audiance.By law he has to go to school so teacher first amendment rights aren't quite the same as if he was out on the streets

that works with 'we don't torture' too

...and California is one of the few states (12) that doesn't allow one-party consent. I wonder how that was dealt with in court.

Well, on appeal, the child will lose. He needs to, if he really wants to attend a real university.

The story reminded me of my 9th grade History teacher saying, " Well, I can't go into current events- the school Board doesn't want me to talk about things like coat hangar abortions. They don't think you can handle it." Totally made his point and safely, too. It was the first time I'd heard the phrase, and motivated me to learn more and question parents and others. :)

Reading the complaint, you can see what steamed his clams for the most part was a mouthy liberal who didn't hide his disdain for the conservative worldview:

http://www.faith-freedom.com/files/cases/Complaint%20for%20Declaratory%20and%20Injunctive%20Relief_12.11.07.pdf

Fortunately, the court didn't agree that denigrating dittoism was defaming Christianity.

Interestingly, the ONE charge the court upheld was in regard to Corbett's disapproval of another teacher's science curriculum, a statement that wasn't even included in the original complaint -- "I will not leave John Peloza alone to propagandize kids with this religious, superstitious nonsense.":

http://www.ocregister.com/newsimages/2009/05/01/Student%20lawsuit%20-%20final%20ruling.pdf

So, apparently there is another teacher in the same school who might be using his classroom for religious advocacy.

I haven't seen anyone ask Mr Farnan his opinion on what Mr Peloza's been up to.

This was not an easy thing for me to do. As my family and I listened to the tapes of Dr. Corbett and his anti-christian views, we prayed for him everyday and hoped that he would stop. My parents told me that I didn’t have to deal with this and they would just take me out of the class. But as I prayed about it, I thought about my christian friends and other kids who had to leave his class, I also thought about the other kids who don’t know God and wouldn’t want to know him by the end of the year after hearing what he was saying. At that time I knew God was calling me to do something but I was afraid. Why me, I am only a 16 year old kid? I knew I had to step up and do what God was calling me to do even though I was scared. I knew I was going to be persecuted and that it would not be easy. But I also knew, with all my heart, it was the right thing to do.

Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap.
-- GALATIONS 6 : 7

http://web.mac.com/colorsinc/Chad_Farnan/Welcome.html