Few people could have imagined John Freshwater, the guy they once sat next to in church or while cheering on the Dover Tornadoes, would find himself at the center of a controversy that dealt with free speech, religious rights and academic freedoms.
The Dispatch claims that the U.S. Supreme Court has issued a "silent ruling" on Freshwater v. Mt. Vernon City School Dist. Bd. Of Edn. putting its "weight" behind the majority opinion of the Ohio Supreme Court.
Nothing could be further from the truth (except maybe another Dispatch editorial).
The U.S. Supreme Court did not affirm, uphold, or in any way put its weight behind the firing of teacher John Freshwater.
"Of course," states the U.S. Supreme Court, "'[t]he denial of a writ of certiorari imports no expression of opinion upon the merits of the case.'"*
The Dispatch says the state court ruling found "that Freshwater showed 'blatant insubordination' by refusing to remove religious texts, posters and other items from his room."
About this the Dispatch does note, "That's a narrow legal justification for removing Freshwater from the classroom."
The justification becomes even more narrow when you consider that the "religious" items were two library books and a poster of George W. Bush. It becomes narrower still when you factor in that the teacher says he didn't even know the school wanted those items removed.
The Dispatch goes on to say "but the more-important issue is that Freshwater’s insistence on inserting his Christian beliefs into his teaching of science was grossly improper and short-changed students. He questioned the theory of evolution — the foundation of modern biological science — and suggested that the faith-based idea of creationism is a valid alternative."
He QUESTIONED the theory of evolution!
It's almost as if he believed that "the freedom to speak and share ideas is an inherent precept of a democratic society governed by the will of the majority." And that "teachers and students need to be free to discuss and debate ideas."
Oh, wait. That's word-for-word the official policy of the Mount Vernon Board of Education.
The Dispatch is firing at the wrong target.
And what's this about students being "short-changed"? In what way?
The students didn't give the impression that they felt their educational experience was lacking when they rallied in support of Freshwater in the spring of 2008. Neither did they give that impression when they testified about their science teacher during the state administrative hearing.
In fact, the hearing referee, R. Lee Shepherd, wrote, "Many, possibly most of his students seemed to enjoy his class and remember it fondly."
Perhaps the Dispatch has in mind the test scores of Freshwater's students.
Let's take a look at what Shepherd wrote about that. Perhaps it will be scathing: "On the average, Freshwater students performed at or above the state requirements and expectations for eighth grade science students. The state test score results for his students often exceeded the state test score results of other eighth grade science teachers."
So, the tests, the scientific way of knowing how his students performed, show that they performed quite well.
Apparently the stars just weren’t aligned the way the Dispatch wanted.
The Dispatch's concluding paragraph contains the statement, "It’s wrong for a public-school teacher to use his position to proselytize on behalf of his faith."
And by "proselytize" the Dispatch simply means being a red-blooded American.
The First Amendment doesn't ban the consideration of various sides of controversial issues.
The written policies of the school board don't ban such consideration.
Neither is inclusion of religion banned.
The school board's policy states, "Instructional activities shall not be permitted to advance or inhibit any particular religion." And "students should receive unbiased instruction."
The Dispatch wants to accomplish those objectives by banning consideration of all but one viewpoint.
That's a disgrace.
Footnote
*United States v. Carver, 260 U.S. 482, 490 (1923), as quoted in Missouri v. Jenkins, 515 U.S. 70 (1995)
See the articles in the archive for additional coverage of the Freshwater controversy.
"I am extremely disappointed," Freshwater's attorney Rita Dunaway told AccountabilityInTheMedia.com, "that the injustice done to Mr. Freshwater has been left standing. It is important, however, for people to understand that the High Court’s denial of certiorari does not in any way represent an endorsement of the conclusions reached by the majority of the Ohio Supreme Court."
The Ohio Supreme Court found, in a 4-3 ruling, that the Mount Vernon Board of Education was justified in firing Freshwater from his job as a teacher at Mount Vernon City Schools. The sole ground for the court's ruling was that Freshwater was insubordinate for having two library books and a poster of George W. Bush in his classroom.
The appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court was a hundred-to-one shot.
According to Answers.com, "In 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court received 7,738 requests for case review, called a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari. Because the volume of cases is so high, and there are only nine Justices on the Court, only 1-2% (75-150 cases) of the submitted petitions are granted certiorari."
Dr. Margie Bennett, president of the school board, told AccountabilityInTheMedia.com, "I hope that our school district and community may now finally lay this issue to rest and focus 100% of our attention on our students."
See the articles in the archive for additional coverage of the Freshwater controversy.
“Strong defense of lawsuits filed against boards of education is achieved,” according to the philosophy statement on the website of Britton Smith Peters & Kalail, “through thoughtful legal analysis, vigorous advocacy, and effective courtroom skills.”
The “Smith” of Britton Smith Peters & Kalail is attorney David Kane Smith. He is representing the Mount Vernon Board of Education in the case Freshwater v. Mt. Vernon City School Dist. Bd. Of Edn.
The case is an appeal of the firing of science teacher John Freshwater. Earlier, the Ohio Supreme Court upheld the firing, in a 4-3 vote, on the sole ground that Freshwater was insubordinate for having two library books and a poster of George W. Bush in his classroom.
Later this year, the United States Supreme Court will decide whether to hear the case.
AccountabilityInTheMedia.com emailed a list of questions to Smith about the brief he submitted to the Supreme Court:
AccountabilityInTheMedia.com: In the brief you discussed at length the issue of academic freedom, citing various related court cases but without mentioning board policy 3218. On page 22 you wrote, "The academic freedom Freshwater tries to appropriate belongs to the District, not to him." Is it the position of the Mount Vernon Board of Education that board policy 3218, "Academic Freedom of Teachers," does not give teachers within the Mount Vernon City School District academic freedom?
David Kane Smith: No response.
AccountabilityInTheMedia.com: Regarding Freshwater's 2003 proposal titled "Objective Origins Science Policy," you wrote that "the Board pointedly rejected" the proposal. In what way was the rejection done such that it was "pointedly"? Did the board in 2003 document any criticism it had that formed the basis of the rejection?
Smith: No response.
AccountabilityInTheMedia.com: The Science Curriculum Committee reviewed Freshwater's 2003 proposal and submitted a letter to the board in which they listed their reasons for not supporting the proposal. Was the committee incorrect when it stated "Proposed mentioned critical thinking skills--redundant, we're already doing this. […] The board of education policy addresses controversial issues--Freshwater proposal is already addressed"?
Smith: No response.
AccountabilityInTheMedia.com: When you wrote about Freshwater's 2003 proposal, you characterized it as being a "proposal to teach creationism." As you are likely aware, the proposal does not directly mention creationism or even intelligent design. Upon what do you base your claim that the proposal was to teach creationism? If the proposal had been written and submitted by an atheist would you still describe it as a proposal to teach creationism?
Smith: No response.
AccountabilityInTheMedia.com: When you discussed the issue of the poster of George W. Bush and his cabinet you emphasized the quote, James 5:16, at the top of the poster. Is the board's claim of insubordination regarding the poster dependent upon the quote being on the poster? If yes, was it also necessary for the quote to be visible for it to be insubordination?
Smith: No response.
AccountabilityInTheMedia.com: Regarding the issue of the books in Freshwater's classroom, you argued that Freshwater having on a lab table the two library books The Oxford Bible and "Jesus of Nazareth" constituted insubordination. As you are likely aware, Ohio Supreme Court Justice Paul E. Pfeifer raised some questions about the issue of the library books. The following questions are borrowed or adapted from those raised by Pfeifer: What work rule or order did Freshwater violate by checking out books from the library? Was there a work rule in effect that a teacher could not borrow books from the school library and keep them in his work area? Do you really mean to say that books of a religious nature are acceptable in the library but not acceptable to be checked out from the library? Or is it only practicing Christians who cannot borrow such books from the library?
Smith: No response.
AccountabilityInTheMedia.com: In your brief you criticized Freshwater's attorney for not mentioning the allegation made by James Stockdale regarding comments he claimed to have heard in Freshwater's classroom in the fall of 2006. As you are likely aware, as a result of a public records request made by AccountabilityInTheMedia.com, it was discovered that the school's records show Stockdale's duties did not take him into Freshwater’s classroom anytime Sept. 1, 2005 through June 30, 2008. Do you feel you deserve any criticism for not informing the U.S. Supreme Court that your witness, according to your own client's records, was not even in the classroom during the time period he testified about?
Smith: No response.
AccountabilityInTheMedia.com: As part of what you characterized on page 13 of your brief as "unfavorable facts," you stated "the referee found that Freshwater distributed religious handouts […] ." The handout you specifically cited was “Darwin’s Theory of Evolution—The Premise and the Problem." What about the handout makes it religious? Is it the position of the board that a handout is religious merely for critiquing aspects of Darwin's ideas about evolution? Or is it the position of the board that such a handout is religious only if the board believes it was written by someone who is religious?
Smith: No response.
AccountabilityInTheMedia.com: Regarding the handouts, you went on to say the referee found that Freshwater "then collected them covertly when class ended." Does the school have a policy or work rule that prohibits the environmentally friendly practice of collecting and reusing class handouts? Further, how does a teacher "covertly" collect handouts?
Smith: No response.
AccountabilityInTheMedia.com: You sprinkled your brief with remarks claiming that Freshwater "disparaged" and "discredited" science and that he "taught his students to doubt science" and sowed "seeds of doubt and confusion." As you are likely aware, the scientific method involves asking questions and testing knowledge claims. As you are also likely aware, the district's approved science textbooks for the eighth grade record examples of how scientists have changed their views on some things throughout the years and even mention some of the non-scientific views previously held by people. Is it the position of the board that an eighth-grade science teacher is not permitted to let students know that scientists have changed some of their views? Is it also the position of the board that an eighth-grade science teacher is not permitted to encourage students to use critical thinking when learning about science?
Smith: No response.
AccountabilityInTheMedia.com: You stated in your brief that Freshwater's "story changes with every new appeal." One aspect of the case to which you applied this characterization was how Freshwater has described his handling of the topic of origins. The explanation you offered depended upon Freshwater having "denied questioning evolution." However, the citation you included does not use the word "questioning" or any form of that word. In the included citation Freshwater merely states that he "denies that he taught either Creationism or Intelligent Design." Does the board not make a distinction between "questioning evolution" and "teaching creationism"? Also, does the board not make a distinction between "teaching creationism" and "discussing" or "considering" creationism?
Smith: No response.
AccountabilityInTheMedia.com: You stated in your brief that the U.S. Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction over this case and that this is "the appeal's fatal flaw." Specifically, you referenced 28 U.S.C. § 1257(a). As you are likely aware, 28 U.S.C. § 1257(a) states, in part, "Final judgments or decrees rendered by the highest court of a state […] may be reviewed by the Supreme Court… where any title, right, privilege, or immunity is specially set up or claimed under the Constitution […] ." Is it the position of the board that Freshwater has not claimed in his appeal any right under the Constitution?
John Freshwater’s attorney Rita Dunaway has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review the firing of Freshwater from his job at Mount Vernon City Schools.
The petition presents two key questions to the court:
“Whether firing a public school teacher for checking out and possessing school library books as a form of passive protest violates the First Amendment.
“Whether firing a public school teacher for teaching the scientific strengths and weaknesses of biological evolution violates the First Amendment.”
Freshwater had two library books in his classroom: The Oxford Bible and "Jesus of Nazareth."
The Ohio Supreme Court earlier upheld the firing in a 4-3 vote.
Six out of the seven judges did agree that it was unconstitutional for the school to order the removal of Freshwater’s personal Bible.
The only reasons the court gave for upholding the firing were that Freshwater had two library books in his classroom and that he had a poster of George W. Bush.
The court sidestepped the issue of how Freshwater handled the subject of evolution.
AccountabilityInTheMedia.com is awaiting a response from the school.
The following press release was provided by The Rutherford Institute:
COLUMBUS, Ohio— Attorneys for The Rutherford Institute have filed a motion in Freshwater v. Mt. Vernon City School Dist. Bd. Of Edn. asking the Ohio Supreme Court to reconsider its recent ruling upholding a school district’s decision to terminate a middle school science teacher who encouraged students to think critically about the school’s science curriculum.
On November 19, the Ohio Supreme Court handed down a 4-3 decision in Freshwater v. Mt. Vernon City School Dist. Bd. Of Edn. which upheld the termination of John Freshwater, a Christian with a 20-year teaching career at Mount Vernon Middle School, despite a vocal dissent defending Freshwater’s right to academic freedom and insisting that his teaching methods are protected by the Constitution. The majority based their ruling of insubordination on the fact that Freshwater failed to remove from his classroom a poster depicting George W. Bush and Colin Powell, which he got from the school’s office, and an Oxford Bible and a book titled Jesus of Nazareth, both of which he checked out from the school library. In asking the court to reconsider the constitutional issues at play in the case, Rutherford Institute attorneys argue that the charge of “insubordination” against Freshwater is specious considering his “good-faith efforts to comply with vague, conflicting, partially illegal administrative directives.”
“This case speaks to an ongoing debate in America over whether we want schools that will teach young people to think analytically, critically and for themselves, or schools that will merely teach young people to parrot back what they are told,” stated John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute. “It’s our hope that the Ohio Supreme Court will agree to reconsider this case and, in so doing, recognize that the future of this nation rests with the schools and their employees and the kind of citizen they churn out—either individuals who understand how to exercise their rights, or ones who view the Constitution as an antiquated relic of a bygone age.”
In June 2008, the Mount Vernon City School District Board of Education voted to suspend John Freshwater, a Christian with a 20-year teaching career at Mount Vernon Middle School, citing concerns about his conduct and teaching materials, particularly as they related to the teaching of evolution. Earlier that year, school officials reportedly ordered Freshwater to remove “all religious items” from his classroom, including a Ten Commandments poster displayed on the door of his classroom, a patriotic poster of Bush and Powell with a Bible verse, and his personal Bible which he kept on his desk. Nevertheless, school officials suspended and eventually fired Freshwater, allegedly for criticizing evolution and using unapproved materials to facilitate classroom discussion of origins of life theories.
A Common Pleas judge upheld the School Board’s decision, as did the Fifth District Court of Appeals, without analyzing Freshwater’s constitutional claims to academic freedom. Likewise, the Ohio Supreme Court sidestepped the question as to whether Freshwater has a First Amendment right to include materials critical of evolution in his class. However, the Court did rule that Freshwater was not insubordinate for failing to remove his personal Bible from his desk because he was entitled to keep the Bible under the First Amendment’s guarantee to free exercise of religion.
Affiliate attorney Rita Dunaway is assisting The Rutherford Institute with Freshwater’s defense.
In a 4-3 vote the Ohio Supreme Court upheld the firing of John Freshwater. Apparently black robes are good for hiding yellow streaks.
Dissenting Justice Paul E. Pfeifer wrote, “In a case bounding with arrogance and cowardice, the lead opinion fits right in.”
It is the sworn duty of the justices to support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of Ohio. That duty is not fulfilled when the majority justices hide behind superficial excuses to avoid rendering support for rights they don’t like:
“Courts sometimes don't want to rule on controversial legal questions, especially when doing so might force them to rule in favor of viewpoints they find distasteful, like the rights of teachers to teach scientific critique of evolution. As a result, you see narrow, hair-splitting, fact-intensive rulings like this one which do everything they can to settle the case on other issues, and avoid any explicit finding that it might be legal to critique Darwin.”
Those other issues the court used to settle the case were Freshwater having in his classroom a George W. Bush poster and two religious books from the school’s library.
Not exactly fireable offenses. Unless, of course, you count breaking ad hoc rules that exist only in the imagination of the people making the firing decision.
For the justices to grasp at these items as the basis of their decision shows how desperate they were. They had already recognized that Freshwater’s personal Bible was off limits as a basis for the firing. Now they needed something. Anything. The best they could find was a poster of a president and a couple library books.
And with that the majority opinion claimed to have solved the case: The items in Freshwater’s classroom provided sufficient grounds for firing him. Therefore the court did not need to touch the issue of whether it is legal to critique evolution.
What a relief for them. Had they needed to address the evolution issue they would have run into a sticky problem: Freshwater’s teaching methodology had been authorized by the school’s written policies and guidelines.
Of particular relevance is policy 3218 which not only is titled Academic Freedom of Teachers, but also says, “The freedom to speak and share ideas is an inherent precept of a democratic society governed by the will of the majority. Teachers and students need to be free to discuss and debate ideas.”
The four majority justices, and I use that term loosely when applied to them, could have used this case as an opportunity to assure Ohioans that they can count on their courts to have the courage to uphold the law.
Instead, we’re left wondering if a dystopian novel somewhere is missing four characters: Chief Justice Maureen O'Connor, Justice Judith Ann Lanzinger, Justice Judith L. French and Justice William M. O'Neill.
The following press release was provided by The Rutherford Institute:
COLUMBUS, Ohio—In a mixed ruling that affirms the First Amendment right of a public school teacher to keep a personal Bible on his desk, while sidestepping larger questions of academic freedom, the Ohio Supreme Court has upheld a school district’s decision to terminate a middle school science teacher who encouraged students to think critically about the school’s science curriculum, particularly as it relates to evolution theories, on the grounds that there was sufficient evidence to support the school’s charge of “insubordination” against the teacher.
The 4-3 decision in Freshwater v. Mt. Vernon City School Dist. Bd. Of Edn. upheld the termination of John Freshwater, a Christian with a 20-year teaching career at Mount Vernon Middle School, despite a vocal dissent defending Freshwater’s right to academic freedom and insisting that his teaching methods are protected by the Constitution. The majority based their ruling of insubordination on the fact that Freshwater failed to remove from his classroom a poster depicting George Bush and Colin Powell, which he got from the school’s office and an Oxford Bible, and a book titled Jesus of Nazareth, both of which he checked out from the school library.
In coming to Freshwater’s defense after he was discharged in January 2011, Rutherford Institute attorneys argued that where a teacher’s speech is in compliance with all Board policies and directly relates to the prescribed curriculum, the school should not be permitted to terminate the teacher’s employment as a means of censoring a particular academic viewpoint from the classroom. Institute attorneys plan to file a motion to ask the Ohio Supreme Court to reconsider their opinion in order to focus on the constitutional issues at the heart of the case, particularly as they relate to academic freedom in the classroom.
“School officials should stop talking about the need for young people to learn about the Constitution and start putting those principles into practice by creating a robust environment in the classroom where free speech can flourish and thrive,” stated John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute. “It’s our hope that the Ohio Supreme Court will send a strong message to the nation’s schools that the First Amendment protects both teachers and students, no matter how controversial or politically incorrect the topic under discussion.”
In June 2008, the Mount Vernon City School District Board of Education voted to suspend John Freshwater, a Christian with a 20-year teaching career at Mount Vernon Middle School, citing concerns about his conduct and teaching materials, particularly as they related to the teaching of evolution. Earlier that year, school officials reportedly ordered Freshwater to remove “all religious items” from his classroom, including a Ten Commandments poster displayed on the door of his classroom, a patriotic poster of Bush and Powell with a Bible verse, and his personal Bible which he kept on his desk. Nevertheless, school officials suspended and eventually fired Freshwater, allegedly for criticizing evolution and using unapproved materials to facilitate classroom discussion of origins of life theories.
A Common Pleas judge upheld the School Board’s decision, as did the Fifth District Court of Appeals, without analyzing Freshwater’s constitutional claims to academic freedom. Likewise, the Ohio Supreme Court sidestepped the question as to whether Freshwater has a First Amendment right to include materials critical of evolution in his class. However, the Court did rule that Freshwater was not insubordinate for failing to remove his personal Bible from his desk because he was entitled to keep the Bible under the First Amendment’s guarantee to free exercise of religion. Affiliate attorney Rita Dunaway is assisting The Rutherford Institute with Freshwater’s defense.
There will be an opportunity to meet the candidates for the Mount Vernon Board of Education on October 1 at the Mount Vernon High School Theater at 6:30 p.m.
This event is sponsored by the Ohio Association of Public School Employees and the Mount Vernon Education Association.
The following is from a June 24, 2013 post by IDTheFuture.com:
“On this episode of ID The Future, listen in as Joshua Youngkin and attorney Rita Dunaway of The Rutherford Institute discuss the academic freedom case of John Freshwater, an Ohio middle school science teacher of 24 years. Freshwater was fired after it was revealed that he was teaching both the strengths and weaknesses of Darwinian evolution in his classroom.”
The Ohio Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday regarding John Freshwater’s claim that he was wrongfully terminated from his job teaching at Mount Vernon City Schools.
(“Case No. 2012-0613 John Freshwater v. Mount Vernon City School District Board of Education”)
See the articles in the archive for additional coverage of the Freshwater controversy. UPDATE
See here for an article by Freshwater’s attorney Rita M. Dunaway which gives a behind-the-scenes look into her experience arguing the case before the court.
The following press release was provided by The Rutherford Institute:
MOUNT VERNON, Ohio—In oral arguments before the Ohio Supreme Court on Wednesday, February 27, The Rutherford Institute will defend the right to academic freedom of a science teacher fired for encouraging students to think critically about the school’s science curriculum, particularly as it relates to evolution theories. In coming to veteran science teacher John Freshwater’s defense, Institute attorneys argue that the Mount Vernon City School District violated John Freshwater’s academic freedom rights—and those of his students—by firing him in January 2011. The Institute argues that where a teacher’s speech is in compliance with all Board policies and directly relates to the prescribed curriculum, the school should not be permitted to terminate the teacher’s employment as a means of censoring a particular academic viewpoint from the classroom.
“Academic freedom was once the bedrock of American education. That is no longer the state of affairs, as this case makes clear,” stated John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute. “What we need today are more teachers and school administrators who understand that young people don’t need to be indoctrinated. Rather, they need to be taught how to think for themselves. By firing John Freshwater for challenging his students to think outside the box, school officials violated a core First Amendment freedom—the right to debate and express ideas contrary to established views.”
In June 2008, the Mount Vernon City School District Board of Education voted to suspend John Freshwater, a Christian with a 20-year teaching career at Mount Vernon Middle School, citing concerns about his conduct and teaching materials, particularly as they related to the teaching of evolution. Earlier that year, school officials reportedly ordered Freshwater, who had served as the faculty appointed facilitator, monitor, and supervisor of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes student group for 16 of the 20 years that he taught at Mount Vernon, to remove “all religious items” from his classroom, including a Ten Commandments poster displayed on the door of his classroom, posters with Bible verses, and his personal Bible which he kept on his desk. Freshwater agreed to remove all items except for his Bible. Showing their support for Freshwater, students even organized a rally in his honor. They also wore t-shirts with crosses painted on them to school and carried Bibles to class. School officials were seemingly unswayed by the outpouring of support for Freshwater.
In fact, despite the fact that the Board’s own policy states that because religious traditions vary in their treatment of science, teachers should give unbiased instruction so that students may evaluate it “in accordance with their own religious tenets,” school officials suspended and eventually fired Freshwater, allegedly for criticizing evolution and using unapproved materials to facilitate classroom discussion of origins of life theories. Freshwater appealed the termination in state court, asserting that the school’s actions violated his rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and constituted hostility toward religion. A Common Pleas judge upheld the School Board’s decision, as did the Fifth District Court of Appeals, without analyzing these constitutional claims.
In appealing to the Ohio Supreme Court, Institute attorneys argue that the Board through its actions violated the First Amendment academic freedom rights of both Freshwater and his students. The Board attempted to have the Ohio Supreme Court strike the First Amendment claims from the lawsuit, but was unsuccessful.
Four years ago AccountabilityInTheMedia.com was launched to respond to inaccuracies in the media’s coverage of the John Freshwater and Mount Vernon Board of Education controversy. During the intervening years, I’ve striven to provide alternative news coverage of the ongoing story. To all of my readers, thank you for your interest in this project. I’ve had the opportunity to meet some of you. I appreciate the encouragement and thanks that you have offered. Recently, I’ve obtained a job that requires moving out of the country. This change combined with pursuing other writing projects means that I will no longer be providing in-depth coverage of the Freshwater controversy. I will, however, like many of you, continue to follow the story as the case continues its way through the court system. Sincerely, Sam Stickle
During Monday’s meeting, the Mount Vernon Board of Education approved the retirement of Steve Short, superintendent of schools, effective June 30, 2013. In a Jan. 11 letter to the board, Short cited changes in the state retirement system as influencing his decision to retire this year:
Dear Members of the Board of Education,
This is a community that is special to me. We have great staffs, students and administrators. It has been a pleasure to work in this District for 29 of my 31 years in education.
The change of the State Teachers’ Retirement System benefit packages have impacted my decision on when to retire. I will be retiring effective at the end of the day on June 30, 2013.
Thank you for your support and encouragement.
Respectfully,
Stephen J. Short
According to a Mount Vernon News article, Short’s current salary is $122,000 per year. His retirement will come a year before his contract was set to expire. Short became superintendent in January 2008. Prior to that, he served a brief period as interim superintendent. He also served in other positions with the district. The board’s 2009, 2010 and 2011 written evaluations of Short’s performance as superintendent show mostly positive remarks and ratings. A notable exception had to do with personnel management. In the 2010 performance review, four out of five board members rated Short as needing improvement in the category of maintaining “high, clear and fair standards of performance for all personnel.” One board member commented in the review: “I believe Steve, as a person, wants to be fair and consistent. However, the system for which he is responsible lacks consistency, thoroughness, and timeliness.” The review cited the “handling of John Freshwater and recent administrators’ performance” as “evidence of weakness in this area.” Short’s retirement was first announced by the district in a Dec. 20 press release. Both the News and KnoxPages.com ran the press release as a news story that same day. In the press release, Dr. Margie Bennett, president of the board, expressed her appreciation for Short’s years of service with the district: “We are deeply saddened by Mr. Short’s decision to retire. He has always been a strong proponent of this community and deeply cares about our students and employees. I have the greatest respect for Mr. Short; his decisions evidence wisdom and compassion. He will be sorely missed.” Additional information: Press release: Mount Vernon City Schools Superintendent Steve Short to Retire (PDF) Jan. 11, 2013 letter from Short to board (PDF) 2009 performance evaluation of Short (PDF) 2010 performance evaluation of Short (PDF) 2011 performance evaluation of Short (PDF)
The Mount Vernon Board of Education lost a last-ditch effort
to keep significant portions of John Freshwater’s appeal from being heard by
the Ohio Supreme Court.
The decision by the court means that all of the issues presented
in the merit brief will be considered, the text of the First Amendment will
remain in the merit brief and the newly introduced evidence, discrediting a
board witness, will be considered.
John Freshwater, through his attorney R. Kelly Hamilton,
filed his reply brief with the Ohio Supreme Court on Tuesday. The brief is the
final step before oral arguments are presented in February 2013 regarding
Freshwater’s claim that he was wrongfully terminated from his job teaching at
Mount Vernon City Schools.
The Mount Vernon Board of Education fired Freshwater in January 2011 from his position teaching eighth-grade science. He had been
employed by the school since 1987.
The board’s resolution firing Freshwater provided two
categories of reasons for the firing: The first involved Freshwater’s teaching
methodology which the board characterized as religious. The second was about
“religious articles” in his classroom.
Freshwater’s brief takes the position that this “is a case
of first impression, and no known precedent provides a useful framework for its
analysis.”
The key aspects distinguishing this case from others are
that Freshwater’s actual teaching methods were within the scope approved by the
board’s own policies and administrative guidelines, and the items in
Freshwater’s classroom were permitted elsewhere in the school.
“Freshwater has never, at any time,” the brief says, “refused
to comply with any clear directive of the Board or administrators as to how he
should teach his class, what topics could be discussed in the classroom, or
what items could be displayed, and he has not challenged the Board's authority
to give these orders. This fact, and the correspondingly limited, defensive
First Amendment protection Freshwater claims, distinguishes this case from the
host of ‘teacher speech’ cases cited by the Board.”
Although the board attempted to support its censorship of
Freshwater’s classroom based upon the argument that it had the authority to
control Freshwater’s speech, the brief says the censorship the school engaged
in was ad hoc and circumvented the board’s own polices:
“Freshwater does not now dispute nor has he ever denied the
Board's authority to control its curriculum and classroom decor through
duly-enacted policies, even-handedly applied. However, Freshwater asserts that
the weight of First Amendment jurisprudence forbids the school's ad hoc
departure from governing policies and guidelines where it is undertaken to
eliminate discussion of viewpoints it disfavors or to sterilize the school of
words, pictures, or ideas that have a tangential association to religion.”
The brief also says,“[T]he Board's position ignores entirely
what was, perhaps, the most specific directive provided to guide Freshwater's
teaching methodology: the Academic Content Standards for Eighth Grade Science.
As Freshwater has consistently maintained, his teaching methodology was
purposefully and properly designed to fulfill his Board-given mandate to enable
students to ‘Explain why it is important to examine data objectively and not
let bias affect observations.’ In fact,
school officials admitted that materials used by Freshwater were properly
tailored to this standard.”
The brief concludes with the following statement:
“In terminating Freshwater, the Board has gone far astray
from foundational First Amendment principles. Freshwater does not claim a
general First Amendment right to determine school curriculum, to discuss
whatever he likes in the classroom setting, or even to decorate his classroom
free from Board directives. Rather, Freshwater asks this Court to rule that a
public school teacher retains at least this modicum of academic freedom and
protection from religious hostility: that school officials may not terminate
him for using teaching methods and materials or for possessing items that
comply with school policies and practices but are censored due to their
particular viewpoint on an otherwise approved topic, or due to their consistency
with the presumed religious beliefs of the teacher in question.”
Freshwater is seeking monetary damages and reinstatement to
his position teaching eighth-grade science.
Note: Internal citations
were omitted from the quotes from the brief.
The following press release was provided today by The Rutherford Institute: MOUNT VERNON, Ohio—Attorneys for the Rutherford Institute have filed a final reply brief in the case of science teacher John Freshwater, which arose after the Mount Vernon City School District’s Board of Education terminated his employment in January 2011. The Ohio Supreme Court has agreed to The Rutherford Institute’s request to hear the case, and the case will proceed to oral arguments in February 2013. Rutherford Institute attorneys argue that the School District violated Freshwater’s academic freedom rights—and those of his students-- by firing him for encouraging students to think critically about the school’s science curriculum, particularly as it relates to evolution theories. The Institute argues that where a teacher’s speech is in compliance with all Board policies and directly relates to the prescribed curriculum, the school should not be permitted to terminate the teacher’s employment as a means of censoring a particular academic viewpoint from the classroom.
“Academic freedom was once the bedrock of American education. That is no longer the state of affairs, as this case makes clear,” stated John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute. “What we need today are more teachers and school administrators who understand that young people don’t need to be indoctrinated. Rather, they need to be taught how to think for themselves.”
In June 2008, the Mount Vernon City School District Board of Education voted to suspend John Freshwater, a Christian with a 20-year teaching career at Mount Vernon Middle School, citing concerns about his conduct and teaching materials, particularly as they related to the teaching of evolution. Earlier that year, school officials reportedly ordered Freshwater, who had served as the faculty appointed facilitator, monitor, and supervisor of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes student group for 16 of the 20 years that he taught at Mount Vernon, to remove “all religious items” from his classroom, including a Ten Commandments poster displayed on the door of his classroom, posters with Bible verses, and his personal Bible which he kept on his desk. Freshwater agreed to remove all items except for his Bible. Showing their support for Freshwater, students even organized a rally in his honor. They also wore t-shirts with crosses painted on them to school and carried Bibles to class. School officials were seemingly unswayed by the outpouring of support for Freshwater. In fact, despite the fact that the Board’s own policy states that because religious traditions vary in their treatment of science, teachers should give unbiased instruction so that students may evaluate it “in accordance with their own religious tenets,” school officials suspended and eventually fired Freshwater, allegedly for criticizing evolution and using unapproved materials to facilitate classroom discussion of origins of life theories. Freshwater appealed the termination in state court, asserting that the school’s actions violated his rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and constituted hostility toward religion. A Common Pleas judge upheld the School Board’s decision, as did the Fifth District Court of Appeals, without analyzing these constitutional claims. In appealing to the Ohio Supreme Court, Institute attorneys argued that the Board through its actions violated the First Amendment academic freedom rights of both Freshwater and his students. The Board attempted to have the Ohio Supreme Court strike the First Amendment claims from the lawsuit, but was unsuccessful.
When the Mount Vernon Board of Education met for its
organizational meeting in January 2012, it was missing something very important:
A copy of the oath of office.
Nonetheless, Superintendent Steve Short decided to wing it.
Or, as he put it, “We’re making this up as we go.”
The 2012 oath of
office
Here’s what happened at the opening of the meeting:
Dr. Margie Bennett:
Are you going to give us the oath of office?
Steve Short: I
don’t have it.
MB: We may have
to wait. … Because we won’t have a quorum.
SS: We need to.
Go ahead, and I’ll give it if that’s OK.
MB: OK
SS: We’re making
this up as we go.
MB: Is it legal,
then?
SS: Well, as the
treasurer is not here, and I don’t anticipate her getting here until close to
7:30, I can go ahead and ask the question; what do you guys think, would you
rather wait—
MB: Are you going
to do us together, or do you want one at a time? You probably wouldn’t say the
same thing three times.
SS: Let’s all do
it together. How’s that? Let’s go over here. And let’s put the left hand on the
Bible; raise the right hand. ‘I swear to do the duties of a board member of the
Mount Vernon City Schools.’
MB, Cheryle Feasel
and Jody Goetzman: I do.
SS: I hereupon
decree that you are a board member of the Mount Vernon City Schools. Thank you.
Here’s what was recorded in the minutes of that meeting:
“Do you solemly (sic) swear that you will support the
Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Ohio;
and that you will faithfully and impartially discharge your duties as a member
of the Board of Education of the Mount Vernon City School District, Knox
County, Ohio, to the best of your ability, and accordance with the laws now in
effect and hereinafter to be enacted, during your continuance in said office,
and until your successor is elected and qualified?”
For you math folks, the oath reported in the minutes showed
a 418.75% increase in word count over the actual oath administered.
The board subsequently approved the minutes of the meeting.
During research for this article,
AccountabilityInTheMedia.com submitted a public records request for copies of
the relevant minutes.
Due to several tell-tale shadow lines around a group of
signatures on the minutes of the organizational meeting, AccountabilityInTheMedia.com
requested to examine the original at the school’s district office.
The examination of the original document showed that the
signatures had been physically cut-and-pasted onto the document.
(The Mount Vernon
City Schools occasionally uses cut-and-paste signatures, such as those shown in
this photo.)
“The signatures are authentic, as you saw,” Short told
AccountabilityInTheMedia.com in an email. “To place the document in the minutes
book it had to be reduced. The Board members
signed the oath and those signatures were placed in the minutes book after the
original was signed. It was simply a
process that allowed the oath to be printed in the minutes book.”
Research by AccountabilityInTheMedia.com did not find anything
in Ohio law that specified that the oath was required to be signed or that
signing the oath would substitute for a properly administered oath.
Ohio law and board bylaw
As noted earlier, Bennett raised the following question at
the organizational meeting: “Is it legal, then?”
Both Ohio Revised Code 3313.10 ("Oath of office of
member") and board Bylaw 0142.1 (“Oath”) require that the oath be taken
before entering into the duties of the office:
O.R.C. 3313.10:
Before entering upon
the duties of his office each person elected or appointed a member of a board
of education shall take an oath to support the Constitution of the United
States and the constitution of this state and that he will perform faithfully
the duties of his office. Such oath may be administered by the treasurer or any
member of the board.
Board Bylaw 0142.1:
Before entering upon the duties of a member of the Board,
each elected or appointed member shall make the following oath, which may be
administered by the Treasurer, or any member of the Board:
I, __________________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I
will support The Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the
State of Ohio; and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge my duties
as a member of the Board of the Mount Vernon City School District, Knox County,
Ohio, to the best of my ability, and in accordance with the laws in effect
during my term of office until my successor is chosen and qualified.
Both O.R.C. 3313.10 and board Bylaw 0142.1 include explicit
reference to supporting the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution
of Ohio.
The oath administered by Short did not include any such explicit
reference: “I swear to do the duties of a board member of the Mount Vernon City
Schools.”
Although someone could attempt to argue that supporting the
Constitution is implied through the words “the duties,” Ohio law makes a
distinction between the wording and the content of the oath.
O.R.C. 3.21 (“Form of oath”) says, “Subject to any section
of the Revised Code that prescribes the form of an oath, a person may be sworn
in any form the person deems binding on the person’s conscience.”
However, O.R.C 3.23 (“Contents of oath of office”) says, in
its relevant part, “The oath of office of every other officer, deputy, or clerk
shall be to support the constitution of the United States and the constitution
of this state, and faithfully to discharge the duties of the office.”
The oath administered by Short closely matches the wording
of the second half of the required content of the oath: “[F]aithfully to discharge
the duties of the office.”
The flexibility allowed in the form or wording of the oath
would conceivably allow the second half of the oath’s content to be worded as,
say, “I’ll never let you down.” That flexibility in the form of the oath,
however, does not negate that both the Constitution of the United States and
the Constitution of Ohio are included under the required content.
Of possible relevance to the impact of an incorrectly
administered oath are O.R.C. 3.01 (“Continuation in office until successor elected
or appointed and qualified”) and O.R.C 3.22 (“Oath of office”).
O.R.C. 3.01 says, “A person holding an office of public
trust shall continue therein until his successor is elected or appointed and
qualified, unless otherwise provided in the constitution or laws of this
state.”
Two out of the three people given the oath in January of
this year had been re-elected to the position. Assuming they had been given a
valid oath previously, O.R.C. 3.01 would seem to allow them to continue in
office.
O.R.C 3.22 says, in part, “The failure to take such oath
shall not affect his liability or the liability of his sureties.”
AccountabilityInTheMedia.com has requested comment from the
Ohio Department of Education regarding the legality of the oath administered by
Short.
John Charlton, a spokesperson for the Ohio Department of
Education, declined to comment on whether the wording used by Short complied
with Ohio law.
Charlton did comment on whether Short was qualified to
administer the oath: “The superintendent is not qualified to administer the
oath, unless the superintendent also is a notary public.”
According to research done by a person from the Knox County
Clerk of Courts Office, no one by the name of “Stephen Short” is listed as a
notary public in Ohio.
Short told AccountabilityInTheMedia.com in an email this
afternoon that he is not a notary:
“My administration of the oath was purely ceremonial for the
public meeting, I am not a notary. I
gave them a verbal representation of the oath.
Our Treasurer fulfilled the requirements of giving the oath that night
when she presented the incoming board members the oath and had them sign
it. The minutes reflect the actual oath
given by the Treasurer which she had the incoming board members execute.”
AccountabilityInTheMedia.com has requested comment from Judy
Stahl-Reynolds, the school’s treasurer, regarding whether she administered the
oath of office.
(See here for part two of emails to and from AccountabilityInTheMedia.com regarding the oath of office.)
UPDATE 10-24-2012: Stahl-Reynolds said that she officially administered the
oath of office by way of having Bennett, Feasel and Goetzman sign a copy of the
oath:
The Oath of Office was officially administered to the newly
elected/re-elected Board members by me on January 10, 2012. As you know, Mr. Short administered a
modified version of the Oath of Office verbally because I was not at the
meeting in time. After I arrived, all
three members in question signed, witnessed by me, the Oath of Office stating
the following:
“Do you solemnly swear that you will support the
Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Ohio,
and that you will faithfully and impartially discharge your duties as a member
of the Board of Education of the Mount Vernon City School District, Knox
County, Ohio, to the best of your ability, and in accordance with the laws now
in effect and hereinafter to be enacted during your continuance in said office,
and until your successor is elected and qualified.”
Based on the information supplied by the school, what
remains of the document signed is the signatures pasted onto the minutes of the
organizational meeting.
The Ohio Supreme Court announced today that oral argument for John Freshwater v. Mount Vernon City School District Board of Education
has been scheduled for February 27, 2013.
According to court rules, both sides will each have 15
minutes for “argument on the merits.”
The John Freshwater case received an influx of new paperwork
on Thursday as the Mount Vernon Board of Education and its cohorts submitted
their briefs to the Ohio Supreme Court just in time to meet the extended
deadline.
Joining the school board were the American Humanist
Association, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the
Anti-Defamation League, the Secular Student Alliance, the National Center for
Science Education and Stephen and Jenifer Dennis.
The group submitted a total of five briefs.
Case background
In January 2011 the board fired Freshwater from his position
teaching eighth-grade science at the Mount Vernon City Schools. He had been
employed by the school since 1987.
(Freshwater taught science for 21 years at Mount Vernon
Middle School.)
The board’s resolution firing Freshwater provided two
categories of reasons for the firing: The first involved Freshwater’s teaching
methodology which the board characterized as religious. The second was about
“religious articles” in his classroom.
In July of this year the Ohio Supreme Court agreed to hear Freshwater’s case.
On Aug. 24 Freshwater submitted his merit brief to the
court.
The board subsequently requested an extension of time
to file its response, which the court granted. It also submitted a motion to
strike portions of Freshwater’s brief. (Read about that here and here.)
According to court rules, Freshwater will have 20 days to
respond to the recently submitted briefs.
The First Amendment
and academic freedom
The First Amendment
The board has motioned for the Ohio Supreme Court to strike
the text of the First Amendment from Freshwater’s merit brief.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and
to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Incidentally, the swearing in of three board members in January of this year utilized a paraphrased version of the oath which did not
explicitly mention the Constitution of the United States or the constitution of
Ohio.
Ohio Revised Code 3313.10 states:
“Before entering upon the duties of his office each person
elected or appointed a member of a board of education shall take an oath to
support the Constitution of the United States and the constitution of this
state and that he will perform faithfully the duties of his office. Such oath
may be administered by the treasurer or any member of the board.”
The omission of the Constitution from the oath may have been
an innocent goof-up. The real test of elected officials' loyalty to the Constitution
is not so much what they say they will do but what they actually do.
Freshwater has argued that the basis used by the board to
terminate his employment violated his and his students First Amendment rights
to academic freedom.
Freshwater’s teaching methodology
In the resolution firing Freshwater, the board took issue
with how Freshwater handled the topic of evolution and with his encouraging his
students to think about the material in the science textbooks instead of
blindly accepting everything as written.
The board did not dispute that evolution was a topic
Freshwater was allowed to teach. The joint brief by board cohorts Americans
United for Separation of Church and State and the Ant-Defamation League went so
far as to say “instruction on evolutionary science” was “officially mandated.”
The board said the problem regarding Freshwater’s handling
of evolution had to do with the evidence offered as being against evolution:
“Freshwater’s ‘evidence’ against [evolution] was based, in large part, upon the
Christian religious principals (sic) of Creationism and Intelligent Design.”
(Freshwater offered his
students the following voluntary extra credit assignment: “Watch and examine
the film Expelled, and explain why it is important to examine this film
objectively and not let bias affect your observations.”)
The board, in its termination resolution, did not go so far as to claim that Freshwater
emphasized the evidence against evolution to the point of outright teaching
either creationism or intelligent design.
However, in the board’s recent brief, it makes the claim
that Freshwater’s merit brief acknowledges outright teaching of creationism and
intelligent design.
Contrary to the board’s new claim, a fair analysis of
Freshwater’s merit brief would show that whenever a reference was made
specifically to how he handled creationism or intelligent design his approach
was characterized as being along the lines of considering or discussing the matter.
Indeed, the evidence cited by the board is the following
statement: “if discussions of evolution may not be banned from a science
classroom, then neither may discussions of creationism be banned.”
Later in the brief, the board provided the following information
about how Freshwater handled the topic: “In another example, one student
testified that we ‘knew what he was talking about [intelligent design], but he
would never outright say it.’ […] "He would just kind of say something
where it would be obvious to someone [that he was talking about intelligent
design].”
Board policy and administrative guidelines
The board has previously taken the position that “Freshwater’s
actions violated all the Board’s pertinent Bylaws and Policies and the Establishment
Clause.”
“Neither the resolution firing Freshwater nor the board’s [May
11, 2012] memorandum to the Ohio Supreme Court cite any of the bylaws or
polices that Freshwater supposedly violated. Considering that they are not
cited, the existence of any violated bylaws or policies is highly suspect.”
This time the board decided to cite its policies.
But, unfortunately for the board, those polices
turned out to only support Freshwater’s arguments.
Before delving into the policies, the board
countered Freshwater’s citation of judicial precedent supportive of academic
freedom by saying: “A judicially-created ancillary First Amendment right to
‘academic freedom’ is simply inapplicable to Freshwater. The concept of
academic freedom is derived from the realm of higher learning in universities.”
The board went on to say that since the 1967 case Keyishian
v. Bd. of Regents “the United States Supreme Court has never suggested that
academic freedom of professors extends to teachers in public school classrooms
where the audience is made up of children and attendance is mandatory.”
The board staked its authority over Freshwater on the
position that “Only a board is entrusted with the establishment and control of
the curriculum in its schools.”
Of particular relevance is policy 3218 which not only is
titled Academic Freedom of Teachers,
but also says, “The freedom to speak and share ideas is an inherent precept of
a democratic society governed by the will of the majority. Teachers and
students need to be free to discuss and debate ideas."
The board tried to use a Jedi mind trick when it
responded to its own policy by saying, “Nowhere does the policy suggest that
Freshwater had a right to teach whatever he pleased, particularly in a science
classroom where he was mandated to present scientific data, not religious
doctrine.”
(The board borrowed part of its legal strategy from Star Wars:
“These aren’t the droids you’re looking for.”)
The board was confident enough that the technique was
working that it bravely went on to quote the rest of the same policy: "When
ideas that may be controversial are introduced, teachers, while having a right
to their opinion on the subject, shall state it as such and they should be
objective in presenting various sides of the issues."
In response, the board said, “Freshwater, however, filled
his classroom with religious discussion and a religious display.”
What does the policy about “Religion in the Curriculum” say
about religion? The board summarized it as being:
“Under Policy and Guideline 2270, the Board directed its
teachers, including Freshwater, to be neutral in their approach and avoid using
religious material to advance religion in anyway. Teachers were only to discuss
religion [in] the classroom during an age-appropriate, objective lesson on, for
example, religious practices around the world in social studies class or
sixteenth century art in art class. Despite that directive, Freshwater chose to
advance his Christian views in the classroom, where the curriculum specifically
directed him to teach students about science, not theology.”
That must mean that the school-approved science textbooks
never mention ideas that are religious or that stray from current
establishment-accepted thinking.
But, wait, as Freshwater pointed out in his first appeal,
the board-supplied “curricular materials—textbooks—for 8th-grade science”
contained “numerous and common subjective, biased, religion-based, and
non-scientific opinions.” He went on to say:
“Among the quotations are statements that scientists can be
wrong, admissions of scientists changing their minds over time, narrations of
ancient legends, speculation on ritual uses of geologic sites, science fiction
stories, reasons to doubt the accuracy of scientists, instruction to students
to debate scientific topics as well as moral or ethical topics relating to
science.”
The board is going to need the dark side of the Force.
Regarding the third policy, 2240 - Controversial Issues, the
board says, “Under that policy, only the Board, acting through its principals,
could authorize teaching controversial topics that were not contained in the
applicable Academic Content Standard, or course of study.”
However, the board, as mentioned before, did not challenge
that evolution was part of the topics the school allowed Freshwater to teach.
According to the policy and guideline, once a controversial
topic is allowed by the school, the teacher is then allowed to provide other
viewpoints. Thus, the board’s argument rests on whether evolution is a
controversial issue. If it were to be established that evolution is, in fact, a
controversial issue, then the board’s defense would fall apart.
Of course, the board could always try to use the Force to
levitate itself above the facts.
The school’s administrative guideline for “Controversial
Issues in the Classroom” provides the following insightful details about how Freshwater
was supposed to handle controversial issues:
C. When discussing a controversial issue, the teacher may
express his/her own personal position as long as s/he makes it clear that it is
only his/her opinion. The teacher must not, however, bring about a single
conclusion to which all students must subscribe.
D. The teacher
should encourage student views on issues as long as the expression of those
views is not derogatory, malicious, or abusive toward other student views or
toward a particular group.
E. Teachers should
help students use a critical thinking process such as the following to examine
different sides of an issue:
For each stated
position:
1. What is the
person (group) saying?
2. What evidence
is there that what is being said is true?
3. What is said
that would lead you to think the position is valid?
4. What are the
strengths and weaknesses of this position?
5. What do you
think would happen if this point of view was accepted and was put into
practice?
For reaching
conclusions:
1. On balance,
what do you think is the most reasoned statement? the most valid position?
2. What is there
in the statements that supports your conclusion? What other things, beside what
is being said, leads you to your conclusion?
In the board’s defense, it quotes from the Academic Content
Standard, which it says requires that students “realize that the current body
of scientific knowledge must be based on evidence, be predictive, logical,
subject to modification and limited to the natural world.”
The very wording of the quote provided by the board does not
preclude students from knowing about things that are not considered part of “the
current body of scientific knowledge,” as, indeed, the schools own textbooks
include information about past beliefs of scientists that are no longer
accepted, even ideas that are religious.
That Freshwater’s students understood science, and
understood it well, is evidenced by his students’ high passage rate on the Ohio
Achievement Test.
The board also took the opportunity while on the topic of
the controversial issues policy to criticize Freshwater’s 2003 “Objective Origins Science Policy” proposal.
After mentioning that the proposal was rejected, the board comments,
“Simply put, Freshwater's proposal did not meet any of the criteria required
for introducing a controversial topic to students, particularly young,
impressionable students.”
It would be ludicrous to suppose that anytime a legislative
body, such as a school board, rejected a proposal that the act of rejecting it
automatically created an antithetical policy.
Not mentioned by the board was that two of the reasons the
school’s Science Curriculum Committee recommended the board reject the proposal
was because, “The board of education policy addresses controversial
issues—Freshwater proposal is already addressed;” and the “Proposed [policy]
mentioned critical thinking skills—redundant, we’re already doing this.”
Surely Freshwater should have at least been afforded the
First Amendment and academic freedom to teach within the school’s own policies
and administrative guidelines.
The James Stockdale problem
Another item included in the board’s resolution, in the
teaching methodology category, was an allegation made by substitute teacher
James Stockdale.
Stockdale had testified during the state administrative hearing
that in the fall of 2006 he heard Freshwater make remarks to his class about
the subject of homosexuality.
Freshwater, on the other hand, testified that he never
made the statement that Stockdale credited to him.
In a subsequent public records request made by
AccountabilityInTheMedia.com, it was discovered that the school's records showed
Stockdale's duties did not take him into Freshwater’s classroom anytime
Sept. 1, 2005 through June 30, 2008.
The board later told the 5th District Court of Appeals, “The
records could be incomplete or, most likely, the witness could have been
mistaken as to the date he heard the comments.”
The board insisted that Stockdale did hear the comments.
As the board puts it this time, in explaining it to the Ohio
Supreme Court:
“This testimony by Jim Stockdale is disputed by [Freshwater],
but it is irrelevant which particular day Stockdale witnessed the comments
being made. The fact they were heard at all is what gave the Board cause for
concern, and ultimately, corroborating evidence to support the good and just
cause for [Freshwater]'s firing.”
In other words, the board knows Stockdale heard the remarks
because Stockdale heard the remarks.
Aside from the board’s above-mentioned circular argument, the
board is arguing that the records should not be considered by the court due to
the fact the records were not submitted into evidence during the hearing.
‘Religious articles’
in the classroom
Insubordination
The final reason the board gave for firing Freshwater was
that he did not remove all of the “religious articles” from his classroom.
The board says in its brief, “Not only did Freshwater refuse
to remove several items, including his Bible and the ‘fervent prayer’ poster,
but he went down to the school library, checked out the Oxford Bible and a copy
of Jesus of Nazareth, and placed them in the plain view of his students.”
The Bible on the desk
Freshwater, however, did remove all the items he was
directed, in writing, to remove with the exception of his personal Bible.
In contrast to the school’s directive regarding Freshwater’s
Bible, the school has been allowing other teachers to each have a Bible out on
their desks.
In response to this disparity, the board mentions the
testimony of Steve Short, superintendent of the Mount Vernon City Schools.
Short said the difference was that parents Stephen and Jenifer Dennis complained that Freshwater referenced his Bible during class.
The “fervent prayer” poster, more commonly known as the
Colin Powell/George W. Bush poster, had been on the wall in Freshwater’s
classroom for years. Various faculty members at the school also displayed the
poster at one time or another.
The school did not document any order to remove the poster.
The library books
The school library does not have any signs warning that
checking out books could result in expulsion.
To the contrary, when the board met in the library to vote to
fire Freshwater, hanging above the board was a poster of Yoda which stated,
“Read and The Force is with you.”
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
AccountabilityInTheMedia.com was begun in 2009 to respond to inaccuracies in the media’s coverage of the John Freshwater and Mount Vernon Board of Education controversy. Since posting a response to The Columbus Dispatch editorial of January 7, 2009, “Teaching moment,” which was about Freshwater, I followed up with details from the state administrative hearing. Although I do have opinions about various aspects of the controversy— I support Freshwater’s right to have a Bible on his desk; I also support his right to due process—this website is not affiliated with Freshwater or any other party involved in litigation with the school.
