The following took place on 10/2/08—this article relies on the court transcript for details.
The attorney for the Mount Vernon City Schools Board of Education, David Millstone, declined to give an opening statement when the John Freshwater contract termination hearing began on October 2, 2008.
R. Kelly Hamilton, attorney for Freshwater, did give an opening statement. He outlined the allegations that he would be addressing and what recommendation he was asking the hearing referee to give to the school board upon the completion of the hearing.
During Hamilton’s opening statement, he brought up the issue of the media’s coverage. “Far from as reported in the media, served by the investigation, the allegations against John, Your Honor, are not proven,” Hamilton said.
Millstone also made mention of media inaccuracies during the pre-hearing motions. “With no disrespect to the media, what's reported in the paper is not necessarily accurate. […] I have seen inaccuracy from time to time,” Millstone said.
Hamilton called for the hearing to be conducted in the manner that he said the original investigation had not been—as a thorough investigation into all the evidence:
“We're going to ask you to accept the duty and the responsibility that the Mount Vernon City School System administration did not accept and that the investigator in this situation did not accept, and that is to analyze all of the evidence in a thorough manner. And that in and of that particular presentation, we're going to ask you to evaluate John Freshwater and his performance against the allegations. We are going to ask that you recommend to the school board that he be reinstated with full back pay and be able to continue on with his particular contract.”
Among the allegations Hamilton addressed during his opening remarks was the issue of the alleged burn on Zachary Dennis. “As to him burning a cross on a student's arm, you'll find out that it took 43 days for the principal, Bill White, to even put anything on paper related to that particular incident,” Hamilton said. “The alleged injury was only recharacterized as a cross in this situation only after it was discovered that John Freshwater would not take his Bible off of his public schoolroom teacher's desk.”
Hamilton brought up that Freshwater had complied with the request to remove the Ten Commandment poster and that “there were no other religious items pointed out to him by letter that he should remove at any particular time.”
Hamilton gave an explanation of what happened during the alleged instance of Freshwater praying during an FCA (Fellowship of Christian Athletes) meeting. “As the facilitator, supervisor, monitor of the FCA, John Freshwater had to make a decision,” Hamilton said. “‘How do I appropriately interrupt these students during their student led prayer’, a group of which he was not a participant, ‘and make certain that they get to class on time?’ John Freshwater was appointed as the FCA faculty approved member for the sole reason that he had the sensitivity, the understanding, to respect these particular students and this particular situation. So he interjected and interrupted this particular prayer with an appropriate ‘Amen’ so that the students then would simply get on with going to class. John Freshwater, you're going to learn, never participated nor led a prayer during the FCA meetings.”
“We also have the issue of bias,” Hamilton said. “This investigation […] was designed to reach a predetermined objective. Interestingly, the investigator hired by, again, the school board or the school board's attorney, he chose one evaluation out of all 45 evaluations. He chose the January 21st, 2003, evaluation by principal Jeff Kuntz wherein Principal Kuntz directed John Freshwater, quote, ‘to continue to adhere to board policy and guideline 2270 with respect to religion in the classroom.’ You don't even have to understand the English language very well. If John Freshwater was not adhering to the policy of religion in the classroom, the principal, as an authoritative evaluator and observer, would have said ‘John, start adhering to this particular policy of religion in the classroom.’”
Hamilton listed ten allegations that have been made against Freshwater. “The reality, though, is you have to keep coming back to what makes sense on one hand versus what does not make sense on the other hand,” Hamilton said. “Responding to these specific allegations will be done. They absolutely will be done. We'll do it through every particular witness that the school board presents and we will do it through witnesses that we will call.”
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Dispatch Editor and Son Testified for MV School Board
The following testimony took place on 10/31/08—this article relies on the court transcript for details of the testimony.
Paul Souhrada works as the state editor for The Columbus Dispatch. Souhrada and his son Simon testified during the sixth day of the John Freshwater contract termination hearing (10/31/08).
In April of 2006, Souhrada filed a complaint with the Mount Vernon City Schools Board of Education over a handout from Freshwater’s eighth-grade science class. Souhrada’s son was one of “five current or former students of Freshwater” that H.R. On Call, Inc interviewed for its investigative report.
Dispatch reporter Dean Narciso wrote about Souhrada’s testimony in an article titled “Mount Vernon Teacher’s Hearing: Second student tells of burning.” Narciso acknowledged in the article that Souhrada is an editor at the Dispatch but wrote that Souhrada “has not been involved in the assigning or editing of stories about Freshwater.”
The focus of Souhrada’s testimony was on the handout and the complaint he filed. David Millstone, attorney for the school board, asked Souhrada what his concern was about the handout. “Well, I believe this is a creationist theory of Darwin's theory of evolution,” Souhrada replied.
(I do not have a copy of the handout, [see the update at the end of the article] but the HR On Call report says that the handout was titled, "Darwin's Theory of Evolution-The Premise and the Problem.”) Souhrada testified that he did some internet research and traced the article to the website allaboutscience.org.
The closest match I was able to find on allaboutscience.org was a page titled “Darwin's Theory Of Evolution - A Theory in Crisis.” One of the headers on the page uses the phrase “The Premise,” and towards the end of the page, a header uses the phrase “A Theory In Crisis.” When checking for older versions of this page on the WayBackMachine, I found they had archived the versions from November 03, 2004, July 21, 2007 – February 10, 2008. The dates closest to the alleged download of the document never showed the page as titled as alleged.
The article on allaboutscience.org does not teach creationism or intelligent design—it explains Darwin’s theory of evolution and some of the problems with it including quotes from Darwin about possible problems with his own theory.
Under cross-examination by Kelly Hamilton, attorney for Freshwater, Souhrada was asked about the school’s response to his complaint—specifically what R. Jeff Maley, then superintendent of schools, wrote to Freshwater in a letter dated June 8, 2006:
Q. “After having read that letter, what's your understanding at this moment as to what the school or the school board or the administration found problematic with John's use of that document?”
A. “That it could not -- it had not passed -- material has not passed the test of scientific review and acceptance of the established scientific community and that he was not to use it.”
Q. “Say anywhere in there that he taught creationism?”
A. “No.”
Q. “Does it rebuke him in any way for teaching creationism?”
A. “No.”
Q. “Does it mention intelligent design?”
A. “No.”
Q. “Does it rebuke him in any way for teaching intelligent design?”
A. “No.”
The testimony of Simon Souhrada—
The Dispatch article on Souhrada’s testimony opened with the statement, “A second student said his eighth-grade science teacher burned a cross on his arm.” A few paragraphs into the article was this, “Simon Souhrada, 17, testified that Freshwater used a high-voltage static-electricity device to burn a cross on his arm four years ago.”
Souhrada did in fact testify that Freshwater put a mark on his arm and that he considered it to be a cross—but did not refer to the mark as a burn. Souhrada instead used the words “mark” and “draw” to describe what the device did.
The Dispatch correctly reported that Souhrada did not think anything of the experience with the Tesla coil at the time and made no complaint to his parents about it. One thing that could have been added is this telling exchange between Hamilton and Souhrada:
Q. “Did you tell your dad that you thought that Mr. Freshwater had perhaps made a cross mark on you?”
A. “Like I said, it didn't -- just didn't register. I didn't think anything of it. It was eighth grade. I said hey, cool, shocky thing made a mark on my arm.”
Q. “Cool shocky thing, is that what you said?”
A. “Didn't know it was a Tesla coil.”
The Dispatch wrote that “the cross stung a little at first, the redness lasted a couple of days, and the mark was gone after a few weeks.” That is basically a correct paraphrase of what Souhrada said—however, compare it to:
Q. “And did it hurt?”
A. “It stung a little when he first did it.”
Q. “Did it hurt afterwards?”
A. “No.”
and
Q. “You say it lasted a couple days?”
A. “It lasted as very easy to see for a couple days, then faded out. You could kind of see a red outline. If you looked for it, you could find it.”
Another thing that the Dispatch brought up was “Souhrada also recalled overhearing Freshwater tell a group of students, ‘Catholics aren't Christians.’” Emphasis should be placed on “overhearing”:
Q. “Okay. Did -- do you recall did he ever make any comments about Catholics in class?”
A. “Not directly to me. I just happened to overhear him once say that Catholics weren't Christians, and maybe I was eavesdropping.”
Q. “Where did he say that?”
A. “It was just in his classroom after school. I was in there for something else. He was talking to different students. I can't remember the exact context.”
Q. “And what specifically do you recall hearing him say?”
A. “Exact words, I just remember it stuck with me that Catholic aren't Christians.”
What Souhrada overheard was not during a class nor was he close enough to the conversation to know what the context of the comment was. The Dispatch reported that Souhrada—a Catholic—said that, though he remembered the comment, he was not offended by it.
Hamilton inquired into whether Souhrada ever talked with his parents or Freshwater about the incident. Souhrada said that he did not.
Read more about the Dispatch’s involvement in the Freshwater controversy: “Shame on The Columbus Dispatch.”
UPDATE
The following is a copy of the handout mentioned in the article:
(PDF) “Darwin’s Theory of Evolution—The Premise and the Problem"
Paul Souhrada works as the state editor for The Columbus Dispatch. Souhrada and his son Simon testified during the sixth day of the John Freshwater contract termination hearing (10/31/08).
In April of 2006, Souhrada filed a complaint with the Mount Vernon City Schools Board of Education over a handout from Freshwater’s eighth-grade science class. Souhrada’s son was one of “five current or former students of Freshwater” that H.R. On Call, Inc interviewed for its investigative report.
Dispatch reporter Dean Narciso wrote about Souhrada’s testimony in an article titled “Mount Vernon Teacher’s Hearing: Second student tells of burning.” Narciso acknowledged in the article that Souhrada is an editor at the Dispatch but wrote that Souhrada “has not been involved in the assigning or editing of stories about Freshwater.”
The focus of Souhrada’s testimony was on the handout and the complaint he filed. David Millstone, attorney for the school board, asked Souhrada what his concern was about the handout. “Well, I believe this is a creationist theory of Darwin's theory of evolution,” Souhrada replied.
(I do not have a copy of the handout, [see the update at the end of the article] but the HR On Call report says that the handout was titled, "Darwin's Theory of Evolution-The Premise and the Problem.”) Souhrada testified that he did some internet research and traced the article to the website allaboutscience.org.
The closest match I was able to find on allaboutscience.org was a page titled “Darwin's Theory Of Evolution - A Theory in Crisis.” One of the headers on the page uses the phrase “The Premise,” and towards the end of the page, a header uses the phrase “A Theory In Crisis.” When checking for older versions of this page on the WayBackMachine, I found they had archived the versions from November 03, 2004, July 21, 2007 – February 10, 2008. The dates closest to the alleged download of the document never showed the page as titled as alleged.
The article on allaboutscience.org does not teach creationism or intelligent design—it explains Darwin’s theory of evolution and some of the problems with it including quotes from Darwin about possible problems with his own theory.
Under cross-examination by Kelly Hamilton, attorney for Freshwater, Souhrada was asked about the school’s response to his complaint—specifically what R. Jeff Maley, then superintendent of schools, wrote to Freshwater in a letter dated June 8, 2006:
Q. “After having read that letter, what's your understanding at this moment as to what the school or the school board or the administration found problematic with John's use of that document?”
A. “That it could not -- it had not passed -- material has not passed the test of scientific review and acceptance of the established scientific community and that he was not to use it.”
Q. “Say anywhere in there that he taught creationism?”
A. “No.”
Q. “Does it rebuke him in any way for teaching creationism?”
A. “No.”
Q. “Does it mention intelligent design?”
A. “No.”
Q. “Does it rebuke him in any way for teaching intelligent design?”
A. “No.”
The testimony of Simon Souhrada—
The Dispatch article on Souhrada’s testimony opened with the statement, “A second student said his eighth-grade science teacher burned a cross on his arm.” A few paragraphs into the article was this, “Simon Souhrada, 17, testified that Freshwater used a high-voltage static-electricity device to burn a cross on his arm four years ago.”
Souhrada did in fact testify that Freshwater put a mark on his arm and that he considered it to be a cross—but did not refer to the mark as a burn. Souhrada instead used the words “mark” and “draw” to describe what the device did.
The Dispatch correctly reported that Souhrada did not think anything of the experience with the Tesla coil at the time and made no complaint to his parents about it. One thing that could have been added is this telling exchange between Hamilton and Souhrada:
Q. “Did you tell your dad that you thought that Mr. Freshwater had perhaps made a cross mark on you?”
A. “Like I said, it didn't -- just didn't register. I didn't think anything of it. It was eighth grade. I said hey, cool, shocky thing made a mark on my arm.”
Q. “Cool shocky thing, is that what you said?”
A. “Didn't know it was a Tesla coil.”
The Dispatch wrote that “the cross stung a little at first, the redness lasted a couple of days, and the mark was gone after a few weeks.” That is basically a correct paraphrase of what Souhrada said—however, compare it to:
Q. “And did it hurt?”
A. “It stung a little when he first did it.”
Q. “Did it hurt afterwards?”
A. “No.”
and
Q. “You say it lasted a couple days?”
A. “It lasted as very easy to see for a couple days, then faded out. You could kind of see a red outline. If you looked for it, you could find it.”
Another thing that the Dispatch brought up was “Souhrada also recalled overhearing Freshwater tell a group of students, ‘Catholics aren't Christians.’” Emphasis should be placed on “overhearing”:
Q. “Okay. Did -- do you recall did he ever make any comments about Catholics in class?”
A. “Not directly to me. I just happened to overhear him once say that Catholics weren't Christians, and maybe I was eavesdropping.”
Q. “Where did he say that?”
A. “It was just in his classroom after school. I was in there for something else. He was talking to different students. I can't remember the exact context.”
Q. “And what specifically do you recall hearing him say?”
A. “Exact words, I just remember it stuck with me that Catholic aren't Christians.”
What Souhrada overheard was not during a class nor was he close enough to the conversation to know what the context of the comment was. The Dispatch reported that Souhrada—a Catholic—said that, though he remembered the comment, he was not offended by it.
Hamilton inquired into whether Souhrada ever talked with his parents or Freshwater about the incident. Souhrada said that he did not.
Read more about the Dispatch’s involvement in the Freshwater controversy: “Shame on The Columbus Dispatch.”
UPDATE
The following is a copy of the handout mentioned in the article:
(PDF) “Darwin’s Theory of Evolution—The Premise and the Problem"
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Did Freshwater Pray in FCA?
Levi Stickle, at www.cfacts.org , has posted a short article about the mention in the H.R. On Call, Inc. report of John Freshwater possibly leading a prayer in an FCA meeting for the health of a guest speaker (Pastor Zirkle). Stickle points out that the evidence that has come to light since the report is that Freshwater did not lead the prayer:
“The eyewitnesses, called to the stand in the Freshwater hearings, and those interviewed by 'Creation Facts', either said that it was a student who led the prayer or said they don't remember who led it.” —Did Freshwater Pray in FCA?
“The eyewitnesses, called to the stand in the Freshwater hearings, and those interviewed by 'Creation Facts', either said that it was a student who led the prayer or said they don't remember who led it.” —Did Freshwater Pray in FCA?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
