Teacher sues school to allow the Declaration of Independence into his classroom
Declaration of Independence Banned at Calif School
Is Declaration of Independence unconstitutional?
Updated 31 January 2005: Stevens Creek Parents speak out, offer clarification and information. (Details/commentary at bottom of post.)
Updated 30 November 2004: The lawsuit has been archived on The Smoking Gun.
The Declaration of Independence, various state constitutions, the diary of George Washington and the writings of John Adams and William Penn. These historical documents have been banned from the Cupertino Union School District because they contain some references to God and religion.
Steven Williams, a fifth-grade teacher at Stevens Creek School in the San Francisco Bay area suburb of Cupertino, sued for discrimination on Monday, claiming he had been singled out for censorship by principal Patricia Vidmar because he is a Christian.
“It’s a fact of American history that our founders were religious men, and to hide this fact from young fifth-graders in the name of political correctness is outrageous and shameful,” said Williams’ attorney, Terry Thompson.
I wonder if they are planning to censor all references to religion in the scholastic curriculum. It would certainly make History class a lot shorter.
California’s Education Code does allow “references to religion or references to or the use of religious literature � when such references or uses do not constitute instruction in religious principles � and when such references or uses are incidental to or illustrative of matters properly included in the course of study.”
In other words, the law allows teachers to actually teach historical fact. For better or worse religion has rode hand in hand with history. The teacher was not trying to proselytize for Christianity, he was trying to teach his students about the Declaration of Independence.
“He hands out a lot of material and perhaps 5 to 10 percent refers to God and Christianity because that’s what the founders wrote,” said Thompson, a lawyer for the Alliance Defense Fund, which advocates for religious freedom. “The principal seems to be systematically censoring material that refers to Christianity and it is pure discrimination.”
(Tip credit to Jason Trommetter and David Kane)
UPDATE 30 November 2004
Law suit presented on The Smoking Gun
Reading through the lawsuit seems to indicate that the supplemental pamphlets were not religious in nature but contained only the religious references inherent in the historical documents. Additionally, Williams specifically avoided proselytizing and tried to address concerns about it. Reading between the lines I’m getting the picture that the items themselves weren’t a problem for the school, they just didn’t want the combination of an avowed Christian and items referring to Christianity.
(Tip credit to Pat Cupertino)
UPDATE 30 November 2004
A group of Stevens Creek parents have banded together to clarify and inform about the Declaration of Independence gaff at their kids’ school.
We, the Parents are a group of over a hundred concerned parents who take an active role in our children’s education at Stevens Creek Elementary School, in Cupertino, California.
Our grassroots organization has come about as a way of responding truthfully to the negative media campaign crafted by a group of lawyers who have filed a lawsuit, which we feel is frivolous, against our school, our principal, Patricia Vidmar, and the Cupertino Union School District board of Education.
Our mission is to clarify the misconceptions created about our school so that we can rescue our reputation as one of the best schools in the area, State, and our Great Nation.
The group contends that Vidmar acted correctly in response to parental complaints of proselytizing in the classroom.
The lawsuit concerned the way in which the principal reviewed lesson plans and supplemental handouts of fifth grade teacher Stephen Williams, following a number of complaints from parents over an extended period of time. According to the open letter, the press release, which is still posted on the ADF web site, contains a number of glaring inaccuracies:
1. The Declaration of Independence was not banned. It is printed in full in the textbook that all fifth grade teachers, including the claimant, Mr. Stephen Williams use. It is also posted in locations throughout the school.
2. During the Hannity and Colmes program, Williams denied the claim that the Declaration of Independence was banned.
3. The children at Stevens Creek Elementary are taught history with the correct religious background in an exemplary program within the district. The school has been widely recognized for the Living History Program implemented at the fifth grade level every year.
I begin to get the feeling that his is a kerfuffle being stoked by the Alliance Defense Fund, rather than a true scholastic issue.
(Tip credit to Cupertino Mom)
This doesn’t smell right… I don’t think any school would ban the documents this country is founded on. There must be more happening here.
Also, what does this have to do with zero tolerance policies? Or even disciplining students?
barry
California is one screwed up state. One district had kids learning Moselm prayers and the tenets of Islam in a social studies class. No opt out for students whose parents were upset. They were told their kids would fail if they didn’t participate. Of course, the class was canceled when parents went to the press and made a huge, huge stink. Now we learn that founding documents are banned by this principal. I would like to think there is a reasonable explanation for this (yeah, right, this is a public school and we know how reasonable public school officials are), such as is this Christian teacher proselytizing the students or is he giving a straightforward account of how religion played a part in the founding of this country? I guess it will come out in court.
I focus on zero tolerance but I’ll happily share all sorts of scholastic inanity on this site.
I suspect that it’s the founding principles of the USA this principal doesn’t approve of, not just the historical references to a creator.
Well, here is another one:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16091
Declaration of Independence unconstitutional?
This is just the latest example of liberal lunacy run amok. Why are these people so afraid of references to God? The first amendment protects churches from the government. It doesn�t create religion free zones in public schools.
And another:
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/34973.htm
Wanna bet they don’t start the day with the Pledge of Alleience in Cupertino schools?
I wonder if the state social studies standards require any of these documents (or the related concepts) be taught — and how the pinhead administrator gets around it.
Heck, I can’t imagine how I would teach the Middle Ages and Renaissance without referencing God.
http://seetheforest.blogspot.com/2004_11_01_seetheforest_archive.html#110134337110716232
–adam
http://www.bluelemur.com/index.php?p=446
11/24/2004
Declaration of Independence ban at public school said bogus: Teacher reportedly forced pupils to listen to Christian dogma
Filed under: General� site admin @ 10:24 pm Email This
Declaration Of Independence banned!
The seemingly preposterous headline made major waves on the conservative Drudge Report and Fox News network Wednesday, joining Reuters and the Associated Press, in a misleading story that exhibited serious reportorial negligence, RAW STORY has learned.
The story, which reports that a California teacher has been banned from giving students documents from American history that refer to God, including the Declaration of Independence, is said a product of right-wing spin.
In fact, Cupertino public school principal Patricia Vidmar banned documents relating to God because the teacher had been forcing students to listen to what some felt was Christian propaganda, a media watchdog site reports. According to the site, the school had told him to stop but he did not comply, at which point the principal required that he submit his lesson plans to her in advance.
The teacher, Steven Williams, sued for discrimination and is now being represented by a conservative Christian legal group, Alliance Defense Fund.
Alliance Defense Fund boasts of other legal �successes,� including the right of Boy Scouts to refuse gays from ascending to leadership positions.
According to People for the American Way, a watchdog group, ADF was founded by 30 Christian ministries to serve as a counterbalance to the American Civil Liberties Union.
The organization defends the right of Christians to �share the gospel� in workplaces and public schools, asserting that efforts to curb such speech at work and schools are �anti-Christian.�
None of the major news agencies reporting on the story included quotations from the school or the principal, stating that a spokesman had referred them to a staff attorney. The articles suggest they did little research beyond the statements provided by William�s attorneys.
Reuters included scant information about the group who sued on Williams behalf, saying only that the group advocates �religious freedom.�
A media watch site, Seeing the Forest, first caught the story Wednesday evening.
�The school did not �ban the Declaration of Independence� � that is just a lie,� Editor Dave Johnson, who is a fellow at the Commonweal Institute, wrote. �This story is like when you hear that a man was �arrested for praying� and you find out he was kneeling in the middle of a busy intersection at rush hour and refused to move.�
California�s Education Code does allow �references to religion or references to or the use of religious literature � when such references or uses do not constitute instruction in religious principles � and when such references or uses are incidental to or illustrative of matters properly included in the course of study,� as William�s lawyers have pointed out.
It does not, however, allow for forced religious dogma in public schools.
The text of the lawsuit is on smokinggun.com. Of particular note are items #43,45,60,65,66,67.
The text of the lawsuit is on smokinggun.com. Of particular note are items #43,45,60,65,66,67.
Thanks, Scurvy–this is one of those stories that looks just too shocking to be true. Because it’s not true.
Um…Joe. Take a look at the actual law suit before dismissing this based on Scurvy’s conjecture.
Scurvy, please review the complaint filed in U.S. District Court. The teacher defers to authority, and claims to follow CA guidelines. The teacher certainly alleges that the Principal banned excerpts from the “Declaration of Independence” from his lesson plans. Of course the news agencies do not have quotes from the school officials, because they aren’t talking! “Forced religious dogma?” I doubt it.
Scury’s quote tries to make a couple points.
1) Steven Williams was pushing “Christian propaganda” not merely reading historical documents. The reference gives no farther details, so the reader is left to imagine that the teacher was preaching a sermon. But given our hyper senstive environment to anything remotely Christian, it is just as likely that some student felt all the references to God in the historical documents was too Christian for public school.
2) Another point is that some how Steven Williams is guilty because of the legal help he is getting. Because the Alliance Defense Fund is defending him he really must be a rapid Christian who is preaching. This is guilt by association, and a misleading arguement. It doesn’t address the facts.
3) It isn’t clear to me who Editor Dave Johnson is, or why I should trust his assertion. Having a quote by someone who says it is a lie, but having no evidence is again misleading.
At this point the whole thing does seem a bit fuzzy, but given the history of the public school system, I tend to think Steven Williams was doing what fifty or a hundred years ago would have been totally acceptable. He was probably quoting historical documents by the founding fathers in which the founding fathers give thanks to God, acknowledge God’s hand, and ask for God’s help. I am sure there was so student who felt this was Christian propaganda.
Jim, I did read the complaint–but that’s just the complaint. It’s one side of the story, unconfirmed and unsupported.
It’s no more “actual” than the article Scurvy posted–and no more worthy of credibility. A lawsuit can be filed with just about any wild claims the plaintiff wants to make. But that doesn’t make them fact.
I went to school in California (much longer ago than I’d like to admit!
), and find this plaintiffs claims to strain my credibility way past the breaking point.
My child goes to this school. The principal is
doing the right thing. The parents have complained about this guy for years because he promotes his personal veiws.
Randy
before some of you assume that this is overreaction by parents over ‘normal’ mentions of God related to history & the founding of our country, realize that you still ARE assuming, and based on accounts that are biased towards one side. at least read an account biased towards the other side to gather opposing points before you assume what this teacher was “probably” doing.
First hand information from people involved is best. Randy above is an example. In the article below are more statements from people involved, including reasons why some people were uncomfortable with Williams’ teaching. Just as a note, the article mentions that he is an evangelical Christian. I didn’t know much about different Protestant groups before this semester, but I read a book for one of my classes that clearly defines the differences with examples & statistics.
The book is called “American Evangelicalism: Embattled and Thriving,” by Christian Smith. In it, Smith provides statistics from surveys taken from Protestants and claims they show that of all Protestants, evangelicals are most likely to believe that “Christian morality should be the law of the land, even though not all Americans are Christians” and that “Christians should be trying to change American society to better reflect God’s will.” They are also the least likely to believe that “People have the right to live by their own moralities, even if they are not Christian moralities.”
Those qualities are for sure, merely generalizations, but given that, they are still defining characteristics of evangelical Christians. Again, the article states that Williams was not ‘merely a Christian,’ he was very specifically and openly an evanglical Christian, and in being an evangelical Christian he has the potential for an agenda when teaching subjects related to God. This by no way means that he can not be impartial, but it sets the possibility for accusations by parents to be more than just superficial concerns.
Environment is perhaps another important factor. If this man were teaching in an area that was predominantly Christian, there would perhaps be no complaints over his actions. However, Cupertino is a very diverse area with many NON-Christian students. Of course they would recognize it more if they were being “preached” to, even if he didn’t mean to explicitly. It is even more of an issue if he is unconsciously doing it. To those who are already Christian, these issues may not be a big deal because spreading Christianity is not so big of a deal to you. If you are not Christian, this sort of thing is like a personal attack on the beliefs you already have - and a rather lowly one as well since it’s aimed at your children. Issues like this should not be so easily dismissed without careful consideration of both sides given proper information. Well, those are my thoughts. I can’t say anything more decisive about the issue itself since it seems like something only someone directly involved would be able to understand and explain clearly. Perhaps the teacher didn’t do anything wrong, and the school district was overreacting. As a non-Christian myself, however, I guess I’m biased in believing otherwise. Conservative accounts always seem to oversimplify the issues to warp them and make them sound “bad”. No school would ban allowing the Declaration of Independence in the classroom, nor would they ban mentioning God - it all depends on the manner in which it’s presented.
Here’s the article:
[reg may be req’d]
http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/states/california/the_valley/10365917.htm
School-religion spotlight on Cupertino
TEACHER SUES DISTRICT OVER BAN ON MATERIALS, SPURS E-MAIL FLOOD
By Connie Skipitares and Maya Suryaraman
Mercury News
Fox News is in town today. Tomorrow, it’s “Good Morning America.” Conservative America is up in arms. And Cupertino is squarely in the spotlight.
Attracting all the attention is a public school teacher’s lessons on colonial history — religion-laced looks at documents written by some of the Founding Fathers.
When the school told him to stop, he sued, re- igniting the age-old debate over how much talk of God can take place in a public school classroom.
Thousands of e-mails and phone calls have inundated the Cupertino Union School District, which fifth-grade teacher Stephen J. Williams contends violated his constitutional rights by barring him from using handouts he prepared for history lessons.
What followed were nearly a dozen guest spots on national conservative talk shows, and an avalanche of e-mails and phone calls to the district, Cupertino City Hall and even the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Department from angry conservative Christians across the United States.
They — and Williams — feel the 38-year-old is being singled out because he’s an evangelical Christian.
Many of the e-mails criticizing school officials have been epithet-laden, which prompted the sheriff’s department to have deputies increase their patrols at Stevens Creek Elementary School, where Williams teaches. No incidents have been reported.
“When you get e-mails that say, `We hope you burn in hell,’ obviously you are concerned,” said sheriff’s Capt. John Hirokawa. “There haven’t been any direct death threats, but they’ve come pretty close. That’s why we stepped up our presence at the school.”
Williams and his lawyer, Jordan Lorence of the Alliance Defense Fund, are scheduled tonight to tape the “Hannity & Colmes” TV talk show at De Anza College’s Flint Center. The campus is expected to have extra security on hand.
Thursday morning, Diane Sawyer will interview them live on “Good Morning America.”
Williams has said that he doesn’t buy the school district’s argument that a teacher shouldn’t mention God in the classroom because church and state should be separated.
“Basically, it’s just sad to me that the separation of church and state has been just kind of warped to mean that we can’t even include some of our founding documents in the classroom,” he said on a segment of the “Hannity & Colmes” show last week.
Lorence said Williams has been told by Principal Patricia Vidmar that he was not to bring to class certain materials he planned to use to teach about the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. They included “The Rights of the Colonists” by Samuel Adams, “Frame of Government of Pennsylvania” by William Penn and parts of George Washington’s “Prayer Journal.”
Lorence said Williams, who continues to teach fifth grade, never brought those materials to class. Vidmar, he said, told Williams to show her his supplemental materials, and she nixed them.
“She told him, `Even though we don’t think you’re proselytizing, we don’t think you can be trusted teaching these materials because you’re an evangelical Christian,” Lorence said.
School officials are saying very little in response to Williams’ charges, but district spokesman Jeremy Nishihara did say the district has not banned any historic documents. “That’s been incorrectly reported,” he said.
A press release from the school district said:
“The district has not violated anyone’s constitutional rights. Media coverage regarding the lawsuit has substantially mischaracterized the content of the Cupertino Union School District’s curriculum. It has incorrectly been reported that the district has banned the teaching of the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. In reality, no such ban exists.”
Lorence said he believes the district was responding to a single parent’s complaint. Williams, he said, has been teaching colonial history with the same materials for seven years without incident. Last year, a parent complained when Williams brought religious-based materials to elaborate on a class discussion about the inclusion of “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance. After that, all of Williams’ teaching materials came under scrutiny by Vidmar, the lawyer said.
But if there is support for Williams in this school community of upscale ranch-style homes, it wasn’t readily apparent Tuesday.
In the principal’s office, a small round conference table brimmed with flowers, a huge Toblerone chocolate bar, stacks of cards and valentines from the children in one classroom, all expressing support for the embattled principal.
And a few blocks from the school, a home festooned with Christmas lights also sported a home-made lawn sign proclaiming, “Keep Religion out of Public Schools.”
“If I want my kids going to church, I’ll take them,” said Nathalie Schuler of her lawn sign.
Schuler said she is requesting that her daughter not be placed in Williams’ class next year.
“They’re alienating those of us who are not as fundamentalist,” Schuler said.
Several parents said that Williams’ fervent Christian beliefs had been a topic of concern and conversation among parents at the school well before the lawsuit.
“Mr. Williams discusses his Christianity in the classroom,” said Dorothy Pickler, who has two children at Stevens Creek. “He slants lessons in that direction. Parents have complained.”
Armineh Noravian, whose son had Williams last year, said that the teacher wore a Jesus ring, a cross near the collar of his shirt and talked to his students often about his Bible study classes.
Noravian said that when Williams sent his students home with a proclamation for national prayer day from President Bush, she and other parents complained to the principal.
“The class was studying George Washington at the time,” Noravian said. “It had nothing to do with George W. Bush or the proclamation of prayer.”
Noravian said that Williams’ discussion of his Christian faith troubled her because Stevens Creek is a diverse school with many Jewish, Hindu and other non-Christian students.
The claims are clearly designed to inflame.
The supplemental handouts did not have “the Declaration of Independence”, they had highly edited excerpts showing the religious references - “Nature’s God”, “Creator”, and “Divine Providence”.
Some of the handouts are bogus - for example, the Washington quote on one of them is now listed as “unauthenticated” by David Barton - a right wing “Christian Heritage” nut who first popularized the quote.
Also, the “Washington Prayer Journal” is not considered authentic by the Smithsonian. The handwriting doesn’t match known samples from Washington at the time, and the spelling is too good (Washington was a lousy speller). It was later discovered that the prayers in the journal document came from a book in the Library of Congress that was published during the reign of James the 1st.
Although the California curriculum guidelines suggest that at the fifth grade level students be taught “religious, economic,…etc” reasons why the US was founded, it shouldn’t take much more than “settlers came to the US because of religious intolerance, and they then imposed their own forms of religious intolerance in the new land”.
Also, was there any balance? Were any of Adams, Paine, or Jefferson’s quotes that would be sacraligious by Jerry Falwell’s standards included? Not that we can see.
I think the real story here should be “Right Wing religious nuts who want to post Ten Commandments in classroom fail one - Thou shall not bear false witness”. The way this has been promoted as “Declaration Banned” is clearly designed to mislead and inflame.
It seems the religious extremists are confused as to which one of these men was a Founding Father:
Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear. — Thomas Jefferson
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. –Joseph Goebbels
Our school board may make mistakes, but this isn’t one of them. Find out the truth about Stevens Creek School:
http://www.stevenscreekparents.org
Open letter to Alliance Defense Fund
January 24,2005
We, The Parents, an organization of parents of students at Stevens Creek Elementary School in Cupertino, California, request that you retract the misstatements about our school contained in your press release dated 11/23/04, still present on your website. Further, we feel that a public apology from your organization for the disruption it has caused our community would be appropriate.
Your press release, which falsely asserts that our school has banned the Declaration of Independence from the classroom, was picked up by Reuters, and quickly spread via internet blogs, talk show radio, and, of course, Fox News. The school�s mailboxes, answering machines and emails were thereafter flooded with well over 3000 hate-filled messages from all over the country and abroad. Security, including sheriff’s patrols, was immediately heightened at the school much to the concern and distress of both parents and children.
While you may not have directly contacted the many people who felt compelled to vent their hostility toward our principal and school, we believe your organization is nonetheless responsible. This reaction was the direct consequence of the incendiary headline that can still be found on your webpage, �Declaration of Independence Banned from Classroom.� We therefore ask that you stop exposing our school and our children to more harm by continuing to state what is clearly false on your website. We request a withdrawal of your headline and a public retraction. Surely, in all good conscience, you cannot continue to falsely represent that our school has banned the Declaration of Independence from the classroom.
Your group states on its website that it supports and defends families and family values. Yet, it appears that since 2001 you have targeted schools and therefore the families that make up those schools in order to achieve what we believe is your political agenda. In a recent interview, one of your spokespersons said that you view schools as the �new battleground.� Do you realize that your battleground is where we send our children? Is that the environment in which you want to fight a battle? How does learning take place in a school besieged by hate mail triggered by an incendiary and erroneous headline on your website? We wonder if your supporters realize that your actions may be tearing the very fabric you purport to weave.
We have seen firsthand that truth has been a casualty in this case. But most of all it is disturbing to see how an organization that claims to defend the truth and Christian values spreads false information about our school, its principal and our local school board. These actions can only undermine the public�s trust in your organization, and may cause even some of your supporters to question your actions and your judgment.
It is not our objective to address whether your lawsuit has any merit; that will ultimately be decided by the courts. We would, however, like to point out a few discrepancies between what you have stated on your website and the truth:
1- Our Principal, Patricia Vidmar, and our School District have never banned the Declaration of Independence. It is fully reproduced in the fifth grade history text book that Stephen Williams and all other Stevens Creek fifth grade teachers are obliged to use in their classrooms and is proudly displayed at the library of the school, where it always has been.
2- In the Hannity and Colmes program (12/8/04), you attended with your client, Mr. Williams himself denied your false claim that the Declaration of Independence was banned by our Principal! He called it a �bit of a stretch� and even stated �my kids have read the Declaration.�
3- Our children, contrary to what you have led many to believe, are properly taught not only the Declaration of Independence, but all the other founding documents included in the fifth grade history curriculum. In fact, our Living History program is highly touted as an example to follow for other schools. Through this program, our children re-live the days of the explorers and the Colonial Days. And the highlight of the program is the overnight Revolutionary War Encampment that allows them to learn about the war, medical practices of the day, social customs and food of the period and experience firsthand some of the hardships our patriots experienced.
According to your website, the purpose of your organization is �defending the right to hear and speak the Truth . . . .� Why do you stray from the truth in this case? We urge you now to set the record straight, retract your false assertion regarding the Declaration of Independence and apologize for the harm done to our fine school and its reputation.
Sincerely,
We the parents and over 55 signatures on file.
For more information please see www.StevensCreekParents.org
I think I called this one early on. Shame on the right wing evangelical Christians for using this poor teacher and the school district to further their relitious agenda!
barry
I haven’t found anything concrete in the allegations about religon. Last year there were 3 parents that complained, hardly the avalanche that should raise concern. Most people around here send their kids to Catholic school since the public schools are so bad, so attacking a good teacher for a swayed presentation seems a little elitist. However, I suspect that Williams may not be a good teacher and producing the numbers that indicate that doesn’t seem to be doable. I know lots of places Williams will now be accepted with open arms, so maybe he’ll get a raise someplace.
http://www.stevenscreekparents.org
However, at least three parents (out of a class of 28) are known to have complained to the principal over the course of last year. At least one of these was a written complaint; others were made verbally either by phone or in meetings. A number of other parents are known to have been deeply concerned, but did not complain. It should be emphasized that 3 is a lower bound on the number of complaints — many people are now anxious to maintain a low profile on this issue. There is also reason to believe that similar concerns had been voiced in the previous school year. In addition to complaints, some 30-40 parents of fourth-grade students filed explicit requests for their children not to be placed in Stephen Williams’ class this year.
The truth, no doubt, lies somewhere in the middle of this kerfuffle. It is interesting to see that the school supporters in these comments refer to evangelical Christians as “right wing” and to People for the American Way as a “watchdog group.” Fifth grade kids are probably better off with a little non-denominational religious background but in the climate of political sentiment today, there is no chance. It is also significant that the complaints against the teacher totalled three of 28 families, as I read the story. We live in a tyranny of the minority, the aggrieved minority.
By the way, since we are talking about schools, “has rode” in the original story above is not grammatical. “Ridden” is the past participle.
First, just for the record, the We The Parents group at Stevens Creek School has members of all religions and both Democratic and Republican parties; I happen to be a Christian Republican. We have united to counter the media lies about our school.
Second, Stevens Creek Elementary School is in the top 2% of all schools in California. We are a feeder school to Kennedy Middle School, a Governor’s Distinguished School, and Monte Vista High School, which is listed on Newsweek Magazine’s 100 top high schools in the country.
It appears that both sides of this have some blame. It looks like the teacher was riding the edge of the line, baiting the administration, and they took the bait. It sounds like a set up, and an amateur one at that.
I’m curious as to where that attorney learned history.
“It’s a fact of American history that our founders were religious men, and to hide this fact from young fifth-graders in the name of political correctness is outrageous and shameful,” said Williams’ attorney, Terry Thompson.
Can we teach them that most of the founders were against organized religion and either deists or atheists? Or would certain people have a fit that we’re teaching a truth that doesn’t mesh with the truth they want to teach?
If you don’t mind wading through the anti-right rhetoric, there is an accurate and exhaustive discussion of the details of the lawsuit viewable at http://www.eriposte.com/. I personally agree with Dweeb; I think the principal was set up. I also believe, after knowing her for the past 10 years, that all of her “ts” are crossed, and she will prevail in court. In the meantime, the ADF will have collected another truck-load of donations from the mis-informed.
Where’s California ranking in the national stats these days? NYS has all kinds of religous garbage going on? They remove the flag of Israel in some political commentary, force the kids to sing “sinner man where you gonna run to?”, and even Columbia University is complaining about religous oppression. I’d like to suggest that perhap you as a Christian Republican are being manipulated by a liberal.
You are making a broad social statement by attacking this guy, who is going to impact more than your school. As the top 2% of your state I’m sure you haven’t clue what the rest of the country is living with.
SWP doesn’t find anything concrete in the allegations about religion only because the parents who complained would rather see the issue quietly and properly resolved through standard disciplinary proceedings, and not in the glare of mis-informed publicity.
The reference to three complaints was a very conservative lower bound, given what was known at the time. It turns out that least a dozen separate complaints about proselytization were made. From a class of 28 children, this does indeed look like an avalanche.
I dislike seeing national law set by the few. I personally think it’s inappropriate for a teacher to sway the picture. But winning this case will only mean more administrators stand back and let the public duke it out in court. It’s an expensive way to do battle that only the elite can win. In my area the school population is increasing by 10-15% a year due to people leaving the city (who cannot afford a lawyer). That’s a couple new schools every year. We’d love to send them your way. Downstate they call it Urban renewal.
Dear SWP. Our teacher, Mr. Williams, is entitled to his day in court. In my opinion, it will not go well for him, but time will tell. My gripe is with the Alliance Defense fund, who lied about our school when they claimed that we banned the Declaration of Independence. This one false and incendiary headline started an avalanche of hate messages to our school. Our children and staff required police protection. I would be happy if the ADF made a public retraction and an apology. Until that time, I intend to write about their tactics to anyone who will listen.
FYI, our school district may be in the top 2% in California academically, but it is among the lowest funded in the state because of a quirk in our famous Prop 13. We fund-raise like crazy just to keep books in the library. Defending against this case will cost the district an estimated $50K, not to mention that they had to hire extra office help to answer the obscene phone calls coming from all over the nation. Add to that the county’s cost of providing us extra sheriff protection. I’d say we are paying very dearly for this ADF publicity campaign. I wish we were hiring another teacher instead.
I do sympathize with the funding issues in your area. It is a shame that funding quality schools isn’t a higher priority. But that’s an issue for another day.
We fund-raise like crazy just to keep books in the library. Defending against this case will cost the district an estimated $50K, not to mention that they had to hire extra office help to answer the obscene phone calls coming from all over the natio
I’d rather see incompentent teachers fired, instead of kids spending their time fund-raising. It plays out very poorly around here (skimpyly dress girls running carwashes is pretty common and sometime it’s right on an 8-line highway).
We need to be very careful when we choose our words in this environment. It’s very easy to be misguided. Your school should not be humiliated in the press, it seems like only one side of the story was represented. I also hope administrators can find less expensive ways to deal with these issues.
Cupertino Dad, how about sharing some details on those complaints? Like it or not, it’s a public issue, so put your case out there.
When and if the details of the complaints become a public issue, then I’m sure they’ll get passed around. Most parents at the school would prefer all this to remain local: we all have to live and work together in the school after this affair is done. The school district’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit — see http://www.stevenscreekparents.org/MotionToDismiss-pdf(000580.pdf — has fortunately been careful to try resolve the public issue without dragging personnel issues into the limelight. School and district complaint and grievance procedures were working properly before the lawsuit, and with luck will resume again once the lawsuit is dimissed.
My point was just that when people are speculating about whether there was anything to the complaints about religious advocacy, they should be aware that they do not have all the relevant facts.
And that’s how public advicacy works - each side presents the facts that favor them. If there are two sides to a story, and you don’t tell your side, whose fault is that? If one side is making their case clear, and the other only offers vague allusions, what is a reasonable person to conclude? You’ve made some vague claims - time to put some credibility behind them.
This incident centers on an issue of major national interest right now. Like it or not, that’s the reality. It’s too late to sweep it under the rug. Where would this nation be if Rosa Parks had said “I’m a private person, I don’t want to draw a lot of attention. Let’s just keep this quiet.” Welcome to the big time.
And what I’m saying is that nature of the complaints are not a matter for public advocacy. They are not currently part of the lawsuit. They are part of internal disciplinary procedures at the school, procedures that are quite properly private in order to safeguard the interests of the participants. So to repeat yet again, when people speculate about whether or not there was anything to the complaints about religious advocacy, they should be aware that for very good reasons they do not have access to all the facts. A reasonable person would conclude that they are not in a position to draw a conclusion.
It is worth pointing out that the side that has been making a very public case (though hardly a clear one) has not been especially truthful — witness the inflated claims about the Declaration of Independence being banned, despite being printed in full in school text books. Yet more justification for a reasonable person not to rush to judgement.
The complaints are not part of the lawsuit, but any competent lawyer defending the school would do well to enter them into evidence. This is more than a lawsuit - this controversy is being aired nationwide in the court of public opinion, whether you like it or not.
It is PERFECTLY VALID to speculate on the accuracy of claims you made, when you repeatedly refuse to back your assertions with supportive facts. A reasonable person makes every effort to learn as much as possible to inform their conclusions, and when one side stonewalls such efforts, makes reasonable inferences about how to apply that to their estimation of that side’s credibility.
Someone said they doubted the claims of other complaints, and you jumped in, essentially saying, “I know they are real, and I have exidence, but it’s double secret evidence.”
Well, fine then - I happen to know that the complaints are made up, and the principal stated her intent to purge the faculty of people of faith - but I can’t tell you how I know. What’s a “reasonable” person supposed to think in response to that?
When you make an assertion, unless you’re willing and able to back it up with facts, it’s just noise. Whatever you were trying to do, you only managed to damage your own side’s credibility.
There’s nothing more frustrating than seeing people hurt their own cause because they don’t understand how to support an assertion.
I have not made any assertions that I am not prepared to back up as best as I can.
The number of complaints was at least a dozen. My evidence for this probably won’t satisfy you, as it comes from asking people at the school. But this is the best anyone can do at the moment. Formal records of complaints, including the total number, is being withheld by the school board at the moment. This is because they are a matter for ongoing, confidential grievance procedures. However much you might dislike it, the teacher Stephen Williams has a right to privacy in the matter. Your curiousity and desire to fix on an opinion does not trump his rights, I’m afraid.
I believe that Williams has forgone his rights to privacy about the number of complaints, because he has publicly and incorrectly stated that there was only one. And in this forum, inferences were being drawn solely on the basis of numbers.
You asked me to go further and provide details about the complaints, and I refused to go beyond just stating my best estimate for the numbers. Much as I might dislike it (and I do), Williams has a right to privacy. It is not currently a matter for public advocacy to determine whether the complaints about proselytization were justified.
So to repeat, all I’ve asserted is that there were at least a dozen parental complaints about inappropriate religious content in the classroom. And I’ve backed this claim up as well as I can.
I have not made any claims about whether the complaints were justified, or what the precise nature of the complaints were. I never jumped in saying “I know the claims [of the complaints] are real,” as you so kindly put it. The closest I came to this was suggesting that 12 complaints out of a class of 28 is a significant number. I’ve just been asking people to keep an open mind, and not to jump to conclusions when they know they don’t have all the facts.
It is a shame when people don’t understand that there are sometimes quite legitimate reasons that a full disclosure of facts is not possible, and that reasonable people have to keep an open mind in these cases.
This is as much as I’m prepared to repeat myself on this subject.