Teacher Fired for Disagreeing With Literal Interpretation of Bible

I first learned of this due to Countdown with Keith Olbermann on MSNBC, where the story received the dubious honor of being in the segment "good guys and goofballs."According to the story, a community college teacher from Southwestern Community College in Red Oak, Iowa was fired for deviating from fundamentalist Christian orthodoxy by stating the account given in Genesis should not be taken literally. Evidentially some distance students in Osceola, Iowa objected to anyone speaking contrary to the literal interpretation and the administration caved to a minority position of Christians, which holds the book more sacred than God.The obligatory Google News search discovered this sole account US teacher fired for non-literal bible reading The Register

quote:

---

A teacher at a US community college in Red Oak, Iowa says he was fired after telling his students not to interpret the story of Adam and Eve as a literal account of events circa BC 4000.

​

According to the Des Moines Register, Bitterman said: "I'm just a little bit shocked myself that a college in good standing would back up students who insist that people who have been through college and have a master's degree, a couple actually, have to teach that there were such things as talking snakes or lose their job."

---

More:

quote:

---

After the class, he said he had a conversation with a student in which he referred to the story of Adam and Eve as a fairy tale. Then he was told that the students had threatened to take legal advice.

---

As a community college librarian in the US, I consider this a clear and blatant violation of the principle of separation of church and state, and hope the aggrieved teacher turns the tables and sues the crap out of this publically funded institution.News? or is it yet another debate on separation of Church and State, a first amendment which has never been accepted by some so-called Christian patriots?

---

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis BaconThe more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

Actually meant as a general reply.Here is another article from The Des Moines Register from the point of view of some of the complaining students.Apparently, the instructor had hurt a few student's feelings with his methods. The college administration is staying silent on the episode, as expected concerning personnel matters.While no one should be abused or humiliated for their beliefs, it is a goal of higher education to get students to think critically and question their assumptions. From what little information I have, I think the complaining students are in for quite a shock should they wind up in some of the universities I am familiar with.At universities in the US, full professors have tenure. And if the students think they are merciless, they haven't met some of the grad students.

---

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis BaconThe more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

So far we have two root stories from the Des Moines Register and a lot of action on the blogs. One point my wife bought up. Why haven't any so called 'professional journalists' interviewed any members of the class other than the few presumably aggrieved individuals?

---

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis BaconThe more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

From my OP:

quote:

---

As a community college librarian in the US, I consider this a clear and blatant violation of the principle of separation of church and state ...

---

I don't know how to answer this without sounding condescending, so if that happens, well I have no alternative.In the US colleges and universities philosophy classes are usually taught using the Socratic method which means that a controversial topic such as abortion, gay marriage, and even fundamentalist dogma may be discussed to get the students to critically examine their assumptions. Since this is a public college no one is forcing the students to attend or even change their beliefs, just to discuss the reasons behind their positions. How else could one teach a class in philosophy that would engage the student? Perhaps, if he wanted to be a nice guy and make a technically more accurate statement. However, Genesis contradicts itself in just the order of creation in the two exclusive stories. Therefore, logically, at least part of the chapter must not be literally true and so 'myth' is a fair description. I see nothing inherently wrong with using a provocative and at least partially logically true statement in this example to spur discussion. Only if it is forced upon a church in the middle of a sermon, or upon a religious college as part of the curriculum standards. To argue that some concepts, such as fundamentalist religious dogma are off-limits for discussion in a philosophy class in a public, tax-supported college or university is itself the real violation of state/church separation.

---

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis BaconThe more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

Where does one draw this line? If a community college instructor tells someone in class that the core of the earth is hot despite their assertions to the contrary - end of discussion, should that warrant their dismissal? Who should run a college classroom, the instructor or the students?It seems to me that you are confusing poor quality teaching with content. Now most community colleges work under a contract system rather than tenure as in universities so the quality of their teaching is evaluated and poor instructors can be terminated. However that concerns quality of instruction, not content.Now if this given teacher was fired for poor quality of instruction, that would be within the rights of a community college. If they were fired solely for expressing their opinion, even if it was unpopular, the instructor would have a case against the college. The Dover Trial concerned a public high school where students are generally required to attend, unless they can show they are homeschooled or are attending a religious school. No one is required to attend a given public college or university. Therefore, assertions of favor toward a given religious or political dogma are forbidden in public secondary schools. This is less true in community colleges and not at all true in universities where professors have tenure. I doubt that, name the law.To provide an example of how this argument breaks down where higher education is concerned, consider the case of Ward Churchill. Here was a tenured professor who called the victims of 9/11 "little Eichmanns." An unpopular position? - yes, an untrue position? - yes, I think so, did he get fired or put in jail for stating such a position? - No. It was only when he was found guilty of plagiarizing that the university was within their rights under law to terminate his employment.Tenure exists so that university professors can exercise their absolute free speech rights to say anything no matter how outlandish it may be. Yes it does allow poor quality, senile, and even crazy professors guaranteed employment but it is also there to allow for free inquiry and research unrestricted by political or religious forces. Are you arguing that tenure should be abolished?Now community colleges are not exactly like universities in that the instructors rarely have tenure but one mission of such colleges is to act as a transition between secondary school and the university. Therefore community college instructors do not have quite the unfettered right to be low quality, crazy, or even dead wrong that tenured professors have, but they are less restricted than secondary school teachers when it comes to expressing their opinion concerning religion or politics. Are you arguing that they are or should be subject to the same restrictions as high school teachers when it comes to these subjects? If the given instructor had tenure, they would be in their right to even say god lives in a UFO. If they did not have tenure, such pronouncements may be incautious in a public college, but they would not be illegal. I wouldn't know since as a citizen of the US, I live in a republic. Yes, and as I believe I have shown there are even limits to those limits. It is not illegal according to my experience so it is a question I can't answer. Besides if one has tenure it is not only legal but can't even be used as grounds for termination.

---

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis BaconThe more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza