quote:


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.

quote:

LeVake appealed his reassignment to Superintendent Keith Dixon. On May 14, 1998, Dixon wrote LeVake a letter, affirming his reassignment. Dixon believed that LeVake differed fundamentally with the “commonly held principles of the curriculum as outlined.” Dixon further articulated that LeVake's insistence on teaching the inconsistencies of evolution was not an appropriate method for teaching the approved curriculum.

quote:


In fact, LeVake admitted in his deposition testimony that “in essence [he] said to [Hubert] that [he could not] teach evolution.” (Emphasis added.)

quote:

2. A public school teacher's right to free speech as a citizen does not permit the teacher to teach a class in a manner that circumvents the prescribed course curriculum established by the school board when performing as a teacher.

quote:

The classroom is a “marketplace of ideas,” and academic freedom should be safeguarded. Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 385 U.S. 589, 603, 87 S. Ct. 675, 683 (1967). But Levake, in his role as a public school teacher rather than as a private citizen, wanted to discuss the criticisms of evolution. LeVake's position paper established that he does not believe the theory of evolution is credible. Further, LeVake's proposed method of teaching evolution is in direct conflict with respondents' curriculum requirements. See Clark v. Holmes, 474 F.2d 928, 931 (7th Cir. 1972) (recognizing teacher had no First Amendment right to override judgment of superiors regarding proper course content). Accordingly, the established curriculum and LeVake's responsibility as a public school teacher to teach evolution in the manner prescribed by the curriculum overrides his First Amendment rights as a private citizen. See Webster v. New Lenox Sch. Dist. No. 122, 917 F.2d 1004, 1007 (7th Cir. 1990) (recognizing compelling state interest in choice and adherence to suitable curriculum for benefit of young students overrides individual teachers' desire to teach what they please).

quote:

D E C I S I O N
Because LeVake's position paper and his statement to Hubert make it clear that LeVake would not teach the required course curriculum in the manner established by the school board, LeVake has not presented any genuine issue of material fact regarding his free exercise, free speech, and due process claims. Thus, the district court did not err in granting respondents' motion for summary judgment.

Affirmed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
Case closed. If you don't/can't/won't do your job according to the relevant standards, don't expect to keep doing it. The judge followed the law.

quote:


Yes, it would be interesting to see all the transcripts, etc.

quote:

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?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize

Wow, someone on uncommondescent finally kinda gets the gist of the issue

Patrick on post 13 finally seems to have figured it out (again, I would have posted there much earlier, but I can't post there). This whole time, everyone there seems to have misunderstood the situation and it took them only this long to finally get things on track.

Patrick

quote:

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...

quote:

ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes

quote:


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...

The finding of the court (and the appellate court) was that "LeVake would not teach the required course curriculum," so this question has no relevance to the case at hand.

quote:


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.

quote:


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.

quote:

Based on 42 U.S.C. § 1983, LeVake alleged that respondents violated his right to free exercise of religion, free speech, due process, freedom of conscience, and academic freedom.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize

quote:


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.

(from the findlaw site).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Veritas
On the one hand, LeVake is saying he wasn't turning the class into a religious one. -- On the other hand, he's claiming they violated his right to free exercise.

How can he say it isn't about religion and then turn around and say their actions prevented him from exercising his religion?

quote:

ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
Yes, that's what Levake said. And the school said that he wasn't teaching evolution in accordance with the curriculum. That's party A and party B. I don't expect anyone to believe either side over the other at this point. But they take their argument to the court, which acts as a neutral party to decide the issue. The court decided in favor of the school. Levake appealed, and again the court decided against him.

I know you are suspicious of the courts and have even been worried that an Orwellian conspiracy was changing things on the findlaw site, but I can't follow you into that paranoid assumption and credit Levake's story over the decision of the court.

quote:


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.

quote:


In fact, LeVake admitted in his deposition testimony that “in essence [he] said to [Hubert] that [he could not] teach evolution.” (Emphasis added.)

quote:

ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
I know you are suspicious of the courts and have even been worried that an Orwellian conspiracy was changing things on the findlaw site,

quote:


but I can't follow you into that paranoid assumption and credit Levake's story over the decision of the court.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize

quote:

ORIGINAL: Veritas
On the one hand, LeVake is saying he wasn't turning the class into a religious one. -- On the other hand, he's claiming they violated his right to free exercise.

How can he say it isn't about religion and then turn around and say their actions prevented him from exercising his religion?

The idea is that they violated the first amendment in general.

quote:


Besides, lawyers always sue everyone in sight for everything in sight (I took that in my law course), it's common practice for them. They sue on side issues they know they aren't going to win (but those aren't the main issues that they're suing for) just because they can. For instance, often times when suing for damages in civil cases, they sue for lost wages as well (on the side) knowing that they're not going to win the lost wages but the main thing that they're suing for is not the lost wages, it's for the original damages (and that's what they expect to hopefully win). This is common practice (that's what I learned in my law courses), it's nothing new. The freedom of religion is not the issue here, it was just tossed in as at side to describe in general what the first amendment protects one from.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize

On the one hand, Levake said that he would teach evolution. On the other hand, the court paraphrased him as saying that he couldn't. Why would he state that he would teach evolution and then say that he wouldn't. This doesn't make sense unless the court (or findlaw) misquoted (or mis-paraphrased) him. The fact that the sentence stating that he wouldn't teach evolution is a paraphrase is very suspicious. The only way to know if they mis - paraphrased him is to see the original deposition.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize


It does not follow that claiming free exercise must pertain to religion. This is the kinda bad logic evolutionists use to argue their position and the reason that evolutionists use bad logic to defend their position is because evolutionists have no choice. Evolutionists can't defend their silly position with good logic (because their position is nonsense) so they must resort to try to defend their position with bad logic.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Veritas
It certainly does follow that free exercise must pertain to religion. In the first amendment, the words "free exercise" are immediately followed by the words "of religion". When one speaks of the free exercise clause in the first amendment, they are referring to the free exercise of religion. It's not bad logic, it is what the clause says.

quote:


First amendment in general, but LeVake mentioned Free Expression in particular.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize

quote:


First amendment in general, but LeVake mentioned Free Expression in particular.

He mentioned many things in particular (more than just one thing regarding the first amendment), but the idea is that he was referring to the first amendment in general (he was just stipulating what was in the first amendment). This is common practice among lawyers. Lawyers do this all the time, they always sue for irrelevant stuff that they know they won't win (but that stuff is not the center of the lawsuit). If you don't know this, then I suggest you take a law course. The reason for suing was not about religion. The idea in general is the first amendment. Again, it's common practice for lawyers to sue everyone in sight for everything in sight (even if the lawyer knows they won't win everything and they know they won't win most of the stuff and the rest of the stuff they're suing for is not the center of the case). That's what I learned in my law classes (LeVake was represented by lawyers from the ACLJ and they probably just tacked on a bunch of irrelevant stuff habitually).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Veritas
Lawyers do not "always sue for irrelevant stuff that they know they won't win", they sue for relevant stuff they think they might have a chance, however slight, of winning.

quote:


You don't hear free exercise mentioned in, say, a medical malpractice suit.

quote:


He did mention more than one specific right in the first amendment that he believes was violated, free speech was another first amendment right he claimed was violated. I didn't mean to imply free exercise was the only right he claimed was violated. His claim that Free Exercise was violated indicates this is about religion. He didn't have to bring up Free Exercise, but he did. And the only reason to bring up Free Exercise is religion.

quote:


If the fact LeVake is claiming Free Expression is not enough to show that this is about religion, I submit that the ACLJ filed his appeal.

quote:


That should be enough to convince anyone. It's definitely about religion!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Veritas
Another possibility is that LeVake is talking out of both sides of his mouth, much like when he claims it's not about religion, and then turns around and says his right to Free Expression is violated.
...
I submit that the ACLJ filed his appeal.