\n\tMore than a century before Ohio science teacher John Freshwater found himself at the center of a battle over academic freedom in the classroom, namely,
\n\twhether he has a right to urge his students to think critically about topics such as evolution, John T. Scopes faced a similar firing squad. In Scopes\u2019
\n\tcase, however, he was prosecuted\u2014or persecuted, as it were\u2014for violating a Tennessee law, the Butler Act, prohibiting the teaching of evolution in
\n\tstate-funded schools.\n<\/p>\n
\n\tWhile ostensibly about the debate over creationism versus evolution, Scopes\u2019 ensuing 1925 trial,1<\/sup> immortalized in the award-winning play and \n\tThe first U.S. trial to be broadcast on national radio, the Scopes Monkey Trial of 1925, although initially contrived as a way to put Dayton, Tennessee, on \n\tCharged with breaking the law, Scopes was put through an eight-day trial and a nine-minute jury deliberation before being found guilty and fined $100. On \nFollowing Scopes, the evolution\/creationism debate underwent little change until the U.S. Supreme Court\u2019s 1968 ruling in Epperson v. Arkansas<\/em>,\t2<\/sup> which struck down an Arkansas statute similar to Tennessee\u2019s Butler Act. The case centered on a Little Rock, Arkansas, biology teacher who \n\tEpperson<\/em> \nFinally, in 1987, the United States Supreme Court effectively completed the national transition away from creationism and toward evolutionary theory in\tEdwards v. Aguillard<\/em>,4<\/sup> when it struck down a Louisiana act that required evolution and creationism to be taught together. Proponents of \n\tA quarter of a century later evolution has supplanted creationism as the more focused area of instruction in the public school science classroom. Against \n\tIn 2011 John Freshwater, a Christian with a 20-year teaching career at Mount Vernon Middle School in Ohio, was fired for encouraging his students to think \n\tA graduate of Ohio University, Freshwater began teaching science at Mount Vernon Middle School in 1987 and proved himself an outstanding teacher, popular \n\tThat all changed in 2008, when the Mount Vernon school board voted unanimously to begin termination proceedings against the veteran educator, citing \n\tIronically, despite the school board\u2019s criticisms of Freshwater\u2019s methods, his students routinely outperformed other students, having earned the highest \n\tThe school board, however, wasted no time in initiating termination proceedings against Freshwater and suspending him without pay, prompting the veteran \n\tOn January 7, 2011, the hearing referee made a nonbinding recommendation that Freshwater be fired because \u201che persisted in his attempts to make \n\tWith the help of the Rutherford Institute, Freshwater mounted a legal challenge in court, arguing that where a teacher\u2019s speech is in compliance with all \n\tInsisting that Freshwater has no claim to academic freedom that would allow him to teach evolution from a Christian perspective, school officials defended \n\tAlthough Freshwater\u2019s teaching methods are at the heart of Mount Vernon\u2019s particular firestorm, teaching alternative theories in science classrooms in \n\tWhile evolution may be at the heart of this particular academic freedom debate, a teacher\u2019s ability to present controversial views extends far beyond \n\tSuch was the case of Wilson v. Chancellor<\/em>. In 1976 a high school political science teacher, hoping to engage his students, invited four speakers \n\tWhen the case went to court, the district court ruled against the school board, finding fault with the board\u2019s rationale for reversing their decision, \n\tRecognizing that academic freedom is critical to providing a varied, in-depth, and quality education, especially in light of an increasingly politically \n\tUnlike earlier, pre-Aguillard<\/em> legislation, however, these bills do not call for teaching intelligent design and creationism as part of the school \n\tLess than 100 years ago creationism was generally held as the only<\/em> valid lesson plan for science classrooms, while the very notion of teaching \n\tSocrates, who once observed that \u201ceducation is the kindling of a flame, not the filling of a vessel,\u201d would be justifiably horrified at America\u2019s present \n\tAs the notable Greek philosopher concluded: \u201cI cannot teach anybody anything. I can only make them think.\u201d Doubtless, John Freshwater would agree.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" More than a century before Ohio science teacher John Freshwater found himself at the center of a battle over academic freedom in the classroom, namely, whether he has a right to urge his students to think critically about topics such as evolution, John T. Scopes faced a similar firing squad. In Scopes\u2019 case, however, he<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[294],"tags":[126],"class_list":["post-6219","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-july-august-2013","tag-july-august-2013"],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6219","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6219"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6219\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6219"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6219"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6219"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
\n\tfilm Inherit the Wind<\/em>, presaged a shift in the way the nation relates to religion, particularly Judeo-Christian doctrines. This growing tension
\n\tover the First Amendment\u2019s religion clauses, affirming freedom for the exercise of religion while prohibiting the government from establishing religion,
\n\tcontinues to play out in the backdrop of the public schools. It is reflected in national debates over prayer in schools, the reference to God in the Pledge
\n\tof Allegiance, and classroom discussions about the universe\u2019s origins.<\/p>\nFrom Creationism to Evolution<\/h2>\n
\n\tthe map, instead put the Judeo-Christian beliefs of a large portion of the nation on trial. Scopes, a high school science teacher, agreed to be the lead
\n\tactor in a constitutional challenge to the state\u2019s prohibition on teaching evolution in its schools. Scopes threw down his proverbial gauntlet on April 24,
\n\t1925, when he led students in reading a section of a state-mandated textbook that explicitly described and endorsed the theory of evolution.\n<\/p>\n
\n\tappeal to the Tennessee Supreme Court, Scopes\u2019 legal team argued that the ban on teaching evolution, rooted in a biblical worldview, violated the science
\nteacher\u2019s right to free speech and the state\u2019s establishment clause. The Tennessee high court hinged its ruling in\tState of Tennessee v. John Thomas Scopes <\/em>on the then-dominant interpretation of the establishment clause, that the government could not establish
\na particular religion as the state<\/em> religion. The Tennessee high court deemed the Butler Act to be constitutional because it did not establish a\tsingle<\/em> religion as the state religion. (The Butler Act was a 1925 Tennessee law prohibiting public school teachers from denying the biblical
\n\taccount of humanity\u2019s origin.)\n<\/p>\n
\n\tclaimed the prohibition on teaching evolution was a violation of her First Amendment rights. Siding with the teacher, the Court held that the U.S.
\n\tConstitution prohibits a state from requiring teachers to conform to a particular religion. The Court noted that \u201cthe state\u2019s undoubted right to prescribe
\n\tthe curriculum for its public schools does not carry with it the right to prohibit, on pain of criminal penalty, the teaching of a scientific theory or
\n\tdoctrine where that prohibition is based upon reasons that violate the First Amendment.\u201d3<\/sup>\n<\/p>\n
\n\tmarked the beginning of a shift away from teaching creationism in the public school classroom toward teaching evolutionary theory. In the wake of the
\n\tSupreme Court\u2019s landmark ruling, states began to grapple with whether evolution should be taught in conjunction<\/em> with creationism, or if evolution
\n\tshould supplant creationism as the sole theory to be discussed in the classroom. While bans on teaching evolution were clearly unconstitutional, the
\n\tlooming question revolved around whether evolution and creationism could co-exist as doctrines. Several states introduced legislation that would require
\n\t\u201ccreation science\u201d to be taught alongside \u201cevolutionary science,\u201d and thus the academic freedom debate emerged.\n<\/p>\n
\n\tthe act argued that the law protected the academic freedom of teachers. However, while the Court ultimately held that the law violated the establishment
\n\tclause, by no means did they slam the door shut on teaching creationism. In fact, the Supreme Court left open the possibility of teaching alternative
\n\ttheories about the origin of life as long as they are done with the intent to enhance the effectiveness of science instruction.\n<\/p>\n
\n\tsuch a backdrop, teacher John Freshwater\u2019s case reflects the ongoing tension between creationism and evolution, state-mandated curricula and academic
\n\tfreedom, and free speech versus political correctness, the latter having added a whole new layer of complications to what was once a primarily legal and
\n\tmoral discussion.\n<\/p>\nEnter John Freshwater<\/h2>\n
\n\tcritically about the school\u2019s science curriculum, particularly as it relates to evolution theories.\n<\/p>\n
\n\twith the students and never once receiving a negative performance evaluation.\n<\/p>\n
\n\tconcerns about his conduct and teaching materials, particularly as they related to the teaching of evolution. Earlier that year school officials reportedly
\n\tordered Freshwater, who had served as the faculty appointed facilitator, monitor, and supervisor of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes student group for
\n\t16 of the 20 years that he taught at Mount Vernon, to remove \u201call religious items\u201d from his classroom, including a Ten Commandments poster displayed on the
\n\tdoor of his classroom, posters with Bible verses, and his personal Bible, which he kept on his desk. Freshwater agreed to remove all items except for his
\n\tBible.\n<\/p>\n
\n\tstate standardized test scores of any eighth-grade science class in the district during the 2007-2008 academic school year. Freshwater was also the only
\n\tscience teacher at Mount Vernon Middle School to achieve a \u201cpassing\u201d score on the Ohio Achievement Test, setting him ahead of his fellow educators.\n<\/p>\n
\n\teducator to request a public hearing. During the hearing process, which lasted almost two years, school officials were subjected to an outpouring of
\n\tsupport for the beloved teacher, with students showing their support for Freshwater by organizing a rally in his honor and wearing T-shirts with crosses
\n\tpainted on them, as well as carrying Bibles to class.\n<\/p>\n
\n\teighth-grade science what he thought it should be\u2014an examination of accepted scientific curriculum with the discerning eye of Christian doctrine.\u201d Despite
\n\tthe school board\u2019s own stated policy that, because religious traditions vary in their treatment of science, teachers should give unbiased instruction so
\n\tthat students may evaluate it \u201cin accordance with their own religious tenets,\u201d the school board fired John Freshwater a week later, claiming that he
\n\timproperly injected religion into the classroom by giving students \u201creason to doubt the accuracy and\/or veracity of scientists, science textbooks and\/or
\n\tscience in general.\u201d\n<\/p>\n
\n\tboard policies and directly relates to the prescribed curriculum, the school should not be permitted to terminate the teacher\u2019s employment as a means of
\n\tcensoring a particular academic viewpoint from the classroom. Waging an uphill and losing battle through the courts, Freshwater\u2019s case finally landed
\n\tbefore the Ohio Supreme Court, which heard the case in February 2013.\n<\/p>\n
\n\tthe firing. Reminding the court that academic freedom was once the bedrock of American education, Rutherford Institute attorneys argued that what we need
\n\ttoday are more teachers and school administrators who understand that young people don\u2019t need to be indoctrinated. Rather, they need to be taught how to
\n\tthink for themselves. \u201cBy firing John Freshwater for challenging his students to think outside the box,\u201d stated the institute, \u201cschool officials violated a
\n\tcore First Amendment freedom\u2014the right to debate and express ideas contrary to established views.\u201d\n<\/p>\nAcademic Freedom in the Classroom<\/h2>\n
\n\torder to challenge students to think critically about what they are learning and enhance their education is not a particularly new approach. However,
\n\tFreshwater\u2019s case does transform the age-old debate over creationism versus evolutionism into one over the extent to which teachers have a claim to
\n\tacademic freedom when teaching controversial issues.\n<\/p>\n
\n\tdiscussing the origins of life to explorations of world history, American politics, and other topics of import.\n<\/p>\n
\n\tespousing differing political viewpoints to his classroom, among these a Democrat, a Republican, a Communist, and a member of the John Birch Society.
\n\tDespite the fact that the invitations were made with the express approval of the principal and local school board, members of the community objected, going
\n\tso far as to circulate a petition demanding that the board\u2019s decision be reversed and threatening to vote out the school board members. In response, the
\n\tboard reversed its decision and banned all political speakers from the school.\n<\/p>\n
\n\twhich hinged upon a fear of losing their seats, rather than any evidence that the speakers were incompetent or that the political viewpoints discussed were
\n\tinappropriate for a high school political science class. The end result: teachers were allowed to invite political speakers to the classroom.5<\/sup>\n<\/p>\n
\n\tcorrect climate that shows a certain disdain for all things religious, several states have adopted \u201cacademic freedom bills\u201d in order to combat the
\n\tintimidation, retaliation, and contempt teachers and students face when they attempt to discuss alternative theories and criticisms of evolution.\n<\/p>\n
\n\tcurriculum. Rather, academic freedom bills promote discussing evolution with a critical eye and acknowledging that evolution is, indeed, controversial.
\n\tFurther, these bills emphasize that, while teachers may be limited by certain school board policies, administrators should not interfere with the actual
\n\tteaching methods and attempts to encourage students to understand the controversial debates surrounding scientific theories. Simply put, the legislation
\n\tattempts to put a stop to the assault on academic freedom, which is seen as adverse to our traditions as a free society and to the progress of science
\n\titself.6<\/sup>\n<\/p>\n
\n\tevolution in our schools was controversial. Now the tables have turned, and we find ourselves in danger of repeating the mistakes of the past in terms of
\n\ttrying to censor unpopular viewpoints in the classroom.\n<\/p>\n
\n\tbrand of rote education, so reliant on standardized tests and core curricula that there is little time to teach young people anything beyond the written
\n\tcurriculum, including how to think analytically and for themselves.\n<\/p>\n