Appeals court rules teacher can’t be sued for bashing Christianity

[Playinghardball]

Source: Raw Story

federal appeals court ruled Friday that a California teacher could not be sued for criticizing Christianity and Creationism during a college-level European history course.

"This was a really important ruling for academic freedom," University of California constitutional scholar Erwin Chemerinsky, who took on the case pro bono, told The Orange County Register. "There has never been a precedent set for something like this before. Teachers should be able to criticize religion just like they can criticize government, business and similar groups without the fear of being sued."

A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals tossed out a lower court's decision, which held that teacher James Corbett violated a student’s First Amendment rights by making comments during class that were hostile to religion in general, and to Christianity in particular.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said that Corbett could not have known he was violating a constitutional right, noting there were no prior cases holding that a teacher violated the First Amendment by criticizing religion during class.



Read more: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/08/21/federal-appeals-court-rules-teacher-cant-be-sued-for-bashing-christianity/

[ananda]

1. So, some xtians think that they have a "constitutional" right...

... not to have their religion criticized?

Crikey!

[Iggo]

2. Creationism is religious, superstitious nonsense.

That ain't bashing Christianity, my friend.

That's stating a fact about a specific pseudo-science.

[The Doctor.]

3. I can't believe this even made it to an appeals court.

What kind of moron would rule that criticism is a violation of the 1st Amendment?

It's exactly the other way around.

[Bjorn Against]

5. There are actually some big first amendment questions here

The establishment clause of the first amendment prevents teachers from promoting religion in a public classroom so the question is does it prevent them from criticizing it as well?

From my personal view I don't think it does, I think that it is the role of a teacher to teach critical thinking skills and sometimes that means pointing out that religious beliefs are not always supported by reality. I believe the court made the correct decision, but I can certainly see why this creates some difficult questions about what public school teachers can and can not say regarding religion in the classroom.

[Bjorn Against]

4. Just to play devil's advocate...

I think this was a good ruling, but I can already see how the other side is going to spin it and their argument is not completely without merit.

They will argue that teachers in public schools have always been forbidden from promoting religion in the classroom, but this ruling says that they can criticize religion which means they can present one side but not the other.

I actually think that makes sense because there is no empirical evidence to support religion and teachers should teach critical thinking skills so people ask questions before embracing everything they are told in the name of religion, but I can certainly see why this is a very difficult issue from a first amendment perspective because it does create some big questions about what the establishment clause does and does not allow in public settings.

[The Doctor.]

6. Criticism of one thing is not promotion of another.

What religion is being promoted by the criticism of creationsim?

[Bjorn Against]

7. I don't disagree, just pointing out what the opposing argument will be

I certainly don't think this teacher was promoting religion and it appears to me that he was well within his first amendment rights, but there certainly are questions about how far criticism of religion can go in a public setting before it violates the establishment clause. For example if a public school teacher criticized every religion except for their own in the classroom, I think we could both agree that would be considered not just a criticism of certain religions but a promotion of another. Now I realize that is not what happened in this case, but court cases do set precedents and it is not unrealistic to think that another teacher could use this precedent as a back door way to criticize other religions in a manner that suggests their religion is superior.

Again I agree with the courts decision, I am just pointing out that there are major first amendment implications here that are likely to bring about big questions about just how far the establishment clause goes in keeping religion out of the classroom.

[struggle4progress]

8. It's good to hear teachers have free speech rights, too.

But do I think teachers should try hard not to say things students can hear as ridicule -- especially in the public elementary and secondary schools

[struggle4progress]

9. CF ... v CAPISTRANO ...

... Farnan ... was offended by comments Corbett made during class that Farnan characterizes as “derogatory, disparaging, and belittling regarding religion and Christianity in particular.” Neither Farnan nor his parents ever discussed this concern with Corbett or any other school official. Rather, before completing the first semester of AP Euro, Farnan withdrew from the class and filed this lawsuit ... The only cases that Farnan argued in his briefs clearly establish the law in the relevant educational context involve claims that school officials were promoting religion rather than expressing hostility toward it, and challenge systemic actions such as state laws and school district policies rather than parsing individual teachers’ classroom discussions ... The Supreme Court has long recognized the importance of protecting the “robust exchange of ideas” in education, “which discovers truth ‘out of a multitude of tongues.’ ” ...
<pdf:> http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x297642#297767

[prole_for_peace]

10. Was the professor bashing Xtianity or was he teaching

European history? There were lots of horrible things done in the name of Xtianity in the dark and middle ages.

"Corbett said during his class that serfs opposed social, political and economic that were in their best interest because of religion.."
that isn't bashing, it is the truth

[struggle4progress]

11. If you read the court decision, the teacher indicated clearly at the start of the semester

that he would begin each class with a discussion of current events, during which he would make provocative statements in an effort to spur student involvement; he further indicated that students would not be graded on what they said in response to his provocative statements

So it seems he deliberately set out to goad students into interactive participation, by a sort of intellectual bomb-throwing

The plaintiff did not like the sort of things the teacher said, but never broached the matter with the teacher or the administration: instead, under the guidance of a rightwing litigation farm, the student simply withdrew from the class and filed a lawsuit. As a general rule, judges prefer plaintiffs to make an effort to resolve matters, before running to court


The plaintiff further managed to cite no on-point case law. The rightwing litigation farm was thus hoping for new legal principles to fertilize a crop of new suits. Courts usually try to avoid casual invention of new legal principles -- and that's what the court did here: they trimmed away everything they could from the suit: the plaintiff had graduated, so aspects of the complaint were moot, for example

The court was (properly) willing to recognize that a teacher's ridicule could be actionable. But the court wondered if the ridicule in this case reached that level, since the ridicule in this case was arguably intended to provoke robust conversation

Appeal denied -- but there's still no unlimited right to ridicule students