Teacher gets fired when colleague rats his doubts about Darwinism

_{Denyse O'Leary

September 12, 2008

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Here’s a Discovery Institute podcast:

On this episode of ID The Future, CSC’s Casey Luskin interviews Rodney LeVake, the plaintiff in the Academic Freedom court case LeVake vs. Independent School District #656. LeVake, a former high school biology teacher, informally expressed doubts about evolution to a colleague who then reported him to the principal. LeVake ended up losing his biology position, not because he taught creationism or intelligent design, but merely because he expressed reservations about evolution to a colleague. Listen as he tells his story of clear academic persecution.

Huh? Why isn’t this happening in Canada? I thought we had cornered the Western world market on suppression of thought and speech.

Oh but wait! Here in Canada we actually have a government department, the Canadian Human Rights Commission, whose employees post racist and homophobic garbage on Web sites and then get anyone who responds charged.

So relax, Canucks,we’re still ahead of the Yanks in the “tax-supported goofs + goons” department. Sigh. Guess traditional Canadians like me should continue to check out the latest fashions in bags to wear over one’s head …. or else get serious about fixing the problem (which I am, believe me).

Meanwhile, here are the latest posts at Colliding Universes, my blog about competing theories of our universe:

Origin of life: But is being greedy enough?

Large Hadron Collider: Experiments underway

Podcast: The argument from design in cosmology

The truth hurts … and it can leave you seeing stars, too …

The nothingness of nothing … as seen by scientists, philosophers, and others

Physics: No escape from philosophy through equations?

Does our solar system occupy a unique position in the universe, or just an ordinary one?

Extraterrestrials: Several million UFO reports later … the state of the question

More demolition teams trying to blow up the Big Bang

Do you have time to hear about some new theories … of time?

Now, if the butterflies would just appear out of nowhere …

Chaos theorists stumped by butterfly effect?

Solar system: Ours is special, researchers say

Aussie PM: Cosmic order proves God exists

Origin of life: Ah, that “just so happens” series of intermediate chemical steps ..

Physicist realizes that there is more to nature than materialist atheism can explain

Rehabilitating the idea of creation – Big Bang cosmology

Comments

I'll amend my first sentence. The purpose of the law is to protect the natural rights of the individual, prevent injustice, and preserve a well-ordered society.StephenB_{September 19, 2008
September
09
Sep
19
19
2008
09:22 PM
9
09
22
PM
PST}

The purpose of the law is to prevent injustice and protect the natural rights of the individual, not to institutionalize the whims of state sponsored bureaucrats. If the state starts passing arbitrary and unjust laws, citizens should revolt. On the one hand, it is reasonable and just to preserve academic standards for reading, writing, and arithmetic. On the other hand, it is not reasonalble and just to take young skulls full of mush and indoctrinate them in the state-sponsored religion of Darwinism. LeVake should be admired and encouraged for fighting against a stupid law. We no longer live in a well ordered society because the civil law is becoming more and more unjust. Tyranny is the problem; resistance is the cure. It makes no more sense to put up with this kind of foolishness than to dutifully follow the state’s orders to sit in the back of a bus. If we have come to a point where we can no longer tell the difference between a real lawbreaker and a citizen resisting the intrusion of anti-intellectual standards in the classroom, then our society will soon collapse anyway.StephenB_{September 19, 2008
September
09
Sep
19
19
2008
09:09 PM
9
09
09
PM
PST}

Hi Dave, You wrote: "We need to look forward to a time when the curriculum gets changed with criticisms of evolution added" I couldn't agree with you more! CaseyCasey Luskin_{September 19, 2008
September
09
Sep
19
19
2008
03:11 PM
3
03
11
PM
PST}

Casey It still boils down to who ultimately holds the reigns about what gets taught and what does not. If state law requires something and it's not filtering down to all classrooms it isn't fixed by individual teachers making judgement calls about what's missing and how to remedy it. That leads to not knowing what the hell is being taught from one classroom to the next in the same school, to say nothing of not knowing what's going on across an entire school district. If something is wrong with the curriculum then it gets fixed and changed simultaneously across the entire school district. If a superintendent or principal is failing in oversight there is a single point of accountability instead of a bunch of different teachers. Delegation of authority like this is essential in the smooth and efficient operation of virtually all organizations and certainly how public schools are managed. We need to look forward to a time when the curriculum gets changed with criticisms of evolution added and then, as now, teachers would be required to teach that or look for a different class. In the meantime teachers get to work to change the curriculum in the same manner as any other citizen by petitioning the duly appointed or elected decision makers, getting elected or appointed as a decision maker, or voting for decision makers that are aligned with their interests. That's as it should be with ultimate authority vested in the voters at the rate of one vote each. DaveScot_{September 19, 2008
September
09
Sep
19
19
2008
02:39 PM
2
02
39
PM
PST}

Thanks Patrick for raising a good point: I forgot that LeVake had briefly covered evolution during the year prior -- but that is a minor fact in the case overall, and the court seems to have given little weight to those circumstances because, as you observed, the court wrote, "The school year was cut short that year, so none of the other biology teachers spent a significant amount of time teaching the evolution chapters either." The real problem, as you correctly identified, was that LeVake had expressed intellectual doubts about evolution and said he would inform students about scientific critiques of evolution as well as teaching the required curriculum. As LeVake wrote: "I will accompany that treatment of evolution with an honest look at the difficulties and inconsistencies of the theory without turning my class into a religious one." Thus I mostly agree with you when you wrote: "It seems that LeVake intended to teach the official curriculum as written BUT he also intended to ADD his own material to the course which would then contradict the official curriculum. The school administrators reacted to this, reassigning him. So, yes, LeVake was never given the chance to enact his stated intentions at the time. He was reassigned based upon a belief, not an action." The only place I disagree with you is that I don't think that teaching students about the required curricular information supporting evolution, and then also teaching students about scientific views that challenge evolution, would necessary "contradict" the curriculum. After all, most school districts and / or states have requirements that teachers also teach students to evaluate, analyze, critically investigate, etc. scientific claims. I don't know what policies LeVake's district had back in 1998-1999, but in fact today they have policies that say the following: "Public schools must promote an atmosphere of free inquiry and a view of subject matter reflecting a broad range of ideas so that students are prepared for responsible citizenship. However, criticism of educational resources and teaching methods and the advocacy of additional educational resources are also essential First Amendment rights of students, faculty, parents, and other members of the community. Public school personnel should ... Encourage students to become decision makers, to exercise freedom of thought, and to make independent judgments through the examination and evaluation of relevant information, evidence, facts, and differing viewpoints. ... Discuss issues, including those viewed by some as controversial, since such discussion is essential to students' development of critical thinking and other skills which prepare them for full participation as citizens in a democratic society." (emphases added) Under such policies, when someone like LeVake teaches the required curriculum supporting evolution ("I will accompany that treatment of evolution...") and also includes scientific critiques of the curriculum ("...with an honest look at the difficulties and inconsistencies of the theory without turning my class into a religious one") that would not "contradict" the pro-evolution curriculum. In fact, such an approach would be fulfilling both the rights and obligations of teacher in that district to expose students to "differing viewpoints" and foster "critical thinking skills," etc., as stated above. Note: the policy quoted above also says "teachers should not be allowed to indoctrinate students with their own personal views." But teaching scientific critique of evolution doesn’t necessarily mean you are doing this. If LeVake used materials informing students about the views of legitimate scientists who doubt neo-Darwinism, i.e. if he did what he planned to do--to teach both the required curriculum and some scientific challenges to evolution--then he would by no means be "indoctrinating" students in his "own personal views." Francis Beckwith observed in San Diego Law Review, that “[i]n light of the deference accorded states in matters of public education, and given the school district's legal duty to teach the curriculum correctly, the court seemed to have balanced the interests of LeVake and the school district appropriately.” But Beckwith concludes that if LeVake had both “agreed to teach the curriculum in precisely the way he was told to do so, and subsequently taught everything required in the curriculum” and only “offered nonreligious criticisms of evolution” from legitimate scholarly sources, that he might have had “a case with law in his favor.” If LeVake's present account is correct, then it would seem that the scenario described by Beckwith is what actually happened. The court just didn't want to recognize it.Casey Luskin_{September 19, 2008
September
09
Sep
19
19
2008
01:30 PM
1
01
30
PM
PST}

By that you mean vouchers. The federal government doesn’t forbid them. It’s up to state & local gov’t to decide the voucher issue based upon their own local needs and standards. That’s as it should be.
As a supporter of federalism and states rights, I agree. I also agree with:
Questioning Darwinism is hardly unethical - it is in fact healthy scientific method.
William Wallace_{September 16, 2008
September
09
Sep
16
16
2008
03:03 PM
3
03
03
PM
PST}

StephenB : You answered Dave's response very well, thanks. Dave:
The curriculum includes nothing about homosexuality. The teacher decides that he should teach that homosexuality is natural and good. Should the school be able to fire the teacher for adding his personal opinions to the prescribed curriculum?
1 - see StephenB's answer 2 - ID is hardly a personal opinion 3 - There is, in reality, a very large controversy and much unrest in the sci-community over Darwinism - that should be part of the curriculum and we all know why it isn't and why they still pretend there is no controversy 4 - Teachers do not tend to introduce ideas not in curriculum on math, chemistry, etc. (hard sciences) but on any scientific theory a teacher's own thoughts and opinions should not be stifled under law 5 - No opinion allwed? Then why not have robots regurgitate the current scientific orthodoxy rather than have humand teachers who can actually think and ask questions? May as well the way things are going. My basic point is one of natural law vs bad or defective human law - whether in some 'sacred cow' national constitution or not. Natural law is of course the weightier, enduring matter. It will never go away. Constitutions come and go. Perhaps my example was poor in comparing a clearly moral issue with an academic one (howbeit with moral implications). I could have said, what if the teacher teaches that "little red plutonians rule the galaxy". Or, "the world is flat"? Proposing controversial things would actually benefit students - if they were allowed to debate the subject. After all, 1) what teacher would teach such things (ex. plutonians)? 2) What student would believe it if he/she did? Again, if teachers are not allowed to speak anything not in the curriculum what are they going to say when asked questions not in the curriculum, but that deal with the subject matter??!! Same applies to our case. Teachers (and students) should be allowed to question scientific orthodoxy, and that right itself should be part of the curriculum - as long as the intention is to provoke critical analysis rather than forcing some unethical garbage on students. Questioning Darwinism is hardly unethical - it is in fact healthy scientific method.Borne_{September 16, 2008
September
09
Sep
16
16
2008
01:17 PM
1
01
17
PM
PST}

Is this the same Rodney LeVake who was fired in 1998 for the same reason and whose appeals failed all the way to the Supreme Court? Or is the podcast about events 10 years ago - they seem very similar.Reg_{September 16, 2008
September
09
Sep
16
16
2008
12:54 PM
12
12
54
PM
PST}

What is the purpose of a school if not to produce a finished product in the form of a responsible citizen? The school's purpose is to teach reading, writing, and arithmetic. The rest of the job is up to the parents and voluntary interaction within their community.DaveScot_{September 16, 2008
September
09
Sep
16
16
2008
11:43 AM
11
11
43
AM
PST}

----"How do you figure." I am not going to stretch out on that one without the expressed permission of UD administrators. Suffice it to say, that until 1973, the American Psychiatric Association listed homosexuality as a diagnostic disorder. That was before political pressure put these kinds of discussions to an end. In any case, my broader point still holds: There is no such thing as a value free education.StephenB_{September 16, 2008
September
09
Sep
16
16
2008
11:30 AM
11
11
30
AM
PST}

StephenB, "because homosexuality violates the natural moral law." How do you figure?bFast_{September 16, 2008
September
09
Sep
16
16
2008
10:59 AM
10
10
59
AM
PST}

William The parents should be able to fire the teacher and/or school, via school choice. By that you mean vouchers. The federal government doesn't forbid them. It's up to state & local gov't to decide the voucher issue based upon their own local needs and standards. That's as it should be.DaveScot_{September 16, 2008
September
09
Sep
16
16
2008
10:24 AM
10
10
24
AM
PST}

-----"The curriculum includes nothing about homosexuality. The teacher decides that he should teach that homosexuality is natural and good. Should the school be able to fire the teacher for adding his personal opinions to the prescribed curriculum?" Yes, because homosexuality violates the natural moral law. What is the purpose of a school if not to produce a finished product in the form of a responsible citizen? What kind of a person do we want as the finished product of that process? Do we want someone who believes that morality is a convenient code that we make up for ourselves as we go along, or do we want someone who believes that morality is an objective reality that makes demands on us and something that we ought to conform to? There are really only two choices: Teach children about the natural moral law, or teach them secular humanism. It is impossible to be neutral on matters like these because social responsibility is inseparable from personal morality. Secularist educators recognize this, so they train the children to love the government and hate the family, an ethic that is reflected in the textbook, “Heather has two mommies.” In 1947, Supreme Court Injustice Hugo Black abandoned the natural moral law as the standard for civil law and arrogated unto himself the right to propose a new standard based on popular opinion. Now, we practice moral relativism and take our cues from whoever can gain enough power to call the shots. Since we have no transcendent standards, our cultural ethic has changed---diversity and individuality have supplanted unity and concern for the common good. That is why secularist Wall Street speculators don’t think twice about feeding their greed even if it means bankrupting the country. Of course, radical egalitarianism soon degenerates into a war of all against all which, in turn, leads to dictatorial morality imposed by power hungry sociopaths. Having abandoned the natural moral law, we now submit to an arbitrary law known as “political correctness,” as defined by Hollywood perverts, Harvard eggheads, and stupid old men in black robes. Part of that new morality consists of disfranchising the Christians, that discredited majority who taught us about the natural moral in the first place and inspired Jefferson, a Deist, to enshrine it in Declaration of Independence. For those who don’t remember, it’s the “laws of nature” and “nature’s [expletive deleted].”StephenB_{September 16, 2008
September
09
Sep
16
16
2008
09:30 AM
9
09
30
AM
PST}

"Should the school be able to fire the teacher for adding his personal opinions to the prescribed curriculum?" The parents should be able to fire the teacher and/or school, via school choice.William Wallace_{September 16, 2008
September
09
Sep
16
16
2008
08:46 AM
8
08
46
AM
PST}

Borne If the cirriculum says you must teach that homosexuality is good and natural (already on the legislative table in some states) should you deviate from the law? Let's put the shoe on the other foot. The curriculum includes nothing about homosexuality. The teacher decides that he should teach that homosexuality is natural and good. Should the school be able to fire the teacher for adding his personal opinions to the prescribed curriculum?DaveScot_{September 16, 2008
September
09
Sep
16
16
2008
07:51 AM
7
07
51
AM
PST}

Oh, and, uh, did the teacher get fired, or re-assigned?William Wallace_{September 15, 2008
September
09
Sep
15
15
2008
09:06 PM
9
09
06
PM
PST}

Americans concede far more weight to the constitution than to natural law or common sense.
In our defense, the United States is a nation of laws. Our supreme law is the U.S Constitution including its amendments, which is based at least in part, if not wholly, on John Locke's natural law political philosophy. Our Constitution was made possible and is consistent with the Lockean Declaration of Independence (significantly "borrowed" by Thomas Jefferson from John Lock).
If it's in the constitution it's absolute law no matter what the justice of natural law says to the contrary. At least that’s what a lot of people from other nations perceive.
Our Constitution is based on natural law, and to the extent that the people realize later that this is not the case, it has an amendment process built into allow for its correction. If that fails over a period of years, the Declaration of Independence illustrates another path (political violence). But, alas, when John Locke's political philosophy is not taught in the schools, we end up with a "living breathing" constitution. Thus, I disagree that we should willy nilly ignore laws on two counts. First, most citizens are not equipped by our public schools to discern the difference between natural law and tyranny. Second, natural law dictates that the legislative and amendment paths be attempted before a course of political violence is planned. Better to try to change the law through legislation, or the Constitution through amendment. Back to the case at hand. The U.S. Constitution does not enumerate a power for the federal government to regulate education, but the Minnesota constitution does. Constitutional arguments in this case at best should have been based on academic freedom arguments, to the extent that they could be derived from freedom of speech and conscience. If no explicit laws exist protecting academic freedom, these laws should be drafted, debated, passed, and signed into law. I disagree with DaveScot that teachers should be automatons, and that this case was without merit. Nobody argues that teachers should be free to teach alchemy and geocentricism as fact. But do we really want to restrict our publicly funded secondary teachers to the recitation of approved dogma, be that Darwinism, Intelligent Design, or creationism? I think not. Better to allow some flexibility. Academic freedom for teachers to teach science (including scientific criticisms) is common sense.William Wallace_{September 15, 2008
September
09
Sep
15
15
2008
03:31 PM
3
03
31
PM
PST}

"The court found he had no constitutional right to teach whatever he wanted to teach. I quite agree." Americans concede far more weight to the constitution than to natural law or common sense. If it's in the constituion it's absolute law no matter what the justice of natural law says to the contrary. At least that's what a lot of people from other nations perceive. However, any mad-made law that contravenes natural law or is unjust in any way is null and void, carries no real moral obligation and should be resisted. All human law must be based on the principles of natural law, the moral law of right and wrong, to the highest degree that intelligence, virtue and knowledge of circumstances provide. So the constitution may well declare whatever on a teachers limits in teaching cirriculum - does that mean it's right? If the cirriculum says you must teach that homosexuality is good and natural (already on the legislative table in some states) should you deviate from the law?
One of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our fathers used in the great struggle for Independence.
—Charles A. Beard
Our safety, our liberty, depends upon preserving the Constitution of the United States as our fathers made it inviolate. The people of the United States are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts—not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.
—Abraham Lincoln Time for some overthrowing.
The Framers [of the Constitution] knew that free speech is the friend of change and revolution. But they also knew that it is always the deadliest enemy of tyranny.
—Hugo L. Black, 1960Borne_{September 15, 2008
September
09
Sep
15
15
2008
01:40 PM
1
01
40
PM
PST}

Thanks for the link, DaveScot--it's probably why I haven't heard of this before, looks like the government schools had their bases covered well. The opinion also states "As part of the tenth-grade biology course, LeVake was required to teach evolution.". For any readers in Minnesota who would prefer to avoid funding government run secondary schools, please note that we have the post secondary option, in which you can send your child to college for two years instead of highschool, and the money that would have gone to the highschool, will go to the college instead. The college does not need to be government run, but the college does need to be in Minnesota. It's a good program, and even better, it ticks off teacher unions, and avoids formulaic coursework and automaton high school teachers.William Wallace_{September 13, 2008
September
09
Sep
13
13
2008
11:36 PM
11
11
36
PM
PST}

Casey, I don't think your statement covers all the bases.
LeVake makes it clear that the court misconstrued the facts of the situation to suit its own purpose: LeVake never refused to teach the curriculum, and in fact the events which led to the case took place BEFORE he even taught evolution.
Reading the court decision he'd already taught the curriculum "successfully" as defined by the curriculum, albeit cut short for reasons never specified:
In spring 1998, when LeVake arrived at the evolution component of the course, he spent only one day covering the topic, which included a correlating lab. The school year was cut short that year, so none of the other biology teachers spent a significant amount of time teaching the evolution chapters either.
It seems that LeVake intended to teach the official curriculum as written BUT he also intended to ADD his own material to the course which would then contradict the official curriculum. The school administrators reacted to this, reassigning him. So, yes, LeVake was never given the chance to enact his stated intentions at the time. He was reassigned based upon a belief, not an action. So, are teachers allowed to do this? For example, in a physics class if the curriculum specified that I teach string theory models favored by Randall could I supplement the course with alternative views and reasons that this model(s) may be false? If the answer is yes, then why could LeVake not do the same with another scientific topic? Now I could understand not wanting a loophole where teachers can arbitrarily contradict anything in the curriculum. For example, if a Flat Earther became a teacher could he teach the curriculum as stated but then throw in his alternative views? For another example, what if I were a Darwinist and I thought the curriculum mandated an incorrect, outmoded version of the theory. Could I then teach the curriculum and then contradict it, stating the views of some modern evolutionary biologists? In the absence of clear guidelines it seems the administrators and judges are defining what is acceptable based upon their own personal worldview. Beliefs...it's certainly not the evidence guiding their decision...Patrick_{September 13, 2008
September
09
Sep
13
13
2008
03:38 PM
3
03
38
PM
PST}

Dave's right. You can "see" it in the podcast also - LeVake said his written plan he submitted included discussing weaknesses of the theory. Now, if a coffee break discussion with a co-worker needs to be defended before a tribunal of sorts, that's certainly as unamerican as it gets and may even constitute harassment of the hostile environment kind. But he took the step (maybe he took the bait) of planning to add to to the curriculum, in writing, no less. People get fired or penalized for what they say and write at work all the time, and it's not unconstitutional if it has to do with the job and is against the employer's direction, which Dave's post 11 shows is the case here. Now, do teachers freely add to the curriculum all the time with no penalty? Of course. With any other topic, except probably Global Warming, this would not be a big deal. Would Mr. Burns be reassigned from teaching American Lit because he led a discussion about how some people think The Great Gatsby is a piece of crap? Of course not, as long as he got through the required material.landru_{September 13, 2008
September
09
Sep
13
13
2008
01:45 PM
1
01
45
PM
PST}

The court decision (the other side of the story) is an obligatory read for any objective observer. That fact that no one provided a link to it stinks of biased reporting. http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/archive/ctappub/0105/c8001613.htm LeVake gave written notice of his intention to teach evolution in a manner contrary to the prescribed curriculum. That is a fact in the case and it is uncontested by LeVake. He wrote to school administrators (court's emphasis, not mine):
I don't believe an unquestioning faith in the theory of evolution is foundational to the goals I have stated in teaching my students about themselves, their responsibilities, and gaining a sense of awe for what they see around them. I will teach, should the department decide that it is appropriate, the theory of evolution. I will also accompany that treatment of evolution with an honest look at the difficulties and inconsistencies of the theory without turning my class into a religious one.
LeVake's complaint was based on a perceived constitutional right to deviate from the prescribed curriculum. The court found he had no constitutional right to teach whatever he wanted to teach. I quite agree. DaveScot_{September 13, 2008
September
09
Sep
13
13
2008
03:39 AM
3
03
39
AM
PST}

There's been a court decision here and a podcast. Personally, I'll take a court decision over a podcast - which presents only one side of the case, without any cross examination - any time.Portishead_{September 13, 2008
September
09
Sep
13
13
2008
01:53 AM
1
01
53
AM
PST}

Based on the audio, this is a sad commentary on our times. What was the court decision alluded to in the comments? On a request for summary judgment? Can anybody provide a link? I do have to disagree with DaveScot. Teachers should be hired as professionals, not automatons. Same goes for their administrators.William Wallace_{September 12, 2008
September
09
Sep
12
12
2008
11:14 PM
11
11
14
PM
PST}

Off topic: Is anyone going to post about the new article in Science? Essentially saying that the dinosaurs survived not because they were the fittest, but because they just got lucky:
The rise and diversification of the dinosaurs in the Late Triassic, from 230 to 200 million years ago, is a classic example of an evolutionary radiation with supposed competitive replacement. A comparison of evolutionary rates and morphological disparity of basal dinosaurs and their chief "competitors," the crurotarsan archosaurs, shows that dinosaurs exhibited lower disparity and an indistinguishable rate of character evolution. The radiation of Triassic archosaurs as a whole is characterized by declining evolutionary rates and increasing disparity, suggesting a decoupling of character evolution from body plan variety. The results strongly suggest that historical contingency, rather than prolonged competition or general "superiority," was the primary factor in the rise of dinosaurs. (Superiority, Competition, and Opportunism in the Evolutionary Radiation of Dinosaurs. Stephen L. Brusatte, Michael J. Benton, Marcello Ruta, Graeme T. Lloyd)
lars_{September 12, 2008
September
09
Sep
12
12
2008
07:38 PM
7
07
38
PM
PST}

SCheesman and others, You can cite the appellate decision all you want: all it proves is that school administrators have huge power to limit teacher speech in the classroom--even when the speech is constitutional. Sadly, that is the current law. But that's not the issue here. I urge you to listen to the podcasts. In them, Mr. LeVake makes it clear that the court misconstrued the facts of the situation to suit its own purpose: LeVake never refused to teach the curriculum, and in fact the events which led to the case took place BEFORE he even taught evolution. Here's what is said: Me: There have been people including both the court and some Darwinists involved with this situation who claimed that you refused to teach evolution. Is that true? LeVake: No, that was actually not the case at all. It wasn't that I was refusing to teach evolution. They wanted to know my views about what I thought about evolution. And I told them that I had some concerns about it from a scientific standpoint. ... Me: They've also said Mr. LeVake that you refused to teach basically the full curriculum regarding evolution and what you were supposed to teach. Was that a true charge against you? LeVake: No ... I was teaching the very same thing as my mentor teacher was right next door. Every single day I taught the very same thing he taught... So what got LeVake into trouble? It was NOT complaints by a student about his teaching. It was complains by a fellow faculty member who turned LeVake in after LeVake discussed, during a casual out-of-class conversation, about his personal scientific doubts about evolution. In other words, all LeVake committed was a thought crime. If LeVake's account is true, then the commonly-believed history of the LeVake situation, as it was written by the court, needs to be revised. Listen to the podcasts and you'll get the full story. Thanks. --CaseyCasey Luskin_{September 12, 2008
September
09
Sep
12
12
2008
06:01 PM
6
06
01
PM
PST}

Whether or not LaVake lied I don’t have the time to delve deeply, and as far as employers having the right to fire teachers I have no problem—it’s just that government schools, period, they give me the willies. They’re illiberal bureaucracies financed at the point of a gun with a cabal of loony tunes dictating how and what is to be taught. Fascism shmascism—call it what you will—the system is inefficient in science, industry and commerce and it’s equally stifling in education. Government schools weren’t so bad many years ago—I came up through the old one room country ones—but the avant-garde of the Sixties have poisoned them as everything else … So boycott them! Homeschool! Go private! They asked, “What do you think? Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar, or not?” He asked for a coin and said, “Whose is this image and superscription?” “Caesar’s” they said. He replied, “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” That is why the US Constitution sought to limit Caesar and it’s why the First Amendment is first in the Bill of Rights.Rude_{September 12, 2008
September
09
Sep
12
12
2008
05:46 PM
5
05
46
PM
PST}

I don't know if this second half will change any minds, but here it is. If fascism was involved (and it well could be), its key characteristic is that the person expressed private doubts, which resulted in public action. Non-fascists have a sense of boundaries, but for fascists, "the personal is political." So any time anyone expresses doubt, they are an Enemy of the People.O'Leary_{September 12, 2008
September
09
Sep
12
12
2008
05:36 PM
5
05
36
PM
PST}

Off Topic Video: The Complexity Of The Cell (The Complexity of Cells): http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=d182b9b1b9793ba027a3bornagain77_{September 12, 2008
September
09
Sep
12
12
2008
04:26 PM
4
04
26
PM
PST}

I'm going to have to go ahead and agree with SCheesman except for the stink of facism. Public school teachers are public servants and are obliged to teach as they're instructed. If the same teacher was instructed to teach intelligent design and refused I'd still fall on the side of do what your contract calls for or take a hike.DaveScot_{September 12, 2008
September
09
Sep
12
12
2008
03:32 PM
3
03
32
PM
PST}

1 2 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply