Freshwater: No ruling until 2011?

Wow!

I have been telling my wife, an elementary school teacher nearing retirement, that she should emulate Freshwater- abuse some students, and then "play out the clock" until she retires.

Well, she is far too responsible to ever follow my "better than good" ideas. And she is far too kind to ever harm a student.

There is a misprint in the article. I'm sure you meant to write "until 2110".

In many states it can take months and lawsuits to fire a teacher, even one who (like Freshwater) has done something egregiously wrong.

For example, NYC is replacing its "rubber rooms"--where teachers who were waiting to be fired drew full pay for doing nothing all day--with reassigning teachers who are waiting to be fired to administrative and non-classroom work--at full pay.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/16/nyregion/16rubber.html

As of the time of that article there were 550 teachers in NYC on full pay while they were waiting to be fired.

Besides the near-impossibility of firing teachers, it seems you cannot even lay them off by closing schools:

While the agreement may solve the thorny public relations problems for the city and the union, it does nothing to address the more costly absent teacher reserve pool, which consists of teachers who have lost their jobs because of budget cuts or when a school is shut down for poor performance, but have not been accused of incompetence or wrongdoing. Those teachers, who number about 1,100, do not have permanent classroom jobs but draw full salaries; the city spends roughly $100 million annually on the pool.

Other than Congress, is there any profession or industry in which incompetence and inefficiency are so carefully shielded from consequences?

Other than Congress, is there any profession or industry in which incompetence and inefficiency are so carefully shielded from consequences?

Gary Hurd said: Well, she is far too responsible to ever follow my "better than good" ideas. And she is far too kind to ever harm a student.

Other than Congress, is there any profession or industry in which incompetence and inefficiency are so carefully shielded from consequences?

Gabriel Hanna said: Other than Congress, is there any profession or industry in which incompetence and inefficiency are so carefully shielded from consequences?

Perish the thought, but if this gets strung along, we could have another school board election next Nov before this is finally settled.

cue a Canadian troll's verbal diarrhea about censorship in 3....2....1.....

seriously though the cited court case spells out that a school board can (and has a responsibility to) restrict the speech of teachers under their purview (even though I don't agree with censoring WHAT they were censoring)

Virtually all the CEOs in the current capitalist system are on interlocking boards of directors. Their competency is never an issue one way or another. And their protections cost people thousands of times the money even the worst teachers can cost anyone. But. The same people who are right now on a market fundamentalist jihad against teachers, teachers unions, and public schools prostrate themselves before those CEOs and pray to them to make the corn grow and have the moon come back.

After reading that summary I'm kinda on the teacher's side. It really does sound like the school fired her for having ninth graders read books that were not banned at the time she selected them, but banned post-facto, i.e., only after complaints by parents.

If a school bans books like Farenheit 451 or Siddhartha, I can personally think they're idiots but I can understand the disciplinary need to make teachers follow that ban. What is not valid is firing a teacher for having kids read Farenheit when there was no rule against doing so - just because after the fact some parent complains. We are not talking about a teacher showing obvious poor judgement here (like, say, assigning playboy...or burning your students with an electrical device). The books cited in the article are very commonly accepted literature for teens. The teacher should've gotten a "don't use them in the future" and that is all.

Are you seriously telling me that there are school boards in the US who (a) have the power to actually ban mainstream titles for teaching purposes and (b) are stupid enough to use that power, and then retrospectively fire teachers for having taught the titles, simply because a parent complained?

Dave Luckett said: Are you seriously telling me that there are school boards in the US who (a) have the power to actually ban mainstream titles for teaching purposes...

...and (b) are stupid enough to use that power, and then retrospectively fire teachers for having taught the titles, simply because a parent complained?

My God. My church-run high school had a copy of "Fahrenheit 451" in the library. That was in 19 bleeding 66, for chrissake. And nobody said boo.

I know that title has been on State school reading lists for decades. Don't know about "Siddhartha". Would need to check.

But if they freaked like that over "Fahrenheit", what would they do if someone taught "The Catcher in the Rye"? Or "Fanny Hill", for Pete's sake. Both of them are considered standard texts, now.

Cripes.

Dave Luckett said: Are you seriously telling me that there are school boards in the US who (a) have the power to actually ban mainstream titles for teaching purposes and (b) are stupid enough to use that power, and then retrospectively fire teachers for having taught the titles, simply because a parent complained?

I see that the list states that "Catcher in the Rye" was banned in Australia. That must have been quite some time ago. It was on the reading list for my son's tenth grade. He thought it was very boring.

As it happens, I agree with him. But that's no reason for banning it.

Marion Delgado -

I strongly agree with your comments.

I've mocked the idea that making teaching jobs less secure and lower paid will attract better people into the profession, all other things being equal, on more than one occasion. (For full disclosure I am an entrepreneur and investor, and don't have anything against intelligently regulated free markets, combined with humane social insurance policies, whatsoever. In fact I think that system has performed the best historically. Not exactly on topic, but interlocking boards of directors and looting-level executive salaries are actually strongly anti-capitalist trends, terrible for the actual owners of the companies, AKA the shareholders. The degenerate post-modern right wing "economics" of America actually worships office politics players.)

However, we have to differentiate between a general level of anti-teacher bullshit, versus a propensity to protect teachers if they exhibit the right kind (no pun intended) of incompetence and student abuse.

The same people who (ostensibly) think that paying teachers lower wages and routinely firing teachers over test scores will create better teaching, will do anything to protect the teacher whose problems come from trying to push right wing religion into science class.

I have much respect for those teachers who fight the good fight against censorship - MY high school English teacher was among them - in 9th - 11th grades we read:

To Kill a Mockingbird
To Inheirit the Wind
Catcher in the Rye
Huckleberry Finn
all (alt the time) on "Banned Book" lists

WTF??? Fahrenheit 451 is banned?? That's just fucking nuts. It's a masterpiece and it's about censorship. Morons. (Movie was boring as hell but that's a different story.)

Don't remember the sexuality in Siddhartha at all.

But they can read horrid, violent, cruel stories like "Lord of the Flies". That was actually required reading in junior high.

1977, 11th grade, small Canadian town: our English teacher read us Johnny Got His Gun

In my school around 1978 they removed "Flowers for Algernon" from the reading list because our school started having special needs students in their own class. It wasn't banned, it just was no longer taught, and there were copies all over the English classroom.

Jolo3509 said: In my school around 1978 they removed "Flowers for Algernon" from the reading list because our school started having special needs students in their own class. It wasn't banned, it just was no longer taught, and there were copies all over the English classroom.

fnxtr said:

Jolo3509 said: In my school around 1978 they removed "Flowers for Algernon" from the reading list because our school started having special needs students in their own class. It wasn't banned, it just was no longer taught, and there were copies all over the English classroom.

Another gorgeous poem in novel form. Beautiful book. And from what I remember very tasteful in its depiction of the... 'intellectually challenged'. :-\

I remember the fuss when people were talking - again - about banning Judy Blume's book "Are You There, God? It's Me, Margaret" around 1980 or so.
http://bannedbookschallenge.blogspot.com/2010/10/are-you-there-god-its-me-margaret-by.html
The talk about banning it actually led me to read the book - something I was quite unlikely to have done otherwise - when I was in 6th grade. I was struck by the fact that I really couldn't find anything in the whole book worth banning - and that I had been exposed to far more serious literature.

One incident I clearly remember was in 4th grade - I was finished with classwork a bit early, and went to the bookshelf for something to read. I picked Shirley Jackson's short story "The Lottery".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lottery

Our teacher showed us a movie version of the lottery. I can't remember how old I was but it was a religious school.

Here is more info on that other case.

Of particular interest to us Freshwater watchers may be the timeline. Seems the teacher's reading assignments started in Sept 2001, she got non-renewed Spring 2002, then filed suit in 2003. That suit went on through at least 2006 because the original court (not the appeals court) cited a 2006 ruling. Sometime between 2006 and 2010 it got sent to the circuit court for appeal, and they decided on it in Oct 2010.

I may have to revise my opinion of the Freshwater proceedings. Resolving 3 court cases and an administrative hearing in approximately 2-3 years sounds practically like a sprint in comparison.

Look at this- Good people sometimes make bad decisions and they were put on leave until the investigation is over. !3 year olds shouldn't be making those kinds of decisions........

PARMA, Ohio (AP) -- Two middle school teachers have been placed on paid administrative leave for demonstrating acupuncture on students as part of a class lesson, a school superintendent said.

Superintendent Jeffrey Graham, of the Parma City Schools in suburban Cleveland, said the social studies teachers demonstrated acupuncture in a lesson on Chinese culture, Ohio News Network reported Tuesday.

The students were willing participants, but the teachers did not have their parents' permission, Graham said, adding 13-year-old students shouldn't be making those types of decisions.

The teachers performed acupuncture on themselves and seven students, and the needles were sealed and sterile, with each needle used only once, Graham said.

"These were very good teachers. Unfortunately, good people sometimes make bad decisions," Graham told Cleveland's WTAM-FM.

School officials were informed of the demonstration after a parent complained.

The school is continuing to investigate while the Hillside Middle School teachers remain on leave. The teachers' names weren't revealed.

Hell, my senior year high school teacher screened "Harold and Maude" for us, and we were behind the Orange Curtian. I never heard of her catching any flack for it at all. I feel sorry for any community that feel threatened by "Farenheit 451" or "Siddhartha".

On a more Freshwater level,what does Shepherd have to do here? Does he have to evaluate all the evidence and testimony presented to him, evaluate it and state why each piece is or is not relevent to issue at hand, and how all relevent evidence informs his decision? If so an end of the year completion seems optimistic. Or can he just issue a ruling and point to the evidence and testimony that supports that ruling? The more saner route. or is it something in between?

JuicyHeart said: ...snip... On a more Freshwater level,what does Shepherd have to do here? Does he have to evaluate all the evidence and testimony presented to him, evaluate it and state why each piece is or is not relevant to issue at hand, and how all relevant evidence informs his decision? If so an end of the year completion seems optimistic. Or can he just issue a ruling and point to the evidence and testimony that supports that ruling? The more saner route. or is it something in between?

Teachers’ ‘free speech’ rights are subject to restrictions imposed on them by management.

Isn't there something wonderfully ironic and self-referential about banning kids from reading Fahrenheit 451?

Anyway, was it banned? The website quoted says "the superintendent instructed the the teacher to remove the book from the required reading list".

Instructing a teacher that they cannot require a student to read a particular book doesn't sound the same to me as banning it and saying students must not read it - or have I mis-understood something here?

Sam C said: Isn't there something wonderfully ironic and self-referential about banning kids from reading Fahrenheit 451? Anyway, was it banned? The website quoted says "the superintendent instructed the the teacher to remove the book from the required reading list". Instructing a teacher that they cannot require a student to read a particular book doesn't sound the same to me as banning it and saying students must not read it - or have I mis-understood something here?

Back in the Dark Ages, Fahrenheit 451 was required reading in school. I thought it was pretty tame and the point was obvious and barely remember it.

Orwell's 1984 and Aldous Huxley's Brave New World were also required reading and the teacher taught them together very thoroughly. I still remember them very well after a few decades.

Orwell's 1984 is often used as a how to manual by authoritarian groups. I'm the ICR and DI have a couple of copies that are pretty tattered by now.

It seems that my literature and social studies teachers in deeply rural northern NYS from 7th grade onward must have been scouring the news for banned literature to assign to us! My 8th grade reading teacher in particular introduced us to some pretty meaty material, especially short stories like "The Lottery", "Lamb to the Slaughter" (woman bludgeons husband with frozen lamb leg, totally premeditated, then feeds the evidence to the cops when they come to investigate the murder), and "Bloodstain" (13 year old accidentally shoots well-liked neighbor man while hunting/playing hooky, doesn't tell anyone, develops crippling guilt). And "To Kill a Mockingbird" to boot! I thought it was refreshing that Mr. Lehman treated us like adults who could handle ambiguity and moral conflicts.

Sam C said: Isn't there something wonderfully ironic and self-referential about banning kids from reading Fahrenheit 451?

Anyway, was it banned? The website quoted says "the superintendent instructed the the teacher to remove the book from the required reading list".

jasonmitchell said: she clashed w/ administration about choices she made that upset a group of parents/locals enough to get 500 names on a petition (IMHO busy-bodies) she didn't have tenure, the school board caved to a vocal minority of voters and moved to not renew her contract... I think the whole episode is a tempest in a teapot - all of the books are legitimately literature and (although controversial) IMHO do have a place in an English class BUT as a legal precedent it demonstrates that Academic Freedom (as it applies to University Professors etc) and 1st amendment rights they apply to private citizens DO NOT APPLY to public high school teachers (while teaching) Teachers are subject to restrictions imposed on them by management

What bothers me about many of the posters on PT (not the front page contributors but a substantial number of posters) is that they don’t shrink from openly expressing hostility to pre-Garcetti interpretations of academic freedom, are perfectly comfortable mouthing right wing anti-Union, anti-tenure platitudes, and do so in the name of keeping Creationism out of public schools.

I guess it shouldn’t surprise me that a cadre of the few remaining right wing secularists and pro-corporatists who seem to have very little knowledge of the history of philosophy of science take themselves to be the guardians of “scientific integrity” as a means of disguising their anti-union anti-tenure ideologies.

Chip Poirot said: I think that Jason pretty much summarized the matter well-and therein lies the problem.

After rereading Chip's post, I see that his "therein lies the problem" was actually referring to the same problem I point out, so we actually mostly agree. Apologies for implying otherwise.

Sam C said: Isn't there something wonderfully ironic and self-referential about banning kids from reading Fahrenheit 451?

eric said: After rereading Chip's post, I see that his "therein lies the problem" was actually referring to the same problem I point out, so we actually mostly agree. Apologies for implying otherwise.

Mindrover said:

Sam C said: Isn't there something wonderfully ironic and self-referential about banning kids from reading Fahrenheit 451?

My brother's school stopped his teacher from presenting "Adventures of Hucleberry Finn" on the grounds that it was racist. The teacher submitted a plan (which was approved) to teach "The Crucible".

jasonmitchell said: Freshwater (in part) was claiming that he WASN'T insubordinate because having a Bible on his desk is protected expression under the 1st amendment - (I don't recall if he actually admitted talking about Jesus in class/ preaching (witnessing) other than "the meaning of Easter"

harold said: Interesting. I'm probably one of the people you refer to here, yet I am not right wing, not anti-union, not anti-tenure, and not in favor of excessive censorship of high school libraries and assigned readings. Quite the opposite. In fact I even made pro-teacher comments in this thread. All I've ever noted is that using a tax-funded platform to favor one particular sectarian dogma over all other religious stances, by presenting that sectarian dogma as "science" - particularly egregious when it actually contradicts science - is a clear violation of the United States constitution. I'm not a constitutional lawyer and don't need to be to know this; it's uncontroversial and has been upheld by the courts on numerous occasions. The ACLU, which is almost never characterized as "right wing", has been a strong player on the side of upholding the constitution. Ironically, the people who use "freedom of speech" arguments to justify attacking the rights of others by preaching narrow sectarian dogma as science to a captive and diverse audience of impressionable school children regardless of family wishes, are the same people who oppose freedom of speech in almost every other instance.

I guess it shouldn’t surprise me that a cadre of the few remaining right wing secularists and pro-corporatists who seem to have very little knowledge of the history of philosophy of science take themselves to be the guardians of “scientific integrity” as a means of disguising their anti-union anti-tenure ideologies.

If you're talking about John Kwok please say so directly. Otherwise, it would surprise me to see anyone resort to such a straw man.

eric said: After rereading Chip's post, I see that his "therein lies the problem" was actually referring to the same problem I point out, so we actually mostly agree. Apologies for implying otherwise.

One of Freshwater’s claims has been that the district’s restrictions on his classroom behavior violated his free speech rights

I'm wondering about analogies in other subjects.

Would (e.g.) a history teacher be censored, or fired, for expressing a (personal) view which amounted to holocaust denialism, during class time? (Please forgive this lapse into Godwin's territory)

How about a physics teacher who promoted geocentricism (to the exclusion of more up-to-date theory), without bringing religion into it?

Isn't it enough to say that a teacher can be fired for not teaching the approved curriculum, without bringing Establishment or Freedom of Speech clauses into it?

Likewise, isn't it enough that grounds for non-renewal of an (untenured) contract should be based on more than teaching from the approved curriculum?

Isn’t it enough to say that a teacher can be fired for not teaching the approved curriculum, without bringing Establishment or Freedom of Speech clauses into it?

eric said:

jasonmitchell said: Freshwater (in part) was claiming that he WASN'T insubordinate because having a Bible on his desk is protected expression under the 1st amendment - (I don't recall if he actually admitted talking about Jesus in class/ preaching (witnessing) other than "the meaning of Easter"

Having a bible on your desk is not an approved part of the curriculum. Teaching a book off the school's list of approved books is part of the curriculum. Its a crucial difference: one teacher is arguing about personal expression in the classroom, the other is arguing about being allowed to teach what was previously approved to teach. I think the second case is very much equivalent to a hypothetical scenario where there are 5 approved units on evolution, there's only time to teach 2 of them, and the teacher is fired because she taught approved unit #3 and the parents don't like approved unit #3. That is practically equivalent to giving individual school principles a heckler's veto over the content of a state-approved curriculum. Jason you seem to be saying that a right to teach approved unit #3 is not protected under the 1st amendment. I HOPE we can agree that it should be protected under some part of law, if not the 1st.

I don’t want to get too far off topic - but the trend against unions/tenure and towards chrter schools, micro-management, “merit” pay based on standardized test score achievement - foster an environment that stifles greatness in education. (this trend is reactionay against a minority of less than good teachers - but IMO its thowing out the baby with the bathwater)

harold said: jasonmitchell -

I don’t want to get too far off topic - but the trend against unions/tenure and towards charter schools, micro-management, “merit” pay based on standardized test score achievement - foster an environment that stifles greatness in education. (this trend is reactionary against a minority of less than good teachers - but IMO its throwing out the baby with the bathwater)

I said it above, but I guess it bears repeating. I don't think this trend, which I similarly despise, is even a remotely effective defense against "less than good teachers". Making a job less well paid, less secure, and more full of negative reinforcement will NOT attract better people to that job, all other things being equal. The delusion that "I will have great employees by treating my employees badly, but firing and replacing them frequently" is a common one. It overlooks the reality of employment opportunities with other employers, and more or less assumes an infinite pool of potential employees who will accept any employment conditions, and also overlooks the costs associated with high turnover. Even in the worst possible economy, someone else will hit on the idea of attracting away and retaining the better employees. (It is possible to be merciless in criticism and firing of employees and successfully demand outrageously high standards of performance - IF you also offer much higher pay and other incentives that outweigh the risks and negative reinforcement. This model is seen in professional sports and some high revenue sales jobs, and some financial trading jobs (the possible role of random chance in determining in these professions need not concern us here). However, it should be clear to most people that offering a combination of relatively low pay AND job insecurity and constant criticism will create low demand for that particular job. The result of this is that the very "poor performance" that you were ostensibly trying to get rid of will INCREASE in the system, as you'll have to hire somebody and the more qualified people won't need to accept that particular job.) Also, this thread is to a large degree caught in an "apples to oranges" comparison. Whether teachers "should" be fired for bringing highly valued cultural works, which happen to not be in the curriculum, or even be locally "banned" or deemed "offensive", to the attention of students, is a difficult one. The question of whether a teacher "should" be allowed use his publicly funded position of authority to promote one particular sectarian dogma over other religions, including the use of mild electric burns to "brand" students with what a reasonable person would interpret as a sectarian religious symbol, is not a difficult question at all.

DemocracyForAmerica .com » Blog » Texas Teacher suspended for being ... I, Richard Mullens, have been a teacher in the state of Texas since 1971. ... also on the list of people that the board wanted to resign or fire. ... She asked me if I was an atheist and I refused to answer the question. ...

harold said: (It is possible to be merciless in criticism and firing of employees and successfully demand outrageously high standards of performance - IF you also offer much higher pay and other incentives that outweigh the risks and negative reinforcement. This model is seen in professional sports and some high revenue sales jobs, and some financial trading jobs (the possible role of random chance in determining in these professions need not concern us here).

I’m not sure what this has to do with Freshwater, except that when the video of LA cops beating Rodney King surfaced no one started saying: “hey, let’s take away the due process rights of police officers in internal complaints and give them merit pay.”

harold said: Chip Poirot - Well, I strongly and completely agree with everything you said, except that I disagree with something you implied.

I’m not sure what this has to do with Freshwater, except that when the video of LA cops beating Rodney King surfaced no one started saying: “hey, let’s take away the due process rights of police officers in internal complaints and give them merit pay.”

If you think you see someone in this forum advocating that any of Freshwater's rights should be taken away, please check the prescription of your reading glasses. Now, I will confess to informally noting that the evidence is pretty overwhelming that Freshwater has engaged in some egregiously bad behavior. That is not the same thing as advocating that his due process rights be taken away. In fact I strongly respect his rights and don't want any of them to be taken away. He does not have a "right" to violate the establishment clause of the US Constitution, of course.

My apologies then, Chip. I must have misunderstood.

harold said: My apologies then, Chip. I must have misunderstood.

Chip Poirot said: Did he deliberately and maliciously, or out of recklessness and stupidity misuse classroom equipment to harm a student. I think that the whole long rigamarole about everything else gave him the opening to turn this into a circus.

Chip Poirot said:

harold said: My apologies then, Chip. I must have misunderstood.

Apology accepted. Freshwater has had due process and as a consequence, has given due process for teachers a bad rap. And I agree with you that the evidence against him, IMO, is pretty overwhelming (contrary to what I originally thought). Of course, that's part of the point of due process-to put the evidence on the table. My point was that people like Freshwater are used as an excuse to take due process from teachers in general. Somehow criminal trials in this country are conducted expeditiously and do not generally cost taxpayers the amount of money it has cost to give Freshwater his day in court. I served as a juror on a drug case once-it was over in two days-though admittedly with a hung jury. I almost served on a murder case. That one took a week. The Prosecutor, whom I know sort of casually remarked to me after-wards that he thought it was a very long case. Somehow we manage to preserve due process in higher ed without hearings taking this long. Anyway-this is a pretty bizarre, long, frustrating case. I always thought it should have been simple. Did he deliberately and maliciously, or out of recklessness and stupidity misuse classroom equipment to harm a student. I think that the whole long rigamarole about everything else gave him the opening to turn this into a circus.

RBH said:

Chip Poirot said: Did he deliberately and maliciously, or out of recklessness and stupidity misuse classroom equipment to harm a student. I think that the whole long rigamarole about everything else gave him the opening to turn this into a circus.

There were other allegations that couldn't be ignored, though, including insubordination, teaching unapproved material in the classroom, and misbehavior as adviser of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes. Once raised in the investigators' report and included in the Board's resolution to consider termination they couldn't be closed off.

W. H. Heydt said: The problem here is, that in an effort to craft rules that are as fair as possible (and "due process" itself is such a rule), it opens the door to abuse of process. I don't take this as a reason to curtail rights or restrict what is meant by "due process", but, rather, to try to recognize when someone is gaming the system and take that gaming into consideration. On the whole, I suspect that Hamilton harmed Freshwater much more than he helped Freshwater by trying to game the system. --W. H. Heydt Old Used Programmer

Chip Poirot said:

RBH said:

Chip Poirot said: Did he deliberately and maliciously, or out of recklessness and stupidity misuse classroom equipment to harm a student. I think that the whole long rigamarole about everything else gave him the opening to turn this into a circus.

There were other allegations that couldn't be ignored, though, including insubordination, teaching unapproved material in the classroom, and misbehavior as adviser of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes. Once raised in the investigators' report and included in the Board's resolution to consider termination they couldn't be closed off.

I understand your point on this Richard and as you have rightly pointed out, much of the fault here lies with the district. I'll go out on a limb and say that some of the fault may also lie with the OEA in not fully educating its members (in the interest of full disclosure I am a member of OEA). True, Freshwater wasn't a member of OEA but he was in the bargaining unit and at least some of his conduct was engaged in by other members of the bargaining unit as well. The problem arises in this context of how and when teachers in K-12 can know when they are engaging in speech that in their view is consistent with the law and their Collective Bargaining Agreement and when they are not. And sometimes a CBA may grant more rights than you have under a strict understanding of the law, which can then raise conflicts if a broader, contractually defined understanding of academic freedom for example conflicts with vague areas such as religious expression in the workplace or hostile environment sexual harassment. Freshwater, IMO, had at least a colorable argument on all these issues that he believed he was operating in accordance with District policy. He had never been warned, cautioned, disciplined, sent to training etc. And when it came, most of it came up well after the fact so that it degenerated into a he-said, he said over the last multiple years. And that is why a fundamental point in progressive discipline is you discipline when a problem arises. Because failure to discipline sets a precedent that the employee reasonably believes his or her conduct is within the policy. Anyway, this gets us into a whole other issue about how much academic freedom and First Amendment protection teachers should have at the K-12 level. You and I may disagree on that. But I still think in this case the real issue comes down to his misuse of equipment. And even there, the school district really screwed up by telling him that if he did x and y, he wouldn't be disciplined. Just one more example of screw up administrators.

Chip Poirot said: But I still think in this case the real issue comes down to his misuse of equipment. And even there, the school district really screwed up by telling him that if he did x and y, he wouldn't be disciplined. Just one more example of screw up administrators.

wgwII said: He HAD been warned previously about misconduct and classroom materials.

Chip Poirot said: It might help if Richard can clarify/remind us of the precise sequence of events. This is my recollection of the record that has been posted here on PT. 1. During his entire teaching career he had no verbal or written reprimands in his personnel file. My best guess is that as in most CBAs it is only official records entered into the personnel file that count as warnings. There are some ways in which unofficial actions or events can be used as evidence, but they can't count as steps in progressive discipline-which is an integral part of for cause dismissal in a CBA for a tenured employee and also I think wrt to the Ohio Revised Code;

2. There had been complaints from teachers in more advanced grades about his teaching beyond the curriculum. But right or wrong, that doesn't count as evidence. His evaluations had been positive and his students had performed well on standardized tests (which I might add in a complete aside is a good illustration of what is wrong with tying performance of teachers to student performance on standardized tests);

3. In addition, if my memory is correct, he was told in a written memo well after the classroom incident to cease and desist from using the Tesla coil (which he did).

My understanding is it was also at the same time that he was told to remove the posters and the Bible. Apparently he refused, and then eventually did it, or it was done-I'm unclear on that.

4. Anyway, he was told in the memo that if he complied there would be no record put in his file.

At that point, my memory is that the incident was considered closed and he had receive no formal reprimand at all-verbal or written.

It was after the lawsuit was filed that a personnel investigation was opened and after the personnel investigation by an outside firm that the recommendation was made to the Board.

As I also recall, there was some kind of dispute on Freshwater's part about the fairness of the personnel report.

Finally I might add on the free speech issue (a point on which some people seem to disagree with me) that the argument that Freshwater had **no** speech rights in performing his teaching duties on the part of the school bothers me. I understand that the District's attorney is doing his job and would be remiss to not make this argument.

But notice that the attorney didn't say that Freshwater exceeded the scope of his free speech rights, or that his free speech rights interfered with the establishment clause.

I agree, that just as in hostile environment sexual harassment cases free speech rights in a public employment or academic setting aren't absolute and that the employer still retains some latitude to govern expressive speech, so too should a public school be able to prevent proselytizing or turning a classroom into a religious shrine. IMO, when you put the whole atmosphere in the classroom together, he seems to have done that. And that is where he stepped over the line.

But that's the problem-the district isn't arguing he stepped over the line. They are saying he has no rights at all. I suspect that is actually contrary to his CBA, though it is arguably now at least a valid legal argument absent the CBA protection.

RBH said: Again, I know of no instance where the Board argued that Freshwater has no free speech rights. It's messier than the summary above might suggest, though, and I reckon that's what the referee is trying to sort out.

In fact, after reading the link, it is very clear.

Is this Mt Vernon OH same as the Mt Vernon of Freshwater fame?

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/11/14/ohio.family.missing/

Ravilyn Sanders said: Is this Mt Vernon OH same as the Mt Vernon of Freshwater fame? http://edition.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/11/14/ohio.family.missing/

If Freshwater's church is a 501-c-3 or whatever organization, apolitical and getting a tax exemption, then by Freshwater precedent, can we send agents every Sunday to cough and say "HERE!" every time the minister says something dubious?

And can those be students we've trained to do that in Chess Club?

Just wondering.

Referring back to your Marcus Ross thread, why all this indignation? After all, lawyers all the time will put forward positions for the sake of argument (i.e., arguendo). Are you saying that scientists are better than lawyers and expected to hold to a higher standard?

Willim Paley said: Referring back to your Marcus Ross thread, why all this indignation? After all, lawyers all the time will put forward positions for the sake of argument (i.e., arguendo). Are you saying that scientists are better than lawyers and expected to hold to a higher standard?

Why we need teacher's unions, why now is a very bogus time, and why sometimes you need to make teachers harder to disciplline:

http://jezebel.com/5692317/heroic-teacher-screwed-over-by-acorn-pimp?skyline=true&s=i

Willim Paley said: Referring back to your Marcus Ross thread, why all this indignation? After all, lawyers all the time will put forward positions for the sake of argument (i.e., arguendo). Are you saying that scientists are better than lawyers and expected to hold to a higher standard?

Willim Paley said: Referring back to your Marcus Ross thread, why all this indignation? After all, lawyers all the time will put forward positions for the sake of argument (i.e., arguendo). Are you saying that scientists are better than lawyers and expected to hold to a higher standard?

Scientists are paid to be diligent, conscientious, meticulous, and thorough. Occasionally imaginative.

Trial lawyers are paid to win. If this involves being unethical, then they are PAID and EXPECTED to be unethical. And occasionally imaginative.

Scientists are paid to be diligent, conscientious, meticulous, and thorough.

Occasionally imaginative. Trial lawyers are paid to win. If this involves being unethical, then they are PAID and EXPECTED to be unethical. And occasionally imaginative.

It's sometimes torturous, but I subscribe to an email list from Freshwater's "spiritual adviser" Coach Dave. I'd like to share with the commenters a recent email I received from Coach Dave, I'm thrilled to know he is not making "Rod Parsley money" if he is begging for a car.

From: Pass the Salt
Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2010 3:06 PM
To:
Subject: We Ran the Wheels Off!

...::: News and Announcements :::...

Dear Friends,
Last weekend our 1999 Plymouth Voyager started sounding like a Helicopter. It seems
that after 238,000 miles "Old Red" had made her last trip out of the driveway. This
comes on the heels of our 2001 PT Cruiser suffering a similar fate after 228,000 miles
early last Spring.

Pass The Salt currently stands in need of reliable transportation. We were wondering
if someone would like to a make an end-of-the-year donation to Pass The Salt in the
form of a set of wheels. Your gift would be tax-deductible and would help as Coach
Dave travels around to pound knots on the Devil's head.

If you have an interest in helping, please contact us at coach@ptsalt.com or 740-323-
0871.

You have not because you ask not....

Pass The Salt

Coach Dave Daubenmire
Passing the Salt,
Coach Dave Daubenmire
www.ptsalt.com

Some lawyers are unethical - Hamilton is an example - but most aren’t.

Flint said: There is a long and cherished tradition of honoring the letter of the law while circumventing its intent. Is this unethical? Lawyers are paid to do this. Should they betray their clients?

Burns: That's right, keep eating...Little do you know you're drawing ever closer to the poison donut! cackles evily There is a poison one, isn't there, Smithers? Smithers: Err...no, sir. I discussed this with our lawyers and they consider it murder. Burns: Damn their oily hides!

Let's say you are a lawyer, hired to defend someone you know to be guilty. Let's say the facts in the case, outside of your and your client's private knowledge, permit you to make a strong defense. Let's say nobody knows that you know your client is guilty. Remember, you are hired to get your client off. What do you do? If you kept your knowlege to yourself and freed your client, would that be ethical, or merely professional? You are PAID to get your client off. If I knew all this, would I hire you?

I am acquainted with an attorney who was exceedingly happy not to be assigned by the court to defend a particular client who couldn't afford one on his own.

As the attorney explained it to me, from the publicly available data (security camera footage) there was no doubt at all the guy was guilty and there was no real way to defend him. The only recourse would be to throw himself on the mercy of the court to try to get a less than maximum sentence.

So, yes, there are ethical attorneys, in the colloquial sense of ethical.

--W. H. Heydt

Old Used Programmer

As one columnist wrote (I think it was George Will), the case against OJ Simpson was so sound and so airtight that they could have thrown out 90% of the evidence and let the defense pick which 90% to throw out, and still had enough to convict.

So were Simpson's attorneys unethical? Was it unethical (albeit brilliant) to hire a psychologist to select a jury incapable of distinguishing between reasonable doubt and absolutely no doubt, however imaginary or far-fetched? Was it unethical for them to misrepresent everything presented in a way that would make a creationist proud? Or were they ethically performing the task they were hired to do?

Contrast this with the number of destitute, publicly defended prisoners on death row, who were released when the (recently developed) DNA evidence, considered incontrovertible, showed them innocent. Were THEIR appointed attorneys unethical for putting up a defense poor enough to allow innocent people to be convicted?

A friend of mine spent a year in jail for something he didn't do, because it was a highly public political case, sentiment ran strongly against the crime, and his appointed attorney was about to run for public office. Those who DID do it hired their own high-powered expensive attorneys, and got a slap on the wrist.

Which of these lawyers were ethical? All of them? Any of them?

"I’m thrilled to know he is not making “Rod Parsley money” if he is begging for a car."

Daub and his wife have been living hand-to-mouth on part time jobs, their 401Ks and "the generosity of others" ever since his wife quit her teaching job "to join Pass The Salt Ministries" about 5 years ago. About 3 years ago I was listening to his radio show and heard him begging for donations (his website has a feature that can set up monthly donations to be taken right from the donor's credit card!) and he was also asking for the donation of a laptop computer. Daub specified that he need a recent model laptop not an older model, because he needed to have access to the latest technology to do god's work. If that wasn't nervy enough, Daub went on to say that every day he prays that someone will come along and pay off his "ministry debt" (credit cards)!!! The man has no shame! No pride either.

In these tough economic times people are not very likely to donate money to an able-bodied, college educated couple who CHOOSE not work full time like the rest of us. And of course he doesn't pay taxes like the rest of us do either. I think that most of central Ohio has figured out what an egostistical, self-righteous, self-serving piece of shit Daub is. Therefore he has to travel outside the state (hence the high mileage on his cars) to give speeches at churches and pass his donation basket.
It has always baffled me how someone could be so delusional in their I-am-serving-the-lord beliefs that they feel entitled to ask others to pay their bills. Daub's ministry is just himself and his wife. They have no church, no congregation, no charitiable works, and perform no services for anyone but themselves.
Like you, Sir Lickspittle, I am thrilled that his ministry is a failure. His financial picture is very grim. I don't know how they sleep at night, but The Lord Will Provide. Yeah, right. Even his god isn't helping him.

Mary said: "I’m thrilled to know he is not making “Rod Parsley money” if he is begging for a car." Daub and his wife have been living hand-to-mouth on part time jobs, their 401Ks and "the generosity of others" ever since his wife quit her teaching job "to join Pass The Salt Ministries" about 5 years ago. About 3 years ago I was listening to his radio show and heard him begging for donations (his website has a feature that can set up monthly donations to be taken right from the donor's credit card!) and he was also asking for the donation of a laptop computer. Daub specified that he need a recent model laptop not an older model, because he needed to have access to the latest technology to do god's work. If that wasn't nervy enough, Daub went on to say that every day he prays that someone will come along and pay off his "ministry debt" (credit cards)!!! The man has no shame! No pride either. In these tough economic times people are not very likely to donate money to an able-bodied, college educated couple who CHOOSE not work full time like the rest of us. And of course he doesn't pay taxes like the rest of us do either. I think that most of central Ohio has figured out what an egostistical, self-righteous, self-serving piece of shit Daub is. Therefore he has to travel outside the state (hence the high mileage on his cars) to give speeches at churches and pass his donation basket. It has always baffled me how someone could be so delusional in their I-am-serving-the-lord beliefs that they feel entitled to ask others to pay their bills. Daub's ministry is just himself and his wife. They have no church, no congregation, no charitiable works, and perform no services for anyone but themselves. Like you, Sir Lickspittle, I am thrilled that his ministry is a failure. His financial picture is very grim. I don't know how they sleep at night, but The Lord Will Provide. Yeah, right. Even his god isn't helping him.

The son who was convicted of pandering child porn and is still serving out his 5 year probation is in his third year of law school at Case Western. Yeah, he's piling up a huge amount of student loan debt. Daub is always railing against the evil government schools but at least two of his kids, including the son, went to college on sports scholarships, scholarships that they never would have gotten if they had been home schooled as Daub now strongly recommends to others. His wife currently subs as a teacher in the public school system so the whole family takes money from the public system with one hand while slamming the public schools with the other hand. Hypocrites!