The controversy at the Mount Vernon City Schools began with the Bible, and it may soon get back to being about the Bible.
At least if attorneys for the Mount Vernon Board of Education get their way.
On Monday, school board attorneys David Kane Smith, Krista Keim and Paul J. Deegan motioned for the Ohio Supreme Court to strike from John Freshwater’s appeal all of the “Propositions of Law” except for the one that involves the Bible on the desk.
The school board’s attorneys argued that two out of the three propositions of law in Freshwater’s Aug. 24 merit brief, prepared by attorneys R. Kelly Hamilton and Rita M. Dunaway, did not match those approved for consideration by the court. Therefore, the school board attorneys argue, only the remaining issue should be considered by the court.
The court had accepted the following propositions for review:
“Proposition of Law No. I: The termination of a public school teacher's employment contract based on the teacher's use of academic freedom where the school board has not provided any clear indication as to the kinds of materials or teaching methods which are unacceptable cannot be legally justified, as it constitutes an impermissible violation of the rights of the teacher and his students to free speech and academic freedom under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and a manifestation of hostility toward religion in violation of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause.
“Proposition of Law No. II: The termination of a public school teacher's employment contract based on the mere presence of religious texts from the school's library and/or the display of a patriotic poster cannot be legally justified, as it constitutes an impermissible violation of the rights of a teacher and his students to free speech and academic freedom under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and a manifestation of hostility toward religion in violation of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause”
Not accepted for review was the following proposition:
“Proposition of Law No. III: Where the ‘investigation’ and subsequent termination of a public school teacher by his employer are demonstrably motivated by the teacher's public expressions of his personal religious beliefs, said investigation and termination violate the teacher's First Amendment right to free speech and Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection under the law.”
Freshwater’s Aug. 24 merit brief had presented arguments in support of the following three propositions:
“Proposition of Law I - The termination of a public school teacher's employment based on the content or viewpoint of his curriculum-related academic discussions with students and use of supplemental academic materials violates the teacher's and students' First Amendment rights to academic freedom.
“A. Freshwater's teaching methods were good practices and were in accordance with the Board's policies.
“B. Freshwater's termination based on the Board's stated reasons is a form of government censorship and a violation of the rights of academic freedom enjoyed by Freshwater and his students.
“Proposition of Law II - The termination of a public school teacher's employment based on the fact that his academic discussions with students and supplemental academic materials include ideas that are consistent with multiple major world religions manifests hostility toward religion in violation of the Establishment Clause.
“Proposition of Law III -The termination of a public school teacher's employment based on the presence of religious texts in the classroom and the display of patriotic posters violates the teacher's and students' First Amendment rights to academic freedom and manifests hostility toward religion in violation of the Establishment Clause.
“A. Freshwater's classroom was in compliance with Board policy.
“B. Freshwater's termination based on the Board's stated reasons is a form of government censorship and a violation of the rights of academic freedom enjoyed by Freshwater and his students.
“C. The First Amendment's Establishment Clause does not justify, and in fact forbids, the Board's actions.”
If the court agrees with the motion, only the final proposition from the merit brief will be considered.
Additional information:
John Freshwater v. Mount Vernon City School District Board of Education, case information and documents, Supreme Court of Ohio
See the articles in the archive for additional coverage of the Freshwater controversy.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments from all ideological viewpoints are welcome. However, please avoid abusive language and ad hominem attacks.