Teacher sanctioned for calling creationism what it is

Meet James Corbett, the teacher who was sanctioned for calling creationism “religious superstitious nonsense” in his California classroom.  Apparently he was up on 20 counts of violating the first amendment by gratuitously insulting religion (a student taped him secretly).  The teacher was found mostly not guilty, with one exception: the creationist comment.

This is very strange, as many of the other comments he made (link also connects to the judge’s ruling) are much more clearly gratuitious and unacceptable insults to religious views, including this epiphet from Mark Twain: “Religion was invented when the first con man met the first fool.”  Here’s the relevant part of the judge’s decision:

The Court turns first to Corbett’s statement regarding John Peloza … This statement presents the closest question for the Court in assessing secular purpose. Peloza apparently brought suit against Corbett because Corbett was the advisor to a student newspaper which ran an article suggesting that Peloza was teaching religion rather than science in his classroom. … Corbett explained to his class that Peloza, a teacher, “was not telling the kids [Peloza’s students] the scientific truth about evolution.” … Corbett also told his students that, in response to a request to give Peloza space in the newspaper to present his point of view, Corbett stated, “I will not leave John Peloza alone to propagandize kids with this religious, superstitious nonsense.” … One could argue that Corbett meant that Peloza should not be presenting his religious ideas to students or that Peloza was presenting faulty science to the students. But there is more to the statement: Corbett states an unequivocal belief that creationism is “superstitious nonsense.” The Court cannot discern a legitimate secular purpose in this statement, even when considered in context. The statement therefore constitutes improper disapproval of religion in violation of the Establishment Clause.

What bothers me is that Judge Jones said something essentially identical to what Corbett said in his ruling on the Kitzmiller et al. vs. Dover et al. case — in a Federal courtroom.  Why wasn’t that pronouncement a violation of the Establishmenbt Clause?

I do believe in preserving religious liberty and avoiding promoting one religion over another — or deriding religions with a political purpose — in the public schools, but in this case it’s not that clear.  Here is some disagreement with the ruling by  Eugene Volokh (scroll down that page to see his analysis):

Establishment Clause Violation for Public High School Teacher To Call Creationism “Superstitious Nonsense”:

So holds C.F. v. Capistrano Unified School Dist., decided Friday. I understand the logic of the case — the Court has repeatedly said that the government’s disapproving of religion is as unconstitutional as the government’s endorsing religion, and the district court decision tries to implement that. But it seems to me that this just helps illustrate the difficulties posed by the endorsement test.

To begin with, the court concludes that it “cannot discern a legitimate secular purpose in [the] statement,” applying the Lemon test’s “secular purpose” prong. But I would think the legitimate secular purpose is clear: The speaker is trying to get students to accept the theory of evolution, which he believes to be much more conducive to scientific thinking, and much more likely to produce useful results, than creationism. That’s a perfectly secular purpose. To be sure, it’s a purpose that is accomplished using the means of deriding religion. But that doesn’t stop the purpose (promoting belief in a scientific theory that the speaker thinks is sound, useful, and conducive to scientific thinking) from being secular. . .

. . .I say it again: The court may have been quite right as a matter of existing doctrine, and if we are going to say that public institutions can’t advocate in favor of creationism, it makes sense for the doctrine — which has been defended by claims of symmetry, such as that the government may neither endorse nor disapprove of religion, may neither advance nor inhibit religion, and may neither show favoritism nor hostility — to also bar statements that creationism is superstitious nonsense. But the result is either that (1) teachers can’t condemn voodoo, astrology, young-Earthism, and so on as the bunk that they are, (2) courts have to draw lines between which religious beliefs may be disapproved of and which may not be, or (3) teachers are even more at see about what they are constitutionally barred from saying than we’ve seen from past endorsement cases.

The whole issue is hashed out by readers over at The Panda’s Thumb.

But read the interview with Corbett, and see if you don’t think that he’s a good teacher, the kind you’d like your kids to have.   And he hardly seems to be a raving atheist:

Q. People have accused you of being anti-Christian. What are your personal religious convictions?

A. The most important words ever spoken are: “Love your neighbors as yourself,” “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” and “Judge not, lest you be judged.” We hear those words from a lot of religions. That’s what I believe – that’s the core of it. I’m eclectic with religion. I was baptized Catholic and have worn a Celtic cross around my neck for the past 50 years. Right now, I’d call myself a smorgasbord Catholic. Occasionally, I go to a church on holidays. And I often stand behind the curtains at Crossline Church (a nondenominational Christian church that meets at Capistrano Valley High on Sundays) and listen to the sermon. They are intellectually stimulating, and they can often provide you with a perspective on major issues of the day. I like to hear what anybody has to say.