The Panda's Thumb Legacy Archive — pandasthumb.net

Freshwater: "I have never branded or burned a person"

Posted 5 August 2008 by PvM

During a well attended meeting on Monday August 4, 2008, Mount Vernon science teacher John Freshwater denied having burned or branded a person

"I have never branded or burned a person," Freshwater told the board

And yet, during the investigation, he told

He said that he uses the device about twice a year and has done so for 21 years. At the end of the experiment the kids are excited and ask if they can touch it. He said that he demonstrates it on his own arm by making an “X” and then lets them touch it voluntarily. He said that the incident in question occurred in December 2007. He remembers getting from 3 to 8 volunteers, but couldn’t remember the order or all of the names. He said that the device is owned by the school, he received verbal instructions on using it 21 years ago, and has never seen any written instructions. He said that he has not had a complaint in 21 years regarding his use of the device. The device leaves a red mark after one or two seconds of touching, but no blisters. He denied any religious discussions during this or any previous occurrences. He said that he would never hurt a student.

The investigators also talked to several former students of Freshwater, contrary to Freshwater's claims.

The current or former students that were interviewed that had participated in the December 2007 incident or other similar incidents in earlier years described the demonstration in the same manner as had Mr. Freshwater with one exception. The all described the mark Mr. Freshwater put on his arm as a “cross”. One student stated Mr. Freshwater would mark the student with a cross unless the student requested a different type of marking. It was the default mark. The pictures below were provided by the parents.

While Freshwater may argue that marking the arm with a cross is not branding or burning, this seems to be largely an issue of semantics. The report describes how at least in one instance, the mark remained painful and visible for an extended period of time (the report mentions three to four weeks). The report thus concludes

Mr. Freshwater did improperly use an electrostatic device on the student who filed the complaint and other students in his science class in a manner that was not in compliance with the manufacturer’s instructions. While there did not appear to be any intent by Mr. Freshwater to cause injury to any student, he was not using the device for its intended purpose. Contrary to Mr. Freshwater’s statement he simply made an “X” not a “cross,” all of the students described the marking as a “cross” and the pictures provided depict a “cross”.

Some of his supporters have come to repeat the claims by Freshwater that the investigation was 'biased'

"What concerns me the most is that what you're basing your decision on to terminate Mr. Freshwater is on an incomplete, biased, and all-out lie investigation," Thompson said.

Even though the report mentions that the investigators did in fact interview former students, John Freshwater continues to argue that

"They used half-truths. They didn't interview people who had been in my classroom," he said. "Science teachers at the high school: Why would you interview them?"

The introduction of the report of findings explains clearly the approach chosen:

Our investigation included interviews with: * The parents who filed the complaint and the student involved
* John Freshwater, the teacher against whom the complaint had been filed
* Stephen Short, Superintendent of the Mount Vernon City Schools
* Jeff Maley, Former Superintendent of the Mount Vernon City Schools
* Bill White, Middle School Principal
* Kathy Kasler, High School Principal
* Dr. Lynda Weston, Director of Teaching and Learning for the Mount Vernon City Schools
* The monitor assigned to Mr. Freshwaters’ classroom since April 23, 2008
* Twelve other teachers in the Middle School and High School
* Five current or former students of Mr. Freshwater along with, in four instances, their parents

Freshwater also argues that he did not teach creationism and that he taught evolution as proscribed by the curriculum and yet the investigators describe various instances in which Freshwater diverged from the curriculum.

There is a significant amount of evidence that Mr. Freshwaters’ teachings regarding subjects related to evolution were not consistent with the curriculum of the Mount Vernon City Schools and State standards. Contrary to Mr. Freshwater’s statement, the evidence indicates he has been teaching creationism and intelligent design and has been teaching the unreliability of carbon dating in support of opposition to evolution. He has passed out materials to students for the past several years challenging evolution and then collecting the materialsback from the students. He has done so in spite of specific directives not to teach creationism or intelligent design. He has taught students to use the code word “Here” to challenge scientific process that is considered settled by the high school science teachers.

h1. Source: 1. Associated Press Ohio town split over teacher accused of preaching By MATT REED – Jul 8, 2008
2. Columbus Dispatch Freshwater defends self in meeting Tuesday, August 5, 2008 3:09 AM By Alayna DeMartini
3. The Guardian UK Ohio town reacts to tale of teacher accused of branding student with cross Monday August 04 2008 17:44 BST
4. WBNS 10TV Suspended Science Teacher Defends Himself To School Board Tuesday, August 5, 2008 4:08 AM
5. WTTE Fox 28 Board hears from teacher who taught creationism August 05, 2008 00:08 EDT
6. Freshwater Press Conference 08-04-2008 :John Freshwater, Attorney Kelly Hamilton, and Pastor Don Matolyak answer questions from various media outlets from across the state
7. In an 1-on-1 with SupportFreshwater.com, Teacher John Freshwater expresses his side of the story. "I really, truly believe I am doing the right thing," he said. Additional comments are made by Attorney Kelly Hamilton and Pastor Don Matolyak.
The one-on-one interview is interesting as I can hear a voice whisper 'no' when Freshwater is asked if he believes that Intelligent Design will ever be taught in public schools. Also the statement about obedience and one true rule to be obedient to shows an interesting perspective on the issue. It seems to me that the defense is to turn this into a Church versus State issue about the Bible on the desk, however the problem is that the report outlines various other problems such as the teaching of creationism and the marking with an 'X' with a tool which was used in an inappropriate manner. Coach Daubenmire remarked:

The issue of burning crosses onto students' forearms is "an old allegation" that was first brought up in December, and school officials did not act on it at the time, Daubenmire said.

An old allegation, as if that is somehow going to make the allegation less relevant... While Daubenmire was an early defender of Freshwater, his performance on various occasions may explain why he has remained invisible in the last few weeks. As to the issue of the Bible on his desk, according to this website, Freshwater 'argued'

Freshwater said in his written statement. "Would we ask a science teacher to remove The Origin of Species from his desk merely because the origin of man has never been proven?”

Interesting statement for more than one reason. h1. Burning questions, burning crosses and does 'X' mark the spot? So the question is simple: Did Freshwater use a device to mark an 'x' onto pupils arms. And the answer seems simple and supported by Freshwater's own admissions: Yes. Did Freshwater intend to cause lasting pain, welts and blisters in this 'experiment'? The answer again seems straightforward: No Did Freshwater cause significant discomfort to at least one student whose arm was marke with said device? The evidence suggests that the answer to this is a likely yes, although some of his defenders openly claim that the accuser is lying. So while Freshwater's intentions were not to cause pain or brand or burn children, my personal conclusion is that it may very well be that the use of this device, against manufacturer's recommendation, may have, unintentionally caused some harm and discomfort to at least one student. And finally, was the mark a 'cross' or an 'X' as Freshwater asserts? The pictures seem to show a shape that looks like a cross and the students interviewed were also clear:

The current or former students that were interviewed that had participated in the December 2007 incident or other similar incidents in earlier years described the demonstration in the same manner as had Mr. Freshwater with one exception. The (sic) all described the mark Mr. Freshwater put on his arm as a “cross”. One student stated Mr. Freshwater would mark the student with a cross unless the student requested a different type of marking. It was the default mark. The pictures below were provided by the parents.

cross.png
From a comment at Pharyngula I learned that:

The late Jeff Medkeff described its effects as follows: I have used this device instructionally, and in a moment of carelessness, I once burned myself with one. My forearm made contact with the electrode of the device for about half or three-quarters of a second — this necessarily being an estimate. This experience wasn't too painful at the time, on the order of getting a good strong static shock after shuffling your feet on the carpets. But it did leave one hell of a welt that got more and more painful over the course of the next three or four days. My recollection is that the small wound stayed painful for a week or so. Eventually the welt that was raised went down, scabbed over, and after about two weeks, the scab fell off. I had a red mark that persisted for about two or three months. It was by no means a pleasant experience.

Source: Blue Collar Scientist, who passed away recently See also the following Youtube video of a 50,000 V high frequency generator and notice the differences between 10 and 50 kV.

97 Comments

PvM · 5 August 2008

Listen to Freshwater's statement

DistendedPendulusFrenulum · 5 August 2008

Why would ANYONE do that to someone else's kid, regardless of intent?

Stacy S. · 5 August 2008

I can't believe the applause he was getting ... it makes me sick to my stomach!

He's upset that the "referree" isn't someone that he knows and that no one in the community knows. Awwwww ... poor baby!

How is it going to be fair if the people that hear his case don't know him? Gosh! How unfair!

Below this line is shameless self promotion.

____________________________________________________

NASA press conference on possible Martian poop!

PvM · 5 August 2008

Transcription of part of the statement made by Freshwater, all errors are mine.

I have been a public school teacher for 24 years, 21 years in this building, okay. I take my responsibilities for teaching very highly, okay. And I feel I have done a good job, a very good job. My personnel file, 240 pages of it, I have no reprimands, it's clean, it's absolutely clean, 240 pages. I have had no remedial actions against me. It is my understanding that the members of this board of education have elected to have my termination hearing heard by a referee, a referee... Why not you? I want you! I am a referee(?). (Applause )I want you to do it. That's who should hear it not a referee, not someone we don't even know. Because you have chosen not to hear the facts for yourself first handed, I want to make certain there is no confusion in the translation of the evidence and testimony from the referee to the members of a board of education. So no matter what you hear or perceive that you hear I want you to know the following facts 1. I have never, never branded or burned a person, I have never branded or burned myself, I have never branded, burned or mar.. put a religious mark on my family, I have never done that to the alleged plaintiffs. Am I clear on that? I have never taught evolution and creation in the public classroom Some audience members seem to ask the board for a response... I have never taught anything in the public classroom that was prohibited by the mandate of curriculum of the State standards. I have never exceeded the boundaries or the parameters established for being a teacher monitor, facilitator, supervisor of FCA fellowship of Christian Athletes. In fact, I have never ever received any training about how to do so until this year. When I did receive this training I was pleased to learn that I have been monitoring, facilitating, supervising exactly as the mandate by the document that you gave me mr ... I have been warned that the members of the schoolboard likely have a preconceived notion of the facts surrounding these untrue allegations. I pray that each one of you will have the patience, the courage and the professionalism to be unbiased, to be unbiased until after the facts have been presented. You have to keep coming back to this question: What makes sense here? What makes sense here.. Why did it take so long to come up with the allegations against me. If I have been acting in violation for twenty one years. The answer is: I have done nothing wrong, I have done nothing wrong. Please hear me on that. Okay This case, if it remains to be my ... ... personal Bible on my desk Thank you

PvM · 5 August 2008

Sure, Freshwater may very well have believed that this was a cool experiment to use the device to draw a cross/'X' on children's forearms. I see nothing really extremely wrong with this, although it does go against the recommendations of the device manufacturer and perhaps common sense. Then again, it may have left, in most cases a harmless red mark. Kids are curious and this seems like a good 'experiment' which was done by other teachers as well. My problem is not with the incident itself but rather the response to said incident as well as with the alleged choice of a cross as the default mark.
DistendedPendulusFrenulum said: Why would ANYONE do that to someone else's kid, regardless of intent?

PvM · 5 August 2008

I find Freshwater's arguments to be confused, on the one hand he does not want a referee, on the other hand he claims that the board may be prejudiced. Of course, an outside referee is much harder to reject as unbiased than a school board member who is under much pressure to 'do the right thing' and facing re-election.
Stacy S. said: I can't believe the applause he was getting ... it makes me sick to my stomach! He's upset that the "referree" isn't someone that he knows and that no one in the community knows. Awwwww ... poor baby! How is it going to be fair if the people that hear his case don't know him? Gosh! How unfair! Below this line is shameless self promotion. ____________________________________________________ NASA press conference on possible Martian poop!

Ichthyic · 6 August 2008

Then again, it may have left, in most cases a harmless red mark.

a recently departed science blogger had much worse things to say about it, actually.

turns out that those "harmless marks" are in fact very painful, and lasted on the back of his hand (from an accidental touch with the same device kind of device used by Freshwater) for many weeks.

If you like, I could probably dig up the exact reference for you.

I see nothing really extremely wrong with this

I really do wonder about you sometimes, Pim.

Ichthyic · 6 August 2008

ah, it wasn't hard to re-locate: it was originally posted by Blake Stacey over on Pharyngula: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/08/what_to_do_when_the_other_side.php#comment-1034474

The device used to mark the student was a BD-10A High Frequency Generator. The late Jeff Medkeff described its effects as follows: I have used this device instructionally, and in a moment of carelessness, I once burned myself with one. My forearm made contact with the electrode of the device for about half or three-quarters of a second — this necessarily being an estimate. This experience wasn't too painful at the time, on the order of getting a good strong static shock after shuffling your feet on the carpets. But it did leave one hell of a welt that got more and more painful over the course of the next three or four days. My recollection is that the small wound stayed painful for a week or so. Eventually the welt that was raised went down, scabbed over, and after about two weeks, the scab fell off. I had a red mark that persisted for about two or three months. It was by no means a pleasant experience. 50 kilovolts will do that to you.

Ichthyic · 6 August 2008

...I missed you already added that, but imagine my surprise when I saw you mention the word "harmless" AFTER posting the bit from Medkeff.

It was such a strange response, I think I just balked that you actually had even noticed that piece of information to begin with.

sylvilagus · 6 August 2008

PvM said: Sure, Freshwater may very well have believed that this was a cool experiment to use the device to draw a cross/'X' on children's forearms. I see nothing really extremely wrong with this, although it does go against the recommendations of the device manufacturer and perhaps common sense. Then again, it may have left, in most cases a harmless red mark. Kids are curious and this seems like a good 'experiment' which was done by other teachers as well. My problem is not with the incident itself but rather the response to said incident as well as with the alleged choice of a cross as the default mark.
I'm sorry, but as a high school teacher myself, I find it unfathomable that a teacher would do this. Clearly, the man thought this was "fun" and "harmless". I don't doubt his honesty there, but just as clearly, he is outstandingly clueless as to his professional responsibilities. As teachers we have it drilled into us that we have ethical and legal constraints on our interactions with students. We cannot even touch students without risk of law suits and we need parental permission slips to show R-rated movies in class. I've only been teaching high school for a few years (after many years of college teaching) and these limits were and are repeatedly pointed out to me. Only someone willfully or recklessly disregarding these well established guidelines would ever think that he could put a physical mark on the skin of a student, or that minors have the legal capacity for consent to such.If I had done this to a student, I would at the very least be severely reprimanded and if a parent were angry, I doubt I would have my job the next day. To me, both his original actions and his continuing refusal to recognize that he crossed important ethical and legal lines indicates the same cock-eyed "maverick" sensibility evident in his keeping the Bible on his desk. This is not a man I want working with adolescents.

Frank J · 6 August 2008

I'll try again.

Has the DI commented about this case? Anywhere?

Ginger Yellow · 6 August 2008

"“Would we ask a science teacher to remove The Origin of Species from his desk merely because the origin of man has never been proven?”"

Leaving aside the obvious disanalogies, The Origin of Species doesn't bloody talk about the origin of man. The fact that he doesn't know that - or less charitably is willing to lie about it - should in itself be grounds to question his ability to teach science.

Blaidd Drwg · 6 August 2008

“I have never branded or burned a person,” Freshwater told the board

"I did not have sex with that woman" Bill Clinton

The issue of burning crosses onto students’ forearms is “an old allegation” - - What is the statute of limitations on child abuse?

Stanton · 6 August 2008

DistendedPendulusFrenulum said: Why would ANYONE do that to someone else's kid, regardless of intent?
Apparently to score brownie points for Jesus.
PvM said: Sure, Freshwater may very well have believed that this was a cool experiment to use the device to draw a cross/'X' on children's forearms. I see nothing really extremely wrong with this, although it does go against the recommendations of the device manufacturer and perhaps common sense. Then again, it may have left, in most cases a harmless red mark. Kids are curious and this seems like a good 'experiment' which was done by other teachers as well. My problem is not with the incident itself but rather the response to said incident as well as with the alleged choice of a cross as the default mark.
A teacher intentionally leaving welts on a child's skin is always extremely wrong, especially when the teacher misuses electrical equipment to do so in order to reaffirm the teacher's own spiritual beliefs. I mean, Pim, you are aware that Freshwater scorching the skin of his students with an electrical device is the injury on top of the insult of how he is physically incapable of teaching science to his students in the first place, right?

Mary · 6 August 2008

PvM I can't believe you would justify what he did to a CHILD!

PvM · 6 August 2008

Stop being so melodramatic and realize that as the investigators showed, the use of the device in most cases leaves a temporary mark which quickly disappears.

In the presence of Principal Bill White, one of the investigators tried the device on own arm. There is a knob to adjust the voltageof the unit. When held at full power for one or two seconds in the manner described by Mr. Freshwater, the device left a slight redness with no burns and the redness disappeared overnight.

Man the melodrama here is just nauseating. Let's focus on the real issues here and not look foolish. At best this is a poorly thought out experiment gone bad. Remember that this 'experiment' was performed for 20 or so years by the science teachers at this school.
Mary said: PvM I can't believe you would justify what he did to a CHILD!

Larry Boy · 6 August 2008

Mary said: PvM I can't believe you would justify what he did to a CHILD!
I just want to come out on record as saying that I think claims of "child abuse" and the like are over inflated empty retoric which is damaging to children. Being somewhat familiar with the subject and the psychological scars non-sexual physical abuse can leave, asking children to voluntarily do something that "...wasn’t too painful at the time, on the order of getting a good strong static shock after shuffling your feet on the carpets." is not even in the same ballpark as child abuse. If children were coerced into volunteering then you are getting close, but as the allegations stand comparisons to child abuse are ludicrous. I have serious doubts any of these children will be waking up at night in a cold sweat 10 years down the line from recurrent nightmares. If some of these kids have PTSD then I could see allegations of child abuse. Seriously. I hope these students think Freshwater is an ignorant tool, but I doubt any of them feel abused. The point is that what Freshwater did was irresponsible in the same way that it is irresponsible to throw potassium into a bucket of water without making student put on safety goggles. Freshwater's irresponsible use of laboratory equipment resulted in unintentional injury to students, this seems to be the claim that the parents of the students are making, and I don't see why anyone feels the need to turn that into child abuse simply because Freshwater also happens to be an incompetent delusional moron. In conclusion. Calm the bleep down. Seriously.

PvM · 6 August 2008

Ichthyic said: Then again, it may have left, in most cases a harmless red mark. a recently departed science blogger had much worse things to say about it, actually. turns out that those "harmless marks" are in fact very painful, and lasted on the back of his hand (from an accidental touch with the same device kind of device used by Freshwater) for many weeks.
These marks can be painful and last, I do not disagree with that, but in most cases the effect seems to have been quite minimal. Do you really believe that if the effects were as severe as described above, that Freshwater would have still done it? For over 20 years?... Hard to believe.

PvM · 6 August 2008

Larry Boy said:
Mary said: PvM I can't believe you would justify what he did to a CHILD!
I just want to come out on record as saying that I think claims of "child abuse" and the like are over inflated empty retoric which is damaging to children. Being somewhat familiar with the subject and the psychological scars non-sexual physical abuse can leave, asking children to voluntarily do something that "...wasn’t too painful at the time, on the order of getting a good strong static shock after shuffling your feet on the carpets." is not even in the same ballpark as child abuse. If children were coerced into volunteering then you are getting close, but as the allegations stand comparisons to child abuse are ludicrous. A voice of reason, finally. The point is that what Freshwater did was irresponsible in the same way that it is irresponsible to throw potassium into a bucket of water without making student put on safety goggles. Freshwater's irresponsible use of laboratory equipment resulted in unintentional injury to students, this seems to be the claim that the parents of the students are making, and I don't see why anyone feels the need to turn that into child abuse simply because Freshwater also happens to be an incompetent delusional moron. In conclusion. Calm the bleep down. Seriously.
Well said

PvM · 6 August 2008

Larry Boy said:
Mary said: PvM I can't believe you would justify what he did to a CHILD!
I just want to come out on record as saying that I think claims of "child abuse" and the like are over inflated empty retoric which is damaging to children. Being somewhat familiar with the subject and the psychological scars non-sexual physical abuse can leave, asking children to voluntarily do something that "...wasn’t too painful at the time, on the order of getting a good strong static shock after shuffling your feet on the carpets." is not even in the same ballpark as child abuse. If children were coerced into volunteering then you are getting close, but as the allegations stand comparisons to child abuse are ludicrous.
A voice of reason, finally.
The point is that what Freshwater did was irresponsible in the same way that it is irresponsible to throw potassium into a bucket of water without making student put on safety goggles. Freshwater's irresponsible use of laboratory equipment resulted in unintentional injury to students, this seems to be the claim that the parents of the students are making, and I don't see why anyone feels the need to turn that into child abuse simply because Freshwater also happens to be an incompetent delusional moron. In conclusion. Calm the bleep down. Seriously.
Well said

Interrobang · 6 August 2008

Stop being so melodramatic and realize that as the investigators showed, the use of the device in most cases leaves a temporary mark which quickly disappears.

I'm not seeing how you're not getting that at least in the United States and Canada, that doesn't matter. It doesn't matter that the device "leaves a temporary mark which quickly disappears." (So, incidentally, does slapping a student across the face, but nobody's advocating doing that.)

To be perfectly clear, legally, the guy ought not to have a leg to stand on, because any touching of students or marking their skin is against the rules, whether or not the student in question allegedly "consented," because legally, a student cannot consent to such treatment. So whether it was harmless, painless, and temporary or not, it was still a professionally inappropriate thing to do. Regardless of his religious issues (which are, as far as I'm concerned, irrelevant to the burning issue), in terms of the way the rules are now, he should have been fired and de-credentialed.

If you think the rules are too harsh, that's another discussion.

PvM · 6 August 2008

Now we go from child abuse to unprofessional behavior, much better. As to the US and Canada rules, I am not familiar with them, could you provide me with a reference where I can check them out myself? I think there are far better reasons why Freshwater should be fired. In fact, the school did not even act upon the complaints initially and only later removed the device. Sure, if Freshwater and the school had dealt in a more professional manner with this incident, we would not have much of this mess right now. However, I see the alleged accusations that Freshwater was inappropriately teaching religion during science classes as far more troubling. I also see far more evidence to support this than the claim that Freshwater somehow intended to cause physical harm to students with this ill conceived experiment.
Interrobang said: Stop being so melodramatic and realize that as the investigators showed, the use of the device in most cases leaves a temporary mark which quickly disappears. I'm not seeing how you're not getting that at least in the United States and Canada, that doesn't matter. It doesn't matter that the device "leaves a temporary mark which quickly disappears." (So, incidentally, does slapping a student across the face, but nobody's advocating doing that.) To be perfectly clear, legally, the guy ought not to have a leg to stand on, because any touching of students or marking their skin is against the rules, whether or not the student in question allegedly "consented," because legally, a student cannot consent to such treatment. So whether it was harmless, painless, and temporary or not, it was still a professionally inappropriate thing to do. Regardless of his religious issues (which are, as far as I'm concerned, irrelevant to the burning issue), in terms of the way the rules are now, he should have been fired and de-credentialed. If you think the rules are too harsh, that's another discussion.

Flint · 6 August 2008

For me, the "child abuse" issue is the sort of technicality on which some genuine discipline can be attached, while the real damage is much more subtle and difficult to litigate.

But history tells us that many societies have some sort of physical and/or psychological trauma as an initiation ritual, and that trauma renders the initiation much more sincere and psychologically binding.

And it need not be harmful, excessively painful, or permanent to serve that purpose. What matters is that you underwent the ritual, proved your worthiness, and qualify as a True Christian in a way that can be damn near impossible to deprogram.

Freshwater clearly understands this, and so do his fellow insider fraternity members.

J. Biggs · 6 August 2008

What really disappoints me is what a liar Freshwater has become. He should just admit what the evidence clearly shows. He did brand his students with a cross/X and he did teach "the weaknesses of evolution". In my opinion the guy might even deserve a second chance if he just admitted what he did was against school guidelines and that he acted inappropriately. The fact that he has now resorted to claiming everyone but he is a liar makes me hope that his termination stands. It took a lot of bravery for that one student and his parents to finally call Mr. Freshwater on what he has previously admitted to doing for the last 21 years. Now Freshwater has to turn this into a circus by pretending he didn't do what he is alleged to have done and claiming religious persecution for the one thing he admits to (which is also the most minor of his infractions), leaving a Bible on his desk.

Matt Young · 6 August 2008

At best this is a poorly thought out experiment gone bad.

I do not know whether this "experiment" rises to the level of child abuse, but it was bloody stupid and unprofessional, at best. If it was truly an experiment, though, may we assume that it had been cleared by an Institutional Review Board?

stevaroni · 6 August 2008

At best this is a poorly thought out experiment gone bad.

But if it were a legitimate "experiment" what could it conceivably been trying to show? That having a miniature lightning bolt linger on your skin will produce a burn? It's a fortunate thing they weren't doing a unit on gunshot wounds that week.

raven · 6 August 2008

I can’t believe the applause he was getting … it makes me sick to my stomach!
According to a post on PZ's blog, Freshwater packed the school board with ringers. A lot of people from outside the area and even some from out of state. If this is so, the locals aren't going to be too happy. Or shouldn't anyway. Another example of the lunatic fringe of xianity in action.

raven · 6 August 2008

Easy enough to see if the "device" can brand or burn a person. Just try it on someone.

The heart of science is reproducable results.

I wouldn't recommend grabbing the nearest kid though. LOL.

Anyone really curious could try it on themselves. Tattoos are very in these days and the worst that oculd happen is one will have a smiley face, peace symbol, Darwin Fish, or other decoration for a little while.

Ichthyic · 6 August 2008

that Freshwater would have still done it? For over 20 years?… Hard to believe.

"hard to believe" is all relative to direct experience, though, yes?

regardless of the specifics in this case, surely at some point you have heard of worse examples of abuse that have gone "under the radar" for long periods?

look at the picture of the child's arm again.

that ISN'T a minor temporary welt.

the welt marks obviously lasted quite long enough for the parents of that child to take the photo, so someone involved over there ("as the investigators showed") is being deliberately dishonest about either the voltages used, or the method.

Aside from the relative severity of the injuries themselves, the principle here is that any time one can even think about abusing the intended usage of a scientific device in a manner like that, there is something seriously wrong there.

Did your secondary school teachers often misuse their own equipment?

I know this would have been quick grounds for review in any school district I'm personally familiar with in California; I've seen teachers here fired/forced to retire for far less.

PvM · 6 August 2008

Ichthyic said: that Freshwater would have still done it? For over 20 years?… Hard to believe. "hard to believe" is all relative to direct experience, though, yes? regardless of the specifics in this case, surely at some point you have heard of worse examples of abuse that have gone "under the radar" for long periods? look at the picture of the child's arm again. that ISN'T a minor temporary welt.
I agree, however this is a single example and other students as well as the investigators have suggested that the mark quickly disappeared. To call this child abuse is just plain silly.

PvM · 6 August 2008

The investigators claim that they repeated the test and found that it left a mark which disappeared quickly. The problem with this experiment is that there are a set of variables such as the voltage used, the duration of the exposure, the kind of exposure (did the probe touch the skin?), the conductivity of the skin and so on. In addition, the student also mentioned that he wore some equipment which may have affected the amount of pain caused to him. I am sure that there can be a range of effects from a minimal mark to welts and blisters, depending on how, and under what circumstances, the device was used.
raven said: Easy enough to see if the "device" can brand or burn a person. Just try it on someone. The heart of science is reproducable results. I wouldn't recommend grabbing the nearest kid though. LOL. Anyone really curious could try it on themselves. Tattoos are very in these days and the worst that oculd happen is one will have a smiley face, peace symbol, Darwin Fish, or other decoration for a little while.

Ichthyic · 6 August 2008

To call this child abuse is just plain silly.

actually, it certainly depends on your definition of "child abuse", but that this is indeed a case of plain old abuse of authority is pretty damn clear.

you're really on shaky ground here, Pim.

Wheels · 6 August 2008

The device shouldn't be use that way AT ALL, Mr. Meurs. The potential for significant injury is there, and in at least one instance it did leave a serious welt. No responsible teacher would perform this on little children in his or her charge because of the risk it would expose them to, needlessly. It's an abuse of the equipment and abuse of the children.

Ichthyic · 6 August 2008

I am sure that there can be a range of effects from a minimal mark to welts and blisters, depending on how, and under what circumstances, the device was used.

and over a period of 20 years of doing this, how many "exceptions" do you think really happened, Pim?

I know the midwest well enough to realize that it simply isn't probable that this was the ONLY child harmed by these "experiments".

you wish to argue about whether or not this is actual child abuse?

fine and dandy.

It's beside the point that it's rather obvious this is an open and shut case of abuse of authority, and Freshwater should be terminated based on this abuse alone, let alone the constitutional violations inherent in the rest of his "teaching" methods.

Mike Elzinga · 6 August 2008

Matt Young said:

At best this is a poorly thought out experiment gone bad.

I do not know whether this "experiment" rises to the level of child abuse, but it was bloody stupid and unprofessional, at best. If it was truly an experiment, though, may we assume that it had been cleared by an Institutional Review Board?
I know just enough about the political dithering and uncomprehending confusions that are rampant in educational administration to suspect that the School Board and/or the administrators could never come to any decision point even after 21 years of complaints from parents, students, and other biology teachers. Surely they knew Freshwater was pushing the envelope in trying to sneak sectarian dogma into the classroom. I suspect that they just kept ignoring it hoping it would all go away. Some of these board members and administrators over the years may even have secretly approved of Freshwater’s activities.

Stacy S. · 6 August 2008

Wheels said: The device shouldn't be use that way AT ALL, Mr. Meurs. The potential for significant injury is there, and in at least one instance it did leave a serious welt. No responsible teacher would perform this on little children in his or her charge because of the risk it would expose them to, needlessly. It's an abuse of the equipment and abuse of the children.
Exactly! I'm sure he could have found and used a wet sponge or something if the intent was to show how the thing worked. Using a kids arm is just stoopid, irresponsible, and just plain mean. @Raven - I hope you are right about the audience being "stacked". If not, it looks like there is an entire town of loonies!

Eric · 6 August 2008

PvM said: Now we go from child abuse to unprofessional behavior, much better. As to the US and Canada rules, I am not familiar with them, could you provide me with a reference where I can check them out myself?
I can't, but it's worth noting that Freshwater lied about conducting that 'experiment' while defending keeping a bible on his desk. I draw the circumstantial conclusion that Freshwater himself considers the former action punishable in a way the latter is not. Otherwise I kinda agree with interrobang: 'no harm done' is not a legitimate defense for reckless experimentation. PvM, would you accept this defense coming from a chem teacher who had his students mix concentrated HCl and NaOH together and drink the result? After all, when done right, that experiment is even less harmful than Freshwater's experiment.
I see the alleged accusations that Freshwater was inappropriately teaching religion during science classes as far more troubling. I also see far more evidence to support this than the claim that Freshwater somehow intended to cause physical harm to students with this ill conceived experiment.
I agree with your first sentence. I don't think anyone's claiming he intended to cause harm. Just that his conduct was unacceptably reckless. What troubles me most is that the school allowed conduct they knew about and thought was wrong to continue for a decade or more. If someone starts teaching religion and you get rid of them next year, okay, I can live with that. Its an imperfect world and science teachers are hard to find. When you let them keep doing it for years, THATS unacceptable.

PvM · 6 August 2008

I doubt it. At best it is poor professional judgment. Abuse of authority? Again a slippery slope.
Ichthyic said: To call this child abuse is just plain silly. actually, it certainly depends on your definition of "child abuse", but that this is indeed a case of plain old abuse of authority is pretty damn clear. you're really on shaky ground here, Pim.

PvM · 6 August 2008

So let's assume for the sake of the argument that during the 20 or so years in which Freshwater (and other teachers) performed this experiment no mishap involving significant injury took place. Would it not be reasonable to accept that Freshwater never intended to hurt the students? Yes, the use on people is something the manual warns against, although I understand the manual for the device had gone missing. To me this just looks like a case of poor judgment at worst. What about driving instruction? Surely there is a real risk of potential harm to children involved in said program? Yes, the children's parents likely have waived their rights and yet. What about the sales of high fructose containing drinks in schools for the purpose of providing funding to the children? Again, one may argue that the cost outweighs the benefit. And yet, I doubt that the educators who decided to put such machines in their schools intended to hurt the students. I see the abuse argument as the weakest 'argument' against Freshwater and if that is the only remaining argument then I feel that Freshwater does not deserve to be fired for the incident. However, what concerns me far more is that he may have used a religious symbol as the default mark. A lot of the lab experiments in highschool involve the use of chemicals, electricity, gasses and burners, all which offer a certain risk to those using them. As a student I can see myself be quite interested in experiencing 50kV hitting my body and still not sustain any significant injuries. As far as I can tell, this is an isolated incident in which the mark did not disappear in a usual time frame and instead caused significant pain and discomfort to a student for an extended period of time. While the student does mention that he may have aggrevated the mark by wearing certain equipment later that day, the pictures suggest that the mark caused significant discomfort to the student. When the school failed to respond to the parents, the parents took the case to court. For instance while the parents advised the school of Freshwater's activities on December 7th, the school board did not discipline Freshwater for his actions and in january 2008, the principal wrote a letter stating that Freshwater should not use the device in this manner again and that if he complied the letter would not become part of his official record. The official report diverges here by adding that the school did talk to Freshwater on December 10, the following school day after they had received the complaint and told him to stop using the device in this manner

The school investigated the incident and met with Mr. Freshwater on the following school day (December 10, 2007) advising him it was inappropriate to have used the device on any student, that he was not to use it again and confiscating the device. The school followed up with Mr. Freshwater after the return from winter break and gave him a letter on January 22, 2008 advising him, “As per our conversation the electrostatic machine(s) should not be used for purposes of shocking students. It was further directed that the machine(s) should be removed from the classroom or locked up so that the students do not have access to these machines.”

What follows is the investigation's report on the Freshwater interview

Mr. Freshwater said that he uses a telsa coil as part of a lab experiment where he charges gasses. He puts the elements in test tubes in a row, and then charges them with the device, and the students identify the elements by the color of the gasses. He said that the device is high voltage, but low current. He said that he uses the device about twice a year and has done so for 21 years. At the end of the experiment the kids are excited and ask if they can touch it. He said that he demonstrates it on his own arm by making an “X” and then lets them touch it voluntarily. He said that the incident in question occurred in December 2007. He remembers getting from 3 to 8 volunteers, but couldn’t remember the order or all of the names. He said that the device is owned by the school, he received verbal instructions on using it 21 years ago, and has never seen any written instructions. He said that he has not had a complaint in 21 years regarding his use of the device. The device leaves a red mark after one or two seconds of touching, but no blisters. He denied any religious discussions during this or any previous occurrences. He said that he would never hurt a student.

As to the effects of the device, one of the investigators tried it on himself

In the presence of Principal Bill White, one of the investigators tried the device on own arm. There is a knob to adjust the voltage of the unit. When held at full power for one or two seconds in the manner described by Mr. Freshwater, the device left a slight redness with no burns and the redness disappeared overnight.

Wheels said: The device shouldn't be use that way AT ALL, Mr. Meurs. The potential for significant injury is there, and in at least one instance it did leave a serious welt. No responsible teacher would perform this on little children in his or her charge because of the risk it would expose them to, needlessly. It's an abuse of the equipment and abuse of the children.

PvM · 6 August 2008

Eric said: Otherwise I kinda agree with interrobang: 'no harm done' is not a legitimate defense for reckless experimentation. PvM, would you accept this defense coming from a chem teacher who had his students mix concentrated HCl and NaOH together and drink the result? After all, when done right, that experiment is even less harmful than Freshwater's experiment.
I think in both cases, when it had come to the attention of the school, appropriate actions should have been taken, depending on the circumstances. I am not sure that your example is a valid analogy as any chem teacher would realize that there are significant problems with this 'experiment'.

PvM · 6 August 2008

now from another expert

A shock from the device would feel like the static shock from touching a metal doorknob after walking across carpet on a dry winter day, said Gerald Cuzelis, who owns the company that makes the tool.

Source: Columbus Dispatch. Teacher investigated for using high-voltage device on students Sunday, May 11, 2008 3:42 AM And from the school we hear

Freshwater was not immediately disciplined nor were the police or Children Services contacted right away. That's because school officials didn't think Freshwater intended to harm the students, said schools Superintendent Stephen Short. "We believe the equipment was not used in an acceptable manner," he said. "We didn't think it had criminal implications."

PvM · 6 August 2008

Ichthyic said: I am sure that there can be a range of effects from a minimal mark to welts and blisters, depending on how, and under what circumstances, the device was used. and over a period of 20 years of doing this, how many "exceptions" do you think really happened, Pim?
So far we know of one, and no complaints from the other 7 students.
It's beside the point that it's rather obvious this is an open and shut case of abuse of authority, and Freshwater should be terminated based on this abuse alone, let alone the constitutional violations inherent in the rest of his "teaching" methods.
Firing Freshwater for this seems rather harsh. I agree that his constitutional violations form a much better foundation for his termination. Abuse of authority... Another buzzword that fails to describe the situation in any details and misses the circumstances that led to this incident.

Paul Burnett · 6 August 2008

Freshwater said: “I have never branded or burned a person”
Simple explanation: Freshwater does not think of his students as "persons."

Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 6 August 2008

Interrobang said: It doesn't matter that the device "leaves a temporary mark which quickly disappears." (So, incidentally, does slapping a student across the face, but nobody's advocating doing that.)
IMO a slap isn't the proper analogy. As the branding was done by chemically modifying the skin by HV, it is more like a chemical branding. And as such breaking more rules. Freshwater is let of the hook too easily. [And considering the healing times reported, it wasn't just the skin surface that got messed up.]
Stacy S. said: NASA press conference on possible Martian poop!
Um, I'm not sure how serious that post is. You do know that they can't detect bacteria even in Earth soil with that equipment, but are just establishing habitability, right? And perchlorates are apparently naturally produced with chloride salts and soil by lightning, uv, or ozone, on Earth. I've even seen a hypothesis that oxidizers are produced on Mars by electrostatic charges during dust stirring in its fast thermal winds. (That was to explain the Viking results, before the alkalinity of the marsian soil was established by Phoenix thus rendering such an explanation superfluous. But now useful again.) Um, connecting back to Freshwaters electrostatic 'experiments', I see.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 6 August 2008

PvM said: now from another expert

A shock from the device would feel like the static shock from touching a metal doorknob after walking across carpet on a dry winter day, said Gerald Cuzelis, who owns the company that makes the tool.

Source: Columbus Dispatch. Teacher investigated for using high-voltage device on students Sunday, May 11, 2008 3:42 AM
That is probably if the device is used under proper precaution, that is that it should never touch the skin. (IIRC the manufacturers warnings correctly.) IIRC Mike described the considerable difference over at the last Freshwater thread.
PvM said: Abuse of authority... Another buzzword that fails to describe the situation in any details and misses the circumstances that led to this incident.
I'm not sure why you lay such a barrage of comments on this. If a random person would have grabbed a child on the street and branded him it would be child abuse. The circumstances that a trusted teacher does this makes it worse, so abuse of authority comes to mind. I would probably go with both to a court, which incidentally has the function to prohibit any slippery slope arguments. Now, presumably it won't come to that, but looking for "foundation for his termination" which is another game.

Ichthyic · 6 August 2008

I am not sure that your example is a valid analogy as any chem teacher would realize that there are significant problems with this 'experiment'.

I do hope you never become a secondary school educator, Pim.

seriously.

PvM · 6 August 2008

Torbjörn Larsson, OM said: I'm not sure why you lay such a barrage of comments on this. If a random person would have grabbed a child on the street and branded him it would be child abuse. The circumstances that a trusted teacher does this makes it worse, so abuse of authority comes to mind.
But this is not about a random person grabbing a kid and branding him. Such rhetoric fails to address the real issues. But this would indeed require us to look at the evidence which suggests clearly that the analogy chosen by Larsson is flawed. This was an experiment which the teacher had performed many times in which he let children who showed interested to do the same thing he did to himself, namely mark his skin using the device. Foolish perhaps but hardly similar to the scenario provided by Larsson. I see no compelling evidence that suggests that Freshwater should be fired for his foolish experiments. What concerns me far more is the use of the cross as the default mark and other religious insertions into a science class which clearly would violate the Constitution. But perhaps it's simpler to brand someone as a child abuser than to hold him responsible for violating the Constitution? Funny how Freshwater seems to want to turn this into a 'Bible on the desk' issue and some of his detractors want to turn it into a 'child abuse' case. Both approaches seem rather foolish to me.

PvM · 6 August 2008

Ichthyic said: I am not sure that your example is a valid analogy as any chem teacher would realize that there are significant problems with this 'experiment'. I do hope you never become a secondary school educator, Pim. seriously.
As if your opinion matters to my choices of career. Seriously... But I do appreciate the not totally unexpected ad hominem response. Of course this is not really about my career choices either... Why not focus on the real issues?

tomh · 6 August 2008

PvM said: But perhaps it's simpler to brand someone as a child abuser than to hold him responsible for violating the Constitution?
Of course it's simpler, when there is clear physical evidence, as there is in this case. Constitutional issues are always shaded with opinions. This idiot violated so many rules and laws that they can fire him without a problem, no Constitutional issues needed.

Stacy S. · 6 August 2008

Torbjörn Larsson, OM said: Um, connecting back to Freshwaters electrostatic 'experiments', I see.
Of course! :-)

Larry Boy · 6 August 2008

Torbjörn Larsson, OM said: I'm not sure why you lay such a barrage of comments on this. If a random person would have grabbed a child on the street and branded him it would be child abuse. The circumstances that a trusted teacher does this makes it worse, so abuse of authority comes to mind. I would probably go with both to a court, which incidentally has the function to prohibit any slippery slope arguments. Now, presumably it won't come to that, but looking for "foundation for his termination" which is another game.
I believe PVM is commenting because of the absurdity the use of the words "child abuse." (10 points for asserting yet again that Freshwater committed child abuse.) If Freshwater had been a Sunday school teacher, and the students had been in his Sunday school class, I really don't think he would have done anything very wrong. Indications are that the shocks were not particularly painful or traumatic to the students. There are no reports that the students were coerced. The are no reports of students experiancing emotional distress from this episode. Granted, he should have been intelligent enough not put the children at risk, but, for clarity sake, here is a list of things that would have been a more serious health risk: Spreading water on the floor and asking students to walk across it. Asking students to climb a ladder. Asking students to run up and down stairs. "That man told a student to run up those stairs, child abuser!" Mr Freshwater put his student at risk of mild injury. Injury less serious than falling down on pavement. This does not strike me as psycopathic. Victims of child abuse usually suffer from a host of psycological consequences. PTSD, depression, schizophrenia (depending on severity) etc. Before calling this man a child abuser yet again, would someone like to explain to me in detail how they believe that Mr. Freshwater's students have suffered? Now, Mr. Freshwater should be fired. He should be fired for failing to teach science, and for preaching to his class. But preaching to a class, although inappropriate enough to result in termination, is hardly evil. After all, even young children can recognize BS when they here it, and for some it might be good for them.

PvM · 6 August 2008

I consider teaching creationism a constitutional problem bit perhaps it can be dealt with at the level of rules and laws?
tomh said:
PvM said: But perhaps it's simpler to brand someone as a child abuser than to hold him responsible for violating the Constitution?
Of course it's simpler, when there is clear physical evidence, as there is in this case. Constitutional issues are always shaded with opinions. This idiot violated so many rules and laws that they can fire him without a problem, no Constitutional issues needed.

Wheels · 6 August 2008

PvM said: So let's assume for the sake of the argument that during the 20 or so years in which Freshwater (and other teachers) performed this experiment no mishap involving significant injury took place.
What other teachers?
Would it not be reasonable to accept that Freshwater never intended to hurt the students?
Wikipedia Neglect has three different categories, which include physical, educational, and emotional neglect. An example of physical neglect would be the failure to provide adequate food, clothing, or hygiene. An example of educational neglect would be the failure to enroll the child into school. An example of emotional neglect would be inadequate nurturing or affection.[6] There is a wide range of physical abuse, including striking, burning, shaking, pinching, pulling hair or ear, or cutting off a child’s hair. [7] Within sexual abuse there are many different types, including, behavior involving penetration, fondling, violations of privacy, exposing children to adult sexuality, and exploitation. [8] Psychological or Emotional abuse is probably the least understood of all child abuse because there are never visible marks, but it can be the cruelest and most destructive of all types of abuse. [8] Emotional abuse includes verbal abuse, withholding affection, extreme punishment and corruption, ignoring, rejecting, terrorizing, and isolating.[9] It may also entail the abuser minimizing, or "downplaying" the severity of abuse along with the act of invalidation. Invalidation is to reject, ignore, mock, tease, judge, or diminish someone's feelings. It is an attempt to control how they feel and for how long they feel it. [10]
I don't see where an intent to cause harm is necessary for abuse here. In fact it may very well be that the thought of harming them never occurred to him if he's divorced enough from reality and other people. I don't see why we should assume that this is the only single time a child has ever been hurt during these demonstrations. Freshwater is a liar, that much is established and we have no reason to trust HIS account. Many children in the class may not have wanted to admit that they were hurt, especially not to Freshwater or their classmates and parents. Some may have denied that they were even hurt and managed to "forget" it. We can't assume that this is the only time a child has gotten hurt while Mr. Freshwater misused the device. We can only say that this is the only instance we know about where it happened to Mr. Freshwater's students. Regardless, This is not just "poor judgment." This is a clear abuse of equipment while using the students' bodies to carry out said abuse. It is treating the children's flesh like it was just another thing to be improperly subjected to potentially dangerous equipment.
A lot of the lab experiments in highschool involve the use of chemicals, electricity, gasses and burners, all which offer a certain risk to those using them.
And there is almost always emphasis on making sure that equipment is used properly and that safety precautions are well-explained. If one of my lab instructors wanted to demonstrate the tensile strength of human skin by shattering a test tube and jabbing students' arms, you had better believe they wouldn't escape reprimand! It doesn't matter of the instructor had done it for twenty years and not a single student complained of punctured skin until just last semester, it would not have been allowed to happen and its practice would rightly be considered both irresponsible AND abusive. Especially considering the sort of manipulation Mr. Freshwater apparently exercised over his students with his other abuses of authority.

Mary · 6 August 2008

I do know someone who tried this "experiment" on his arm. He turned knob the highest it would go. It did leave a red mark that he called a "burn". It lasted 14 days. It even peeled. He said it was hard to leave the device on his skin for that long, it does hurt.

The point should be a teacher shouldn't do this to a child at school. If you call it child abuse or not, should not be the issue.

PvM · 6 August 2008

Wheels said: I don't see why we should assume that this is the only single time a child has ever been hurt during these demonstrations. Freshwater is a liar, that much is established and we have no reason to trust HIS account.
While you may want to reject Freshwater's own testimony, the simple fact is that there is no additional evidence. So why should we presume that there are more?
Many children in the class may not have wanted to admit that they were hurt, especially not to Freshwater or their classmates and parents. Some may have denied that they were even hurt and managed to "forget" it. We can't assume that this is the only time a child has gotten hurt while Mr. Freshwater misused the device. We can only say that this is the only instance we know about where it happened to Mr. Freshwater's students.
Is this the Cheney known knowns and known unknowns 'argument'? Of course we have to rely on what we do know. We can all speculate but these are the facts as we know them. I find the obsession of some with Freshwater and child abuse fascinating, almost as interesting as the "Bible on the desk" obsession by some of the Freshwater defenders. In both cases they are totally missing the point. We do know that the manufacturer stated that applying the wand to skin would cause a tingle not dissimilar from an electric spark when walking on a carpet and touching a door knob. While high voltage the currents tend to be extremely low, in addition the skin effect of high frequency may very well tend to limit penetration depth. Nevertheless, we also have heard that such a device can leave painful marks. So perhaps the differences can be explained by direct touch versus a spark between the skin and the tip of the device? What we do know is that none of the other 7 children filed a complaint and none of the other students over the last 21 years or so have done this either. As to the 'other teachers', this comes from my transcription of Freshwater's lawyer's comments

Lawyer: There was a particular experiment he has been doing for 21 years. And John will speak more precisely to that. But let’s not load the question with an improper premise that he branded a religious symbol upon anybody. He conducted the same scientific experiment that he in addition to several other teachers did in Mt Vernon.

PvM · 6 August 2008

Similarly an investigator of Freshwater tried the same and found that the device left a mark which disappeared overnight. Perhaps the difference is in the level and amount of contact between the tip and the skin? So what if the experiment had been done for years without any such 'burns' how does this affect your 'argument'? In fact the manufacturer explained that the effect would be not much different from walking over a carpet and touching a door knob. With such discrepancies, perhaps we need to be more careful before we jump to conclusions that the effects of this 'experiment' inevitable cause a burn that lasts for several weeks.
Mary said: I do know someone who tried this "experiment" on his arm. He turned knob the highest it would go. It did leave a red mark that he called a "burn". It lasted 14 days. It even peeled. He said it was hard to leave the device on his skin for that long, it does hurt. The point should be a teacher shouldn't do this to a child at school. If you call it child abuse or not, should not be the issue.

richCares · 6 August 2008

the device was not on the kid's skin for "just a second", it had to be repeatedly used in order to draw that cross, multiple shocks wer used and that is child abuse!

RBH · 6 August 2008

Mike Elzinga wrote
I suspect that they just kept ignoring it hoping it would all go away. Some of these board members and administrators over the years may even have secretly approved of Freshwater’s activities.
It was a combination. Mostly it was the former -- hoping it would go away or at least stay quiet. A superintendent who knew it (the religious stuff) was going on managed to hold out until he retired without doing anything effective about the situation. For a few administrators, including at least former assistant principal at the middle school who was a member of Freshwater's fundamentalist church congregation, it was the latter: quiet approval and support. Pim wrote
Firing Freshwater for this seems rather harsh. I agree that his constitutional violations form a much better foundation for his termination.
There are four separate sets of charges in the report of the independent investigators. At least two would be grounds by themselves (e.g., teaching creationism after the BOE had explicitly rejected his request to do so in 2003) but it is the concatenation of the four that's damning. I also have to say that there's an amazing amount of speculation and conjecture and flat out making shit up in this thread. It's interesting to watch for one who knows all the parties involved in Mt. Vernon and lives in the district and attends BOE meetings. :) Nothing like being on the spot.

PvM · 6 August 2008

Again, you are presuming that the device touched the skin. I am not sure what you mean by multiple shocks, the device provides a steady 10-50kV voltage and when close to a conductor, a spark or discharge will take place. I suggest people familiarize themselves a bit before making child abuse accusations. Even the investigative report and Child protective services do not seem to think that this instance amounted to child abuse, and certainly not to intentional inflicting of pain and suffering.
richCares said: the device was not on the kid's skin for "just a second", it had to be repeatedly used in order to draw that cross, multiple shocks wer used and that is child abuse!

PvM · 6 August 2008

RBH said: I also have to say that there's an amazing amount of speculation and conjecture and flat out making shit up in this thread. It's interesting to watch for one who knows all the parties involved in Mt. Vernon and lives in the district and attends BOE meetings. :) Nothing like being on the spot.
Without first hand reports, we can at best rely on newspaper articles, statements made by those involved, and the reports which have been provided to the general public. Any correction of misinformation is extremely welcome and appreciated.

Mary · 6 August 2008

PvM said: Similarly an investigator of Freshwater tried the same and found that the device left a mark which disappeared overnight. Perhaps the difference is in the level and amount of contact between the tip and the skin? So what if the experiment had been done for years without any such 'burns' how does this affect your 'argument'? In fact the manufacturer explained that the effect would be not much different from walking over a carpet and touching a door knob. With such discrepancies, perhaps we need to be more careful before we jump to conclusions that the effects of this 'experiment' inevitable cause a burn that lasts for several weeks.
Mary said: I do know someone who tried this "experiment" on his arm. He turned knob the highest it would go. It did leave a red mark that he called a "burn". It lasted 14 days. It even peeled. He said it was hard to leave the device on his skin for that long, it does hurt. The point should be a teacher shouldn't do this to a child at school. If you call it child abuse or not, should not be the issue.
I would say YOU are speculating on this one incident implying it couldn't have happened. I have seen first hand the results last for 14 days, how is that jumping to conclusions?

Mary · 6 August 2008

PvM said: Again, you are presuming that the device touched the skin. I am not sure what you mean by multiple shocks, the device provides a steady 10-50kV voltage and when close to a conductor, a spark or discharge will take place. I suggest people familiarize themselves a bit before making child abuse accusations. Even the investigative report and Child protective services do not seem to think that this instance amounted to child abuse, and certainly not to intentional inflicting of pain and suffering.
richCares said: the device was not on the kid's skin for "just a second", it had to be repeatedly used in order to draw that cross, multiple shocks wer used and that is child abuse!
Child protective services were never contacted. Do you have a child?

Mary · 6 August 2008

Mary said:
PvM said: Again, you are presuming that the device touched the skin. I am not sure what you mean by multiple shocks, the device provides a steady 10-50kV voltage and when close to a conductor, a spark or discharge will take place. I suggest people familiarize themselves a bit before making child abuse accusations. Even the investigative report and Child protective services do not seem to think that this instance amounted to child abuse, and certainly not to intentional inflicting of pain and suffering.
richCares said: the device was not on the kid's skin for "just a second", it had to be repeatedly used in order to draw that cross, multiple shocks wer used and that is child abuse!
Child protective services were never contacted. Do you have a child?
I am sorry I meant to add that I went back and looked at the pictures. Are you saying you think this is OK in a classroom?

PvM · 6 August 2008

The jumping to conclusions part is that you have tested an example in which the user actually touches the skin which like the example of the Blue Collar Scientist causes welts. After all we have a similar example from the investigators who concluded that it left minor marks and the manufacturer who compares it to the electric discharge of rubbing feet on a carpet and touching a door knob. So perhaps the missing factor is the 'touching' of the skin by the tip?
Mary said:
PvM said: Similarly an investigator of Freshwater tried the same and found that the device left a mark which disappeared overnight. Perhaps the difference is in the level and amount of contact between the tip and the skin? So what if the experiment had been done for years without any such 'burns' how does this affect your 'argument'? In fact the manufacturer explained that the effect would be not much different from walking over a carpet and touching a door knob. With such discrepancies, perhaps we need to be more careful before we jump to conclusions that the effects of this 'experiment' inevitable cause a burn that lasts for several weeks.
Mary said: I do know someone who tried this "experiment" on his arm. He turned knob the highest it would go. It did leave a red mark that he called a "burn". It lasted 14 days. It even peeled. He said it was hard to leave the device on his skin for that long, it does hurt. The point should be a teacher shouldn't do this to a child at school. If you call it child abuse or not, should not be the issue.
I would say YOU are speculating on this one incident implying it couldn't have happened. I have seen first hand the results last for 14 days, how is that jumping to conclusions?

PvM · 6 August 2008

Mary said: I am sorry I meant to add that I went back and looked at the pictures. Are you saying you think this is OK in a classroom?
Nope

PvM · 6 August 2008

Mary said:
PvM said: Again, you are presuming that the device touched the skin. I am not sure what you mean by multiple shocks, the device provides a steady 10-50kV voltage and when close to a conductor, a spark or discharge will take place. I suggest people familiarize themselves a bit before making child abuse accusations. Even the investigative report and Child protective services do not seem to think that this instance amounted to child abuse, and certainly not to intentional inflicting of pain and suffering.
richCares said: the device was not on the kid's skin for "just a second", it had to be repeatedly used in order to draw that cross, multiple shocks wer used and that is child abuse!
Child protective services were never contacted. Do you have a child?
According to the reports I have read Child Protective services were contacted by the school who decline to be involved.

Not until April -- four months after the boy's parents complained -- did Short speak with an employee of Knox County Children Services, Philemond said. She would not name the student out of concern that he could be treated badly because of his parents' complaint. Short said that in an informal conversation with a Children Services employee, he said he didn't think Freshwater had intended to hurt anyone and the employee said the agency wouldn't investigate such an incident.

PvM · 6 August 2008

Mary said: I would say YOU are speculating on this one incident implying it couldn't have happened. I have seen first hand the results last for 14 days, how is that jumping to conclusions?
I am not arguing that the incident did not happen, I am trying to figure out why this seems to be the only instance in which the experiment caused welts and burns like seen on the pictures. I see one likely explanation: The device touched the skin.

Ichthyic · 6 August 2008

Of course this is not really about my career choices either… Why not focus on the real issues?

why twist the issues to some bizarre standard that doesn't apply, Pim?

seriously, I hate to say it, but YOU are the single reason I rarely come here any more.

-you love to argue with trolls

-you are a religious apologist

-you have a bizarre sense of reality

-you've come to dominate this blog WAY too much over the last year or so.

I'm with the others that have abandoned this place.

bye.

PvM · 6 August 2008

Ichthyic said: Of course this is not really about my career choices either… Why not focus on the real issues? why twist the issues to some bizarre standard that doesn't apply, Pim?
Such as calling it child abuse?
seriously, I hate to say it, but YOU are the single reason I rarely come here any more. -you love to argue with trolls
Pardon me for talking to you.
-you are a religious apologist
Oh the shame... Is this somehow relevant? Would you prefer me to be an atheistic apologist?
-you have a bizarre sense of reality
Well thank you. Considering the source I will take this as a compliment.
-you've come to dominate this blog WAY too much over the last year or so. I'm with the others that have abandoned this place. bye.
Goodbye.

Sylvilagus · 7 August 2008

PvM said: But this is not about a random person grabbing a kid and branding him. Such rhetoric fails to address the real issues. But this would indeed require us to look at the evidence which suggests clearly that the analogy chosen by Larsson is flawed. This was an experiment which the teacher had performed many times in which he let children who showed interested to do the same thing he did to himself, namely mark his skin using the device.
What you don't seem to understand here is that THIS is exactly the abuse of authority. Any teacher knows, or should know, they they do not have the authority to "let children who showed interest" do this. No teacher has this authority, because minors cannot consent to such actions. Period. The teacher's responsibility is to use their authority to prevent children in the classroom from risking harm, not allowing them to. Furthermore, the children did not "do it", it was done TO THEM. Look, I'm not one to call this "child abuse", but it certainly is abuse of authority and an ethical violation of teacher's professional standards. The fact that he and other teachers did it for years doesn't make it right; that merely shows that the district is rather a backwater when it comes to upholding well established guidelines. I know that you are rather worked up over the (in your opinion misplaced) attention given to this aspect of the case. I agree that the constitutional issues are ultimately more significant violations, but try to understand that while you might not see the "branding" as such a serious matter, to other teachers such as myself such behavior on his part is difficult to comprehend. The violation of the constitution is serious, but coming from the South originally, I suppose I expect the creationists to do this. To a teacher though, the physical contact with the students is more striking, in that even creationist nut case teachers generally recognize the the ethical and legal limits involved. If only for legal self-protection in our litigious society. Short version: Bible on desk: all too typical though of course seriously wrong. "Branding students": evidence of a stunning cluelessness on the part of a teacher.

Larry Boy · 7 August 2008

richCares said: the device was not on the kid's skin for "just a second", it had to be repeatedly used in order to draw that cross, multiple shocks were used and that is child abuse!
Ichthyic said: actually, it certainly depends on your definition of “child abuse”
Then, under some reasonable definition it would be child abuse?
Torbjörn Larsson said: If a random person would have grabbed a child on the street and branded him it would be child abuse. The circumstances that a trusted teacher does this makes it worse, so abuse of authority comes to mind.
So it is worse than child abuse? I played with a van de graaf generator in high school physics, and if memory serves the shocks it was giving out were over a foot in length, meaning that it had a much much higher voltage than the wussy tesla coil freshwater used. My highscool teacher had us line up holding hands to conduct the shock threw some 15 students to a metal desk. That generator gave me a ton of painful shocks when we were making electrostatic motors! What blatant disregard for my safety! He is a child abuser who should be sent to jail! Seriosly though, it is difficult for me to imagine calling what Freshwater did child abuse. It cannot be the severity, probability or pain of an injury that is causing people to regard Freashwater's behavoir as child abuse. Placing your child on a Football team, for instance, constitutes a much MUCH more serious health risk. So if it is not the physical injury itself that is egregious, and it cannot be, then what places Freshwater's behavior in the category of child abuse? This is a serious question, and considering that we have had at least four different posters explicitly or implicitly approve of such labeling, I'm interested in hearing a detailed answer. I'm not asking for a technical rational, simply explain to me the source and extent of trauma that these children may have theoretically suffered to justify such a label.

Flint · 7 August 2008

Larry Boy:

So if it is not the physical injury itself that is egregious, and it cannot be, then what places Freshwater’s behavior in the category of child abuse? This is a serious question, and considering that we have had at least four different posters explicitly or implicitly approve of such labeling, I’m interested in hearing a detailed answer.

I did my best to answer this exact question on the first page of this thread. I think I DID answer this question.

Larry Boy · 7 August 2008

Flint said: But history tells us that many societies have some sort of physical and/or psychological trauma as an initiation ritual, and that trauma renders the initiation much more sincere and psychologically binding. And it need not be harmful, excessively painful, or permanent to serve that purpose. What matters is that you underwent the ritual, proved your worthiness, and qualify as a True Christian in a way that can be damn near impossible to deprogram. Freshwater clearly understands this, and so do his fellow insider fraternity members.
If I understand your post correctly you are arguing that an initiation ritual involving trauma is child abuse. Hence, the claim of child abuse is pivital on Freshwaters actions being explicitly a form of Christian initiation. If Freshwater had not made crosses on students arms, had this not been a Christian act, then no child abuse would have occurred. I partially concur, in that it was the Christian nature of Freshwater's act which made it unacceptable, but I reject two points of your argument. First, I would think that traumizing a child is abusive regardless of the ends of inflicting trauma. Secondly, I disagree that Freshwater's actions resulted in trauma to the children. Without trauma I can see no reason to call this child abuse. I can also see little reason to rationally believe that children where traumatized as a result of Freshwaters actions, but if you wish to believe that they were I certainly cant prove the absence of an unspecified trauma. For further clarity, could you specify the nature of the trauma that you believe occurred?

Flint · 7 August 2008

Larry Boy:

If I understand your post correctly you are arguing that an initiation ritual involving trauma is child abuse.

Read again. I labeled "child abuse" a technicality (I agree these kids experienced far less abuse than might be suffered practicing football or even undergoing playground teasing). I said it was a hook on which punishment could be hung, while the real damage lies elsewhere.

Without trauma I can see no reason to call this child abuse.

Then I despair of communicating. We are CALLING it "child abuse" (even though it really isn't) in order to punish the genuine damage, which as I see it amounts to a psychological binding to a cult effected through an initiation rite. We (hopefully) understand that we are largely mislabeling the formal initiation ceremony as "abuse" because we are offended that a public school teacher should be initiating children into a religious cult. The goal is to remove the offender from such an opportunity. I hope the symbolic nature of this initiation is clear. It's exactly like baptism, except actual baptism would be hard to hang any discipline on, because (1) it's so commonly accepted as "normal" in religious communities, and (2) it does nothing that could be justified as "injurious" in a community where such injury is the norm. The symbolism is no less powerful.

For further clarity, could you specify the nature of the trauma that you believe occurred?

I really thought I had done so. The nature of the trauma is almost entirely symbolic. Freshwater was conducting a rite of passage binding children's minds into a select society, in a way I called "nearly impossible to deprogram." I might note that Dawkins has described this sort of indelible brainwashing as child abuse as well, solely because of the sheer difficulty of undoing it. If you are inducted into a society dedicated to irrational or false beliefs, in such a way that your very perceptions will introduce severe distortions as you make them for the rest of your life, you have been abused. The scars are mental, the damage isn't immediately visible, but it's just as real.

Mary · 7 August 2008

PvM said:
Mary said: I would say YOU are speculating on this one incident implying it couldn't have happened. I have seen first hand the results last for 14 days, how is that jumping to conclusions?
I am not arguing that the incident did not happen, I am trying to figure out why this seems to be the only instance in which the experiment caused welts and burns like seen on the pictures. I see one likely explanation: The device touched the skin.
I called the person I know who did this. He said he DID NOT touch the tip to the skin. I would assume perhaps the length of time the skin was exposed could be part of the difference.

wonderin · 7 August 2008

PvM said:
Mary said:
PvM said: Again, you are presuming that the device touched the skin. I am not sure what you mean by multiple shocks, the device provides a steady 10-50kV voltage and when close to a conductor, a spark or discharge will take place. I suggest people familiarize themselves a bit before making child abuse accusations. Even the investigative report and Child protective services do not seem to think that this instance amounted to child abuse, and certainly not to intentional inflicting of pain and suffering.
richCares said: the device was not on the kid's skin for "just a second", it had to be repeatedly used in order to draw that cross, multiple shocks wer used and that is child abuse!
Child protective services were never contacted. Do you have a child?
According to the reports I have read Child Protective services were contacted by the school who decline to be involved.

Not until April -- four months after the boy's parents complained -- did Short speak with an employee of Knox County Children Services, Philemond said. She would not name the student out of concern that he could be treated badly because of his parents' complaint. Short said that in an informal conversation with a Children Services employee, he said he didn't think Freshwater had intended to hurt anyone and the employee said the agency wouldn't investigate such an incident.

I too, like RBH, live here and have been following the situation. I am not sure where you got your last quotes regarding Children Services. I do know that it was an informal question to an acquaintance, not a report to children services. I also know people who saw some of the kids arms after this. (more than one) The marks definitely did not go away overnight.

PvM · 7 August 2008

wonderin said: I too, like RBH, live here and have been following the situation. I am not sure where you got your last quotes regarding Children Services. I do know that it was an informal question to an acquaintance, not a report to children services. I also know people who saw some of the kids arms after this. (more than one) The marks definitely did not go away overnight.
I got the quote from a newspaper article in the "Columbus Dispatch" I believe. Let me check Yes: Teacher investigated for using high-voltage device on students Sunday, May 11, 2008 3:42 AM

wonderin · 7 August 2008

PvM said:
wonderin said: I too, like RBH, live here and have been following the situation. I am not sure where you got your last quotes regarding Children Services. I do know that it was an informal question to an acquaintance, not a report to children services. I also know people who saw some of the kids arms after this. (more than one) The marks definitely did not go away overnight.
I got the quote from a newspaper article in the "Columbus Dispatch" I believe. Let me check Yes: Teacher investigated for using high-voltage device on students Sunday, May 11, 2008 3:42 AM
Ahh yes, I see the date on that article was BEFORE all of the allegations, information, and report were out. If I can find the quote were someone said later that it was not a call to Childrens Services I will post it.

Wheels · 7 August 2008

PvM said:While you may want to reject Freshwater's own testimony, the simple fact is that there is no additional evidence. So why should we presume that there are more?
I'm not saying we should assume that there are more. I'm saying that this can't be treated as an isolated incident because the the potential for the damage to happen is demonstrably there, and not just in the case of this one student but in other cases where people have produced similar or more severe injuries with the device. We have to acknowledge that there may have possibly been others, and that this is the only case involving the students that we know of.
Is this the Cheney known knowns and known unknowns 'argument'? Of course we have to rely on what we do know. We can all speculate but these are the facts as we know them.
The facts as we know them are not that this is an ioslated incident, the facts as we know them are that this is the only reported incidence. There is a subtle but significant difference.
I find the obsession of some with Freshwater and child abuse fascinating, almost as interesting as the "Bible on the desk" obsession by some of the Freshwater defenders. In both cases they are totally missing the point.
Just because I'm disagreeing with you about the child abuse bit doesn't mean I disagree with the importance of the other issues, and I would really appreciate it if you didn't lump me together with the people defending Freshwater in any way. Maybe "the facts as you know them" only include my disagreement with you about the burning of students, but "the facts that you don't know" don't support an obsession with them on my part. I've already had raven call me a "death cultist troll" among other things, I'd rather not have you making making the same mistake by jumping to conclusions and using assertions about my character either.
We do know that the manufacturer stated that applying the wand to skin would cause a tingle not dissimilar from an electric spark when walking on a carpet and touching a door knob. While high voltage the currents tend to be extremely low, in addition the skin effect of high frequency may very well tend to limit penetration depth. Nevertheless, we also have heard that such a device can leave painful marks. So perhaps the differences can be explained by direct touch versus a spark between the skin and the tip of the device?
This is irrelevant to my point.
As to the 'other teachers', this comes from my transcription of Freshwater's lawyer's comments

Lawyer: There was a particular experiment he has been doing for 21 years. And John will speak more precisely to that. But let’s not load the question with an improper premise that he branded a religious symbol upon anybody. He conducted the same scientific experiment that he in addition to several other teachers did in Mt Vernon.

The only source for that is from Freshwater's lawyer, then? You'll have to excuse me if I take that assertion as something other than an accurate representation of the facts. And you haven't said anything which convinces me that this is not an abuse of his students.

PvM · 7 August 2008

I am not here to convince you, I am merely here to point out the facts as I know them. What you do with it depends on a variety of circumstances, backgrounds etc. Sure the potential for damage was always here, but the question is really, to what extent did Freshwater realize this potential. As he explained in his interview he was trained orally to use the device, which lacked a manual and as far as he was aware, the device would cause minimal harm and damage (in fact the manufacturer and the investigator's report both suggest that a typical effect may indeed be quite limited in extent). Since this is the only case we know of, something self evident, speculations otherwise are just that, speculations. At best, we can conclude, as did the report, that Freshwater did not intent to cause harm. And to the best of our knowledge this was an isolated incident. However, I am sure that in the discovery phase of the lawsuit, we will found out if there are any (un)known-unknowns. As I said before, I find the arguments of child abuse to be somewhat foolish, although I can appreciate that some feel strongly about this issue. As to the concept of Child Abuse, perhaps we can attempt to agree on its definition?

Child Abuse and Neglect (Legal Definition) is a restrictive definition dictated by individual states and countries. Child abuse and neglect, in the legal sense, refers to any action on the part of an adult or caretaker that intentionally inflicts, or causes to result, non-accidental physical or psychological injury, physiological deprivation or sexual violation to a child, excluding corporal punishment. Each state carries a different definition of what specifically constitutes child abuse and neglect. For example, the legal age of sexual consent varies state to state. Additionally, in some states, acts defined as severe child abuse are viewed as legally permissible corporal punishment in other states. In some school districts, acts defined as child abuse when committed by a parent are viewed as legally permissible corporal punishment when committed by a teacher or school administrator.

Source: Link State laws can differ on this topic where issues such as intention as well as severity can vary across states.
Wheels said:

Lawyer: There was a particular experiment he has been doing for 21 years. And John will speak more precisely to that. But let’s not load the question with an improper premise that he branded a religious symbol upon anybody. He conducted the same scientific experiment that he in addition to several other teachers did in Mt Vernon.

The only source for that is from Freshwater's lawyer, then? You'll have to excuse me if I take that assertion as something other than an accurate representation of the facts. And you haven't said anything which convinces me that this is not an abuse of his students.

PvM · 7 August 2008

That would be helpful.
wonderin said:
PvM said:
wonderin said: I too, like RBH, live here and have been following the situation. I am not sure where you got your last quotes regarding Children Services. I do know that it was an informal question to an acquaintance, not a report to children services. I also know people who saw some of the kids arms after this. (more than one) The marks definitely did not go away overnight.
I got the quote from a newspaper article in the "Columbus Dispatch" I believe. Let me check Yes: Teacher investigated for using high-voltage device on students Sunday, May 11, 2008 3:42 AM
Ahh yes, I see the date on that article was BEFORE all of the allegations, information, and report were out. If I can find the quote were someone said later that it was not a call to Childrens Services I will post it.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 7 August 2008

PvM said: Funny how Freshwater seems to want to turn this into a 'Bible on the desk' issue and some of his detractors want to turn it into a 'child abuse' case. Both approaches seem rather foolish to me.
In the comment you refer to I laid out the distinction between child abuse (as defined by a court) and this case. I don't know why you failed to see that, nor why you refer to this and the basic example as "rhetoric". In fact AFAIU your reply is an example of rhetoric in as much as you didn't reply to the content of my comment.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 7 August 2008

Larry Boy said: I believe PVM is commenting because of the absurdity the use of the words "child abuse."
I frankly don't see the absurdity. If you claim it is absurd to analyze the events for child abuse outside court, I even would contest that as we need references to make personal judgment underlying our own actions. But I see that you refer to the skin reactions as "shocks" rather than branding. That may be the difference. Again, my reference was an adult randomly branding a child.

RBH · 7 August 2008

Video of the Board's public comment period, along with some of the parking lot prayer meeting, is here in seven segments.

RBH · 7 August 2008

Well, I posted it a few minutes ago but don't see it yet, so I'll try again. Video of the public comments period at the Board meeting, along with some of the prayer meeting in the parking lot, is here in seven segments.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 7 August 2008

Larry Boy said:
Torbjörn Larsson said: If a random person would have grabbed a child on the street and branded him it would be child abuse. The circumstances that a trusted teacher does this makes it worse, so abuse of authority comes to mind.
So it is worse than child abuse?
In the sense of added offense, yes. Let me just finish on a general note to all, as I see this is misunderstood several times in this thread, that I think some here obsess over terms such as "child abuse" and "abuse of authority". What it is, and what it is called, is a non issue, especially as it isn't grounds for what will happen with Freshwater or the children of Mount Vernon.

PvM · 7 August 2008

Wheels said:
Lawyer: There was a particular experiment he has been doing for 21 years. And John will speak more precisely to that. But let’s not load the question with an improper premise that he branded a religious symbol upon anybody. He conducted the same scientific experiment that he in addition to several other teachers did in Mt Vernon.
The only source for that is from Freshwater's lawyer, then? You'll have to excuse me if I take that assertion as something other than an accurate representation of the facts. And you haven't said anything which convinces me that this is not an abuse of his students.
See also Youtube where another teacher admits having used the device in the same manner as Freshwater. Cheers

PvM · 7 August 2008

Wow what foolishness here...
RBH said: Well, I posted it a few minutes ago but don't see it yet, so I'll try again. Video of the public comments period at the Board meeting, along with some of the prayer meeting in the parking lot, is here in seven segments.

GuyeFaux · 7 August 2008

Re Child abuse, I googled "What is child abuse?" and found childwellfare.gov. Re physical abuse:

Physical abuse is nonaccidental physical injury (ranging from minor bruises to severe fractures or death) as a result of punching, beating, kicking, biting, shaking, throwing, stabbing, choking, hitting (with a hand, stick, strap, or other object), burning, or otherwise harming a child, that is inflicted by a parent, caregiver, or other person who has responsibility for the child.2 Such injury is considered abuse regardless of whether the caregiver intended to hurt the child. Physical discipline, such as spanking or paddling, is not considered abuse as long as it is reasonable and causes no bodily injury to the child.

Which to me clearly indicates abuse on behalf of Freshwater, since intent doesn't seem to enter into it. However, the site makes clear that the definition of child abuse is left up to the state. The relevant bits from Ohio's laws seem to be (and I'm copy & pasting liberally from childwellfare.gov):

Physical Abuse Citation: Rev. Stat. §§ 2151.031; 2919.22 Abused child includes any child who:

  • Is endangered as defined § 2919.22
  • Exhibits evidence of any physical or mental injury or death, inflicted by other than accidental means, or is at variance with the history given of it
  • Because of the acts of a parent, guardian, or custodian, suffers physical or mental injury that harms or threatens to harm the child's health or welfare
  • Is subjected to out-of-home care child abuse
Endangering children includes any of the following acts committed against a child under age 18 or a mentally or physically handicapped child under age 21:
  • Abuse, torture, or cruel abuse
  • Corporal punishment, other physical disciplinary measure, or physical restraint in a cruel manner or for a prolonged period that creates a substantial risk of serious physical harm to the child
  • Repeated and unwarranted disciplinary measures that, if continued, creates a substantial risk of serious impairment of the child's mental health or development
  • Allowing the child to be on the same parcel of real property and within 100 feet of, or, in the case of more than one housing unit on the same parcel of real property, in the same housing unit and within 100 feet of, the illegal manufacture of drugs, cultivation of marijuana, or possession of chemicals for the illegal manufacture, when the person knows that the act is occurring, whether or not any person is prosecuted for or convicted of the violation

Judge for yourself. IMHO Freshwater probably did not physically abuse children, but he came very close to doing so. Actually he fits much better under the definition of emotional abuse:

Emotional Abuse Citation: Rev. Stat. § 2151.011 Mental injury means any behavioral, cognitive, emotional, or mental disorder in a child caused by an act or omission that is described in § 2919.22 and is committed by a parent or other person that is responsible for the child's care.

Particularly his encouragement of the codeword "Here" to indicate duplicity strikes me as abusive. He encouraged his students to lie which IMHO constitutes abuse.

Wheels · 7 August 2008

PvM said:
Wheels said:The only source for that is from Freshwater's lawyer, then? You'll have to excuse me if I take that assertion as something other than an accurate representation of the facts. And you haven't said anything which convinces me that this is not an abuse of his students.
See also Youtube where another teacher admits having used the device in the same manner as Freshwater. Cheers
That's more like it. I accept the claim that other teachers have engaged in this "experiment." Anything else?

PvM · 7 August 2008

Thanks, nope that's it so far. I am still recovering from watching RBH's youtube links. Now that is emotional abuse...
Wheels said:
PvM said:
Wheels said:The only source for that is from Freshwater's lawyer, then? You'll have to excuse me if I take that assertion as something other than an accurate representation of the facts. And you haven't said anything which convinces me that this is not an abuse of his students.
See also Youtube where another teacher admits having used the device in the same manner as Freshwater. Cheers
That's more like it. I accept the claim that other teachers have engaged in this "experiment." Anything else?

Ron Okimoto · 8 August 2008

So what was Freshwater demonstrating?

He seems to be saying that he made contact for 1 or 2 seconds with the unit to make each mark, but looking at the pattern he would have to activate the unit more than 30 times to create the pattern.

His one to two second comment is likely just his way of saying a short contact, otherwise it would take too long to make the cross pattern.

What does he claim that he was doing activating the unit so many times?

Frank B · 8 August 2008

If we define child abuse in terms of Intent with Physical and/or Psychological Harm, then I would say that the case is very weak against Freshwater. His experience with the device was that it did not hurt and all marks were temporary. But in terms of teachers' guidelines in the classroom, what Freshwater did was the worst. He is obviously guilty of using an electrical device inappropriately and experimenting on minors without consent. Throw in lying, insubordination, and preaching his religious views to the students and we have a case for calling him a first class nutjob.

In 1964 my 6th grade teacher put a drop of mercury onto our dimes to make them look shiny and new. The dangers of mercury were not well known to the public back then. In 1965 my public school science teacher made one statement about souls. These cases are nothing compared to Freshwater, he gives me the creeps.

Flint · 8 August 2008

If we define child abuse in terms of Intent with Physical and/or Psychological Harm, then I would say that the case is very weak against Freshwater.

I agree. It seems clear Freshwater and probably some other teachers there saw public school years as a novitiate, and this ritual as an initiation ceremony. I don't think it's possible to understimate the religious freight Freshwater projected onto everything in his life.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 8 August 2008

GuyeFaux said: inflicted by a parent, caregiver, or other person who has responsibility for the child.
Ah, I stand corrected. Then my reference case needs modifying accordingly.

stevaroni · 9 August 2008

This is a bit OT for this thread, but it's still about creationism in the schools.

Does anyone know if the state of Texas has filed their reply yet?

IIRC, the Comer suit was filed in very early July, and Texas had 30 days to reply, but I haven't been able to find anything updated in the last 3 weeks.

stevaroni · 9 August 2008

Oops, my bad, the question should have been...

Does anyone know if the state of Texas has filed their reply to the Chris Comer lawsuit yet?

Mongo's Brain fade on a weekend.