Teacher Cannot Be Sued For Denying Creationism

gzipped_tar writes "A federal appeals court ruled on Friday that a public high school teacher in Mission Viejo, California may not be sued for making hostile remarks about religion in his classroom. The decision stems from a lawsuit filed by a student charging that the teacher's hostile remarks about creationism and religious faith violated a First Amendment mandate that the government remain neutral in matters of religion. A three-judge panel of the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously that the lawsuit must be thrown out of court because the teacher was entitled to immunity."

Clearly Established: a useful standard.

[GrifterCC]

I am a lawyer, and about a third of my cases are representing state employees, and about a third of those involve cases with a "clearly established" defense, though I practice mostly in the Fourth Circuit, not the Ninth.

The "clearly established" standard is a way for courts to keep these kinds of suits from dinging innocent state employees. Basically, not only does the employee have to violate someone's right, but it has to have been pretty much unreasonable for the employee to think ze wasn't violating that right. Here, in fact, the panel didn't even hold that the kid had a right not to have this stuff said to him. So this case won't be precedent for future cases to reach back and say, "Well, as of the time the Corbett opinion was issued, the right not to have a teacher make fun of your religious beliefs was clearly established."

There are several other possible doctrines for protecting an employee in such a situation, and they're all salutary.

interpret the ruling

[cellocgw]

Seems to me, from the brief notes in TFA, that the judge suggested it was ok to say that creationists were completely failing to follow scientific principles in claiming their position was correct. The teacher didn't directly attack religion, just the absurd methodology of the religious folks in this case.

Re:So

[AchilleTalon]

If you RTFA, the case you are describing was already judged by the same court. A biology teacher did want to teach about creationism and this was refused by the court.

"In the 1994 case, the Ninth Circuit ruled that religious neutrality required that the biology teacher’s positive views of religious ideas must be excluded from public school instruction. But in 2011, a different panel of the Ninth Circuit ruled that the history teacher’s hostile views of religion and faith must be permitted to protect the “robust exchange of ideas in education.”"

So, I guess it then all depends what matter you are teaching.

Transcript

[BenoitRen]

Indeed. Here's the transcript for reference for people who didn't RTFA:

"Aristotle ... argued, you know, there sort of has to be a God. Of course that's nonsense," Corbett said according to a transcript of his lecture. "I mean, that's what you call deductive reasoning, you know. And you hear it all the time with people who say, 'Well, if all this stuff that makes up the universe is here, something must have created it.' Faulty logic. Very faulty logic."

He continued: "The other possibility is, it's always been there.... Your call as to which one of those notions is scientific and which one is magic."

"All I'm saying is that, you know, the people who want to make the argument that God did it, there is as much evidence that God did it as there is that there is a giant spaghetti monster living behind the moon who did it," the transcript says.

Corbett told his students that "real" scientists try to disprove the theory of evolution. "Contrast that with creationists," he told his students. "They never try to disprove creationism. They're all running around trying to prove it. That's deduction. It's not science. Scientifically, it's nonsense."

He gets bonus points from me for including the Giant Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Re:So

[mmarlett]

Yes, you can sue for that. That has been well established. TFA actually mentions such a case from 1994.

The misleading thing here is that when people read that a teacher "may not be sued for making hostile remarks about religion" one assumes that the remarks were actually hostile. The court basically said that the teacher has no reason to believe that what he said should be taken as hostile. The teacher, for his part, never mentioned a specific creationist theory, but rather said this:

Aristotle argued, you know, there sort of has to be a God. Of course that’s nonsense. ... That’s what you call deductive reasoning, you know. And you hear it all the time with people who say, ‘Well, if all this stuff that makes up the universe is here, something must have created it.’ Faulty logic. Very faulty logic. The other possibility is, it’s always been there. Your call as to which one of those notions is scientific and which one is magic. All I’m saying is that, you know, the people who want to make the argument that God did it, there is as much evidence that God did it as there is that there is a giant spaghetti monster living behind the moon who did it.

And one more graph from the article:

Corbett told his students that “real” scientists try to disprove the theory of evolution. “Contrast that with creationists,” he told his students. “They never try to disprove creationism. They’re all running around trying to prove it. That’s deduction. It’s not science. Scientifically, it’s nonsense.”

Keep in mind that this was an Advanced Placement European History class (that is to say, college level even though it was in high school). Even more interesting is a quote about the case from the defendant himself back in February [wordpress.com]:

james corbett | 12-February-2011 at 12:09 pm |
I’m Dr. Corbett. One thing readers should understand is that when my school-provided attorney made the decision to ask a judge rather than a judge decide the case, the law required that all the “facts” be considered in the light most favorable to the plaintiff (Chad). That meant that we could not challenge the validity of the recordings, which were heavily edited. It meant that we could not point out how each and every comment clearly related to the curriculum. I might add, Chad’s recording were in violation of California law.
This case was never about religion. It was about a whiny little boy who admitted he didn’t do his homework and who’s helicopter parents intervened so often in school and on the water polo team that other students called him “princess.” Neither Chad, his parents nor his lawyers, the so called “Advocates for Faith and Freedom,” ever made an attempt to even talk to me or attempt to resolve the issues prior to filing a lawsuit. It is my opinion that the “Advocates” were far more interested in having a case they could use for fundraising than they were in dealing with the issues. They are a textbook example of exactly what I commented on in class, that some people use the faith of others to line their pockets with gold or to gain political power. I believe such use of religion is vastly more offensive than calling Biblical creation “superstitious, religious nonsense,” which is obviously true.”

Re:What is good for the Goose...

[canajin56]

The belief the teacher ridiculed isn't the belief in creationism, but the belief that creationism is science. The teacher made no comment on the value of faith whatsoever, only that creationism is faith, not science. Complete with an explanation of what that means. Creationists look for proof that creationism is true, and scientists look for proof that evolution ISN'T. If a student expressed outrage at the teaching of rainfall because it contradicts the teaching of their church, would it be equally wrong to explain that "the rain is God's tears" isn't scientific? How should the teacher proceed if a student objects to teaching science? Clearly you oppose explaining how faith and fact are different, so what do you do? Ignore the student? Cancel class on account of faith? Or what? How do you handle it, if you aren't allowed to address it?

Re:Prayer in School

[snowgirl]

The teacher wasn't making fun of the student, the teacher was explaining how creationism fails as a science.

Re:So

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

It depend on the remarks and the judge or panel. The Ninth Circuit (California area) is the most liberal circuit and is reversed by the Supreme Court more than any other Circuit, so an appeals court handling some part of the south certainly could come to a different conclusion.

Re:So

[LBArrettAnderson]

They probably have enough witnesses. If they need another, I'd gladly testify that this teacher regularly went off-topic to bash religion (I had him in 2001-2002). A good portion of the bashing was in the realm of european history, but not all of it. He was also very polar modern politics (he's extremely liberal, though he hilariously claimed to be conservative from time to time). Every day he'd take newspaper clippings and read them to the class. Nearly all of them with the purpose of bashing Bush or other conservatives, and, of course, religion (leading up to the Salt Lake Olympics he would make jokes about mormons quite often).

Re:So

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not the most reversed court compared to the other circuits. It has the most cases reversed out of all of them but thats because it covers more people (20% of the US population) than and hears more cases than the other courts. In terms of percentage of cases heard versus reversed compared to the other district courts it has the same reversal rate. It's a nice right wing talking point and it's unfortunate you must repeat it in an effort to discredit its opinion.

Re:So

[Doctor_Jest]

I would say question it so you can find out the origin of some things. Being skeptical isn't ignorance. Being skeptical while promoting an opposing religious view is, though. You can be skeptical and still support evolution. After all, they're learning new stuff every day.

I am tired of religions making things "off limits" to debate and ridicule. Muslims have been, in the last decade or so, more vocally whiny about their religion, but that doesn't leave the Christians out... they're full of "persecution syndrome" as much as the Muslims.

I am a Christian who accepts the facts about evolution. I know the universe is very old, and I know the earth isn't 6000 years old. I know that creation didn't happen in 7 days (it's just a nice story to provide a "rest on the sabbath" reason...)

Galileo said it best. "The Bible tells you how to go to Heaven, not how the Heavens go." It's not a science book... it's a morality book with some history and societal concepts for Hebrews in it. Does it make me a hypocrite? I suppose in both science and religion's view I am. But it works for me, and that's all that matters.

Science is science. Religion is religion. Free speech is guaranteed. That's what Richard Dawkins and Pat Robertson need to figure out. There is no need to abandon science because you believe in God. (Or Allah, or whatever) There is no need to abandon religion because science is provable fact. Blindly following either is short-changing your innate ability to reason and question things (in order to learn, not to marginalize.) And it gives you ulcers if you take it too seriously. Life's short... have fun and be thankful you're not dead yet. (Who you thank is up to you....)

Re:So

[LurkerXXX]

He didn't say they were overworked. He said it's one of the largest circuits because it has about 20% of the US population in it. More population = more cases = more reversals. But the percentage of reversals is the same as elsewhere.

Learn reading comprehension.

TFS vs TFA

[drb226]

After RTFS, I get the impression that the teacher said something like "Creationism is false. Creationism is garbage."
After RTFA, I realize the teacher basically said "creationists rarely use scientific arguments to support their belief."
Long live exaggerated and misleading Slashdot summaries.

Re:So

[metacell]

I think your post deserves a serious answer, so I'm wasting the moderation points I've spent in this discussion.

Without a flood how do you explain these polystrate fossils [wikipedia.org]. If each layer of rock took millions of years to lay down then why is the fossil present in more than one layer.

You're right, those fossils may have been caused by a flood. There is, however, no reason to believe there was a world-wide flood. If there were, ALL fossil strata would look like that - fossils being jumbled together randomly would be the rule, not the exception.

Even Leonardo da Vinci noted, back in the 15th century, that the shells you can find high up in the mountains were not jumbled together randomly, as if carried there by a flood, but layered neatly, as if the mountain had once laid at the bottom of an ocean and then slowly risen up.

Even if the theory of evolution turns out to be false, the literal biblical account still doesn't hold up to the facts. And why should it? After all, Christians believe the Bible was inspired by God, not written by God.